said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It appeared that an unfortunate man, named Edward Murray, the son of a gentleman formerly an officer in the British Army, and who belonged to a family many members of which had served with distinction in that Army, was some three years ago, whilst in Italy, accused of certain crimes and offences, but what it did not clearly appear, and thrown into prison, where he had been exposed to a great deal of very ill treatment for the long period of nearly three years. He was, however, lately tried in some sort of way in the Papal dominions, and had been sentenced to death. It was alleged that in consequence of a political crime being imputed to him, he was denied some of the advantages and privileges accorded to ordinary criminals in the means of preparing his defence. However that might be, he had been certainly sentenced to death. It appeared that our Consular Agent at Ancona was perfectly aware of the facts at the time of the alleged crime, and that gentleman had expressed an opinion that the prisoner was not guilty of the crime imputed to him. He (Lord D. Stuart), therefore, wished to ask the noble Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government had been called to those circumstances with regard to a British subject, either by our consular agents or in any other way—whether they had taken any steps or proposed to take any steps in order to ascertain whether Mr. Murray bad had a fair trial—and whether they intended in any way to intercede so as to make it certain that no injustice had been or would be inflicted on him? Also, whether there would be any objection to laying the correspondence that had taken place on the subject on the table?

thought the most satisfactory manner in which he could re- ply to the question of the noble Lord would be by giving, as briefly as possible, a summary of what had taken place with regard to Mr. Murray, and of the course which the British Government had pursued. Mr. Murray, who was the son of a British officer, entered the army of Rome under the Republican Government, and, having been for some time a military officer under that Government, he was subsequently appointed to the office of inspector of police in the town of Ancona, still, of course, under the same Government. During Mr. Murray's tenure of that office, very great disorder prevailed in Ancona, and murders took place very frequently, even in the streets, and in open day. These murders were of a political character—that was to say, that he (Lord Stanley) believed in every case the parties murdered, or attempted to be murdered, were adherents of the old Papal Government: and so openly were these crimes committed, and so entire was the impunity of the perpetrators, that Mr. Murray himself fell under the suspicion of having in some manner connived at them. The foreign Consuls, and other residents at Ancona, felt it their duty, in that state of affairs, to forward a remonstrance to the Government of Rome. The Government at Rome took immediate steps on the subject; several persons were arrested under suspicion of being privy to the assassinations committed, and among those arrested was Mr. Murray, who was sent first to Spoleto, and afterwards to Rome. Whether the case was inquired into or not, he (Lord Stanley) did not know, but it was certain that after a short imprisonment Mr. Murray was released by the Government. He remained in Rome for a considerable period, and at the time of the overthrow of the Republican Government he retired again to Ancona, where, on the 15th of July, 1849, he was a second time arrested by order of the Papal Government. He (Lord Stanley) was sorry to say it was perfectly true that, from July, 1849, to the present time, Mr. Murray had been detained as a prisoner. He (Lord Stanley) must, however, state that Mr. Moore, the British Consul at Ancona, had communicated on the subject with Mr. Freeborn, the British Consul at Rome, and in consequence of these communications, when Mr. Murray was taken as a prisoner to Rome for trial, Mr. Freeborn lost no time in calling the attention of the Papal Government to the case. Mr. Freeborn at the same time in- formed the British Government of what had occurred, and received in return from the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs instructions to watch the case, and to report to him upon it. Mr. Freeborn obeyed those instructions, and, having in the month of February forwarded a representation to the Government of Rome on behalf of Mr. Murray, in April he wrote again on the same subject, praying for a speedy conclusion of the trial, and also urging that in consequence of the illness of the prisoner some relaxation of the prison rules should be allowed. To that communication Mr. Freeborn received an answer on the 4th of May from the Government of Rome, to the effect that the trial was then concluded, and that sentence of death had been pronounced. Upon receiving that notice, Mr. Freeborn wrote a third time, praying for some mitigation of punishment, or that at least a respite might be granted. A petition to the same effect was also forwarded to the Papal Government from various English residents in Rome. When accounts of these proceedings reached the British Government, an immediate communication was sent to the British Minister at Florence desiring him to take steps in support of Mr. Freeborn, and communications were also sent to Mr. Freeborn by Her Majesty's Government, expressing their satisfaction at his conduct, and urging him to continue to exert himself to the utmost of his power to prevent the sentence of death from being carried into effect. It was of course necessary that, in this matter, very considerable discretion should be left to Mr. Freeborn, who had enjoyed the advantage of unrestricted communication with the prisoner's counsel, and who was much better informed on the subject than the Government of this country could be. Mr. Freeborn had accordingly been instructed, if he considered Mr. Murray innocent, to interfere and take steps to procure his immediate liberation; or, on the other hand, if he was inclined to believe that Mr. Murray had been justly accused, he was then desired only to interfere so far as to plead for a respite, and to prevent the capital sentence from being carried into execution. Within the last few days a report had reached this country that Mr. Murray had been taken to Ancona, it was supposed with a view to the sentence being carried into effect. A telegraphic despatch was sent off to the British Consul at Trieste, desiring him to communicate with the Consul at Ancona, in order that every means might be used by the latter to save Mr. Murray from execution. A subsequent communication had been received from Ancona, in which Mr. Moore stated that, fearing an order might come down for the immediate execution of the sentence, he had written to the Governor of Anoona, praying that in any case twenty-four hours' notice might be given to him (Mr. Moore) before the sentence of death was carried out; and that he had also drawn out a very earnest protest praying the Governor of Ancona, if the Government of Rome should send an order for the immediate execution of Mr. Murray, to take upon himself the responsibility of suspending the infliction of the punishment. This was a statement of all that had been done by Her Majesty's Government on this subject up to the present time. As the negotiations were still pending, he (Lord Stanley) did not think it desirable to produce the papers at the present moment; but when the negotiations were terminated, the papers should be laid upon the table.

said, he wished to know whether, on Mr. Murray being arrested, the British Consul at Ancona, or any other agent of this country, had communicated the fact to the Government here at home; also, whether the noble Lord could state what the crime was with which Mr. Murray was charged?

was glad that the noble Lord had given him an opportunity of correcting a misstatement which he (the noble Lord) had fallen into in his former address. The noble Lord had intimated that the offence for which Mr. Murray was arrested, had been altogether of a political character; but though it was undoubtedly connected with the state of the country, and with the state of political feeling at the time, he (Lord Stanley) did not think it could be described as the noble Lord had described it. Mr. Murray was charged with having, while holding an official situation for the repression of crime, connived at the most serious of all crimes—at acts of assassination. The charges against him were twofold: first, that he had taken no part in repressing these crimes; and, secondly, that in one instance, at least, he had directly aided and abetted in their commission. These, he thought, could not, in the ordinary meaning of the word, be called political offences. With regard to the question just put by the noble Lord, he (Lord Stanley) had already stated that Mr. Moore, the British Consul at Ancona, had communicated with Mr. Freeborn, at Home, on the subject of Mr. Murray's imprisonment, although, unfortunately, he had not thought proper to communicate with the Foreign Office on the subject.

wished to know whether Mr. Murray had been tried by a secret tribunal?

said, that Mr. Murray was tried by a special tribunal appointed to try a largo number of persons charged with offences connected with the late disturbances at Rome.

begged to ask whether Mr. Murray had been allowed to remain in prison from July, 1849, to November, 1851, a period of two years and four months, without any distinct accusation being made against him; and whether it was a fact, that although a British subject had been thus imprisoned without any specific charge being made against him, and without being brought to trial, no person in an official situation at Ancona, or at Rome, on the part of the British Government, had reported the circumstance to the Foreign Office in this country, or had made any complaint to the Papal Government? He also wished to ask further, whether, when it was reported to Her Majesty's Government that the trial was going on, and that Mr. Murray had been sentenced, the only instruction given to Mr. Freeborn was to watch the case?

said, it was true that Mr. Murray was arrested in July, 1849, and that he was not brought to trial until two years and a half afterwards. It was also true that, during that time, no communication on the subject had been forwarded to the Foreign Office. But it was not absolutely true that no specific charge had been made against Mr. Murray, for a distinct charge had been made, as he had already stated, but it was after a lengthened delay.

would ask whether Mr. Murray's first apprehension and subsequent discharge took place under the Republican or the Papal Government?

Under the Republican Government.

said, that he would bring forward the subject again on a future occasion.

wished to ask—or, if it were more convenient to the noble Lord, he would give notice of his intention to ask—whether any negotiations on the subject had taken place between the Government of this country and the real Governors of the Roman States—he meant the French Government—and, if so, he wanted to know what view had been taken of it by those authorities? He should like also to know whether the noble Lord was able to inform the House as to the proximity of the nearest British naval force to the port of Ancona?

would suggest that as the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had given notice that he meant to bring the matter forward on a future occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman had better pospone his question till then.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and other Members of the Government had voted on Tuesday on the Maynooth question in favour of the Motion "That the House do now adjourn." As that was generally considered to be the Parliamentary form by which a Resolution for inquiry should be negatived, and as either the right hon. Gentleman or other Members of the Government had failed to make a House at eight o'clock in the evening, to which hour they had adjourned, he (Mr. P. Howard) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman now, or he would give notice for to-morrow of the question, whether any altered course of policy had been adopted by the Government as regarded the inquiry into the College of Maynooth?

said, that the hon. Member appeared to suppose that the Motion for the adjournment of the House on Tuesday was a Motion for the adjournment of the debate upon the Maynooth question. Upon this point the hon. Gentleman was in error. The Motion for the adjournment of the debate had passed; there was, subsequently, a Motion made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, for the adjournment of the House, and the business upon the paper did not in the least refer to Maynooth. It consisted of several Motions, three of which, if carried, would have very much diminished the revenue of the country; and he as Chancellor of the Exchequer had very naturally voted for a Resolution which would prevent these Motions being brought on. He did not vote for the adjournment with the slightest reference to the question of May- nooth, as originated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinions upon that question were identical with those which he had expressed on a former occasion.

said, he would now appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) to state his intentions with respect to the Maynooth debate. If he would give an indication of the line of proceeding he meant to pursue, it would greatly conduce to the convenience of hon. Members.

said, that it did not rest with him. He did not even know who the hon. Member was who, having moved the adjournment, was privileged to resume the debate. [Cries of "Mr. Freshfield."]

begged the hon. Gentleman to state what course he intended to take with regard to the debate.

I have no power one way or the other. It stands on the Orders of the Day to be resumed this evening after the other Orders of the Day.

would then call upon the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield) to state what course he was prepared to pursue?

said, that he had moved the adjournment of the debate; but as it stood on the paper after the other Orders of the Day, it was not until after the other Orders were disposed of that they could with regularity discuss when it was to be resumed.

said, that applications had been frequently made within the last twelve months to the British Government, by merchants and others interested in the guano trade, asking, first, whether they considered that the island of Lobos, and another island off the coast of Peru, belonged to the Republic of Peru or not? secondly, whether British ships would be allowed to load guano there? and, thirdly, whether the Government would send a ship of war there for the protection of such trading ships? To those applications a reply, similar in substance, had been made by the late and the present Government. That reply was, in effect, that whether the islands in question belonged to Peru or not, it was quite certain that they did not belong to England—that we had no claim upon them, and that it was deemed inadvisable to send a ship of war there. By those who disputed the claim of Peru to those islands it was alleged, that they were not mentioned in the written constitution of Peru, as part of her territory—that they were remote from the coast, wholly unoccupied by inhabitants, and even devoid of fresh water; that no buildings had been erected upon them, nor any act of sovereignty performed by Peru respecting them; and, consequently, that according to the law of nations, that country possessed over them no such exclusive rights as those to which she laid claim. On the other hand, the Peruvian Government contended that those islands, having belonged to Spain when Peru formed a part of the Spanish empire, had thereby been transferred, in the absence of any express stipulation on the subject, from the Spanish to the Peruvian dominions, at the time of the separation of the countries. It was, moreover, added, that the mere fact of their being known by Spanish names, created a primâ facie presumption in favour of their having belonged to Spain as was stated; while the alleged novelty of their discovery was an assertion wholly unfounded, inasmuch as they lay nearly in the direct track of vessels passing between Callao and Guayaquil, two of the most frequented parts in the Pacific; and inasmuch as such vessels frequently steered between them. With regard to their supposed remoteness from the coast of Peru, he (Lord Stanley) believed that their distance from that coast was, in the case of one island, about twelve miles, in the case of the other, about forty miles: they were repeatedly visited by Peruvian Indians, who resorted there for the purpose of hunting and fishing; and it was urged that the Government of Peru had distinctly asserted its sovereignty over the islands, by prohibiting these Indians from landing upon them, lest from the disturbance of the birds the supply of guano should be diminished. Resting upon these claims, the Government of Peru had notified their possession of the islands in question, and declared their intention of resisting all attempts upon them. Under such circumstances, the British Government had decided that they could not interfere in behalf of vessels acting in contravention of this notification; and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated, in reply to a letter addressed to him on the subject, that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to send a ship of war to the Lobos islands for the protection of a traffic unauthorised by the Peruvian Government, and he had further added that however advantageous it might be to Great Britain, either to appropriate these islands, or to deal with them as common property, it would be impossible to do so without violating national law. He (Lord Stanley) must, however, add, that the Government were not without hope that some arrangement would be entered into, by which the supply of guano to be found upon these islands might be rendered available to this country.

might be allowed to say, as the transactions referred to had some connexion with the department of the late Government over which he had had the honour to preside, that within the last two days he had received a despatch from the admiral in command on that station (which he had forwarded to the Admiralty), in which the admiral stated that he was on the point of sending a vessel of war to protect the trade carried on at those islands.

said, he was anxious to give the Government every support, but he could not do it in this instance. He wished to move as an Amendment, on Clause 3, to leave out the word "major," and insert the words "captain or any higher rank." He denounced the new scheme brought in by the Government, some of whom, he said, did not know the difference between the breech and the muzzle of a carbine. As the clause stood, it was nothing less than a stigma on a deserving class of officers. He could not consent to do away with the landed qualification for officers. He believed the force was a necessary force, and wished to see it what it ought to be. He should like it to be a constitutional and strong body of men. He knew that the Lord Lieutenants felt much aggrieved at not being able to appoint their own adjutants and other officers. He felt strongly interested in this question, knowing the value of the militia.

said, he did not think any amendment could be made on either side of the House that would reconcile him to the Bill. He rose to enter his protest against it. He did not believe that it was necessary, or that, if necessary, it would be efficient. He hoped his Friends would take a division on the third reading, and thus show the country how much they had done to oppose it. The compulsory clauses were of a barbarous and antiquated char-actor; and it was most impolitic in the legislation of the present day to revive such odious provisions. He believed that 500 volunteers would be better than 5,000 conscripts. If they wanted extra force, let it be one on which the country could rely. Every shilling expended under this Bill would be waste money. The country generally was against it; already 1,200 petitions had been presented against it. He should oppose and divide against the third reading; and if, after the third reading, he could succeed in striking out the compulsory clauses, he should be glad to do so.

said, he had given notice of a Motion to omit Clause 16; but after the course recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose, and seeing the small number of Members present, he would not now take a division. He had opposed the Bill from the first, on the ground that our military defences were sufficient; and, that if they were not so, the Bill would not answer the desired end. Nothing could be so odious to the country as the introduction of this conscription in time of peace; it should only be resorted to in cases of great emergency. He knew that thousands of young men, if drawn in the ballot, would be absolutely ruined. Where was the necessity to justify such a course as this? If the force could not be raised by volunteering, he, for one, was willing to increase the bounty to such an extent as would secure their being raised. But they ought to resort to the pensioners, and those who had been discharged from the Army. He had no doubt that 25,000 or 30,000 men might thus be raised, and they would be far more efficient than 50,000 militiamen. The House had been much misled as to our existing force. No two Gentlemen of the present or past Government had agreed on the subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Secretary at War whether the following statement was not correct: The military force voted this Session, including cavalry and infantry, for the service of Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, was 101,936 men, and of artillery 15,582, making together a total of 117.518. There were in the Colonies 42,208, leaving for Great Britain and Ire- land an actual force, voted and provided for in the estimates, of 75,300 men, There were besides, the embodied pensioners, coast-guard, dockyard battalions, yeomanry cavalry, and police; making al-together an effective force of upwarda of 150,000. Adding to these 38,000 sailors and marines, there was a force of upwards of 188,000 men. It was impossible that any force could be landed here sufficient to cope with this. But if more were necessary, why not accept voluntary services? The real object of this Militia Bill was to give appointments and offices to a number of country gentlemen. The force in the Army last year had been 5,189 short of the number voted, while the expenditure had exceeded the amount of the vote by 388,000l. He should like to know how the right hon. Secretary at War could explain that? Taking the men not employed, and the extra sum expended, there was a sum of at least 500,000l. to account for. The late Government were mixed up with this expenditure as well as the present Government. The ballot clause was the most objectionable one in the Bill; but in the present state of the House he would not divide against it.

said, the third reading of the Bill would not be taken till the Monday after the holidays. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), the object of which was that captains should still be required to have the qualification they had under the statute of George III., he had no objection to that alteration. A further Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, proposing an insertion in Clause 4, was so inconsistent with the other parts of the clause, that he would not consent to it. The Lord Lieutenant had the appointment of all the officers, subject to the approbation of the Crown. They must all have qualifications either in land, personal property, or rank in the Army.

begged to move the insertion of a Proviso at the end of Clause 18, relative to the exemption of the members of the University of London from the operations of this Bill. The system of putting the University of London on the same footing as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had already been recognised, and the sole object of his Proviso was to carry out that system.

said, be did not wish to offer any objection to applying the same privileges to the University of London as were given to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; but the Proviso of the hon. Gentleman extended far beyond that. The privilege in respect to exemption from serving in the militia was only enjoyed by persons actually resident at the two latter Universities; whereas this Proviso extended it to all persons connected with the London University, whether resident or not. The hon. Gentleman also proposed to extend the privilege to the schools in connexion with the University of London, which was going beyond the exemption enjoyed by the other Universities.

said, he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Thornely) that he might damage the cause which he had in hand by pressing this Proviso at the present time. He (Mr. Gladstone) was willing that the Members of the London University should enjoy every exemption which was made in favour of Oxford and Cambridge; but there was this distinction—at Oxford and Cambridge the members were generally resident, but that was not the case at the London University. He therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman would postpone the Proviso until the third reading.

said, that under these circumstances he would agree to postpone the Proviso,

moved the insertion of the following Proviso at the end of Clause 16:—

"Provided always, that no person being a resident Member of the University of Durham shall be liable to serve personally or provide a substitute for the Militia,"

suggested, that this Proviso should also be postponed. He quite agreed that the Universities of Durham and London should be put upon the same footing as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; but he thought there was a doubt whether the exemption should extend to any of the Universities. Exemptions having, however, been given to Oxford and Cambridge, he did not sec how they could fairly exclude from exemption the other Universities. At the same time, supposing the law should hereafter be consolidated, the Government reserved to itself the power of reconsidering the whole of these exemptions.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that the law on the important subject of Valuation was in a most anomalous state as regarded Ireland. The present Valuation was based on two different Acts of Parliament, and on two different principles. The first was the 6 &c 7 Will. IV., c. 84, which was passed for Grand Jury purposes, in 1836, and the Valuation under which was founded on the price of agricultural produce at an antecedent period. Townlands were made the unit of the Valuation; and houses under 5l. a year were exempted from its effects. When, however, the Poor Law came into operation, the townland system was found insufficient for the purposes of that law; and, accordingly, the Act of 1846, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 110, was passed, based upon a totally different principle, and by which the townland was no longer the unit. This Act was generally adopted, Grand Juries exempting for the purposes of county taxation those houses that were under 5l., as in the preceding Act. Under the Act of 1846, the Valuation of five counties had been finished, and that of three more were nearly so. This was all that had been done in five years. But there were some grave evils connected with both Acts, one of which was that the town-land Valuation was based upon the price of agricultural produce in 1820. The other was the tenant valuation. He would read the remarks of the present Commissioners relative to the state of the Valuations. [The noble Lord here read an ex-tract to the effect that the system of Valuation was in an unsatisfactory state.] The great object to be achieved by the Bill was to make a uniform valuation for all local taxation throughout Ireland. The county and poor rates were levied on a comparatively correct system, and it was therefore proper the other question should be finally set at rest. The right hon. Member for Drogheda (Sir W. Somerville), with that view, had introduced a Bill last year; but so cumbrous were the modes of appeal in relation of townlands and tenements, that it was thought by the general agreement of all the Members connected with Ireland, the Bill would prove unsatisfactory, and therefore ought not to be supported. It would in his (Lord Naas's) opinion have been impossible to work that Bill with advantage, and therefore it was not proceeded with. The Bill, the second reading of which he was about to propose, went upon a somewhat different principle; at all events, it had one thing in its favour—it was simple and easily understood. The whole of the old tenement system of Valuation would be adopted, and reference had to the average scale of agricultural produce. The average would be taken in the only correct way, namely, by the prices quoted in the newspapers from market towns in Ireland. So that they would have a return for three years from forty of the principal market towns, giving from no less than 6,000 markets the average price of agricultural produce. That was the leading feature of the present Bill. It did away with the appeal to the Sub-Commissioners, and gave a simple and satisfactory mode of appeal to the First Commissioner of Valuation. If the appellant was not satisfied, he was at liberty to follow the appeal into the Courts of Quarter Sessions. With regard to lands, it was proposed to have a revision every three years; and with regard to houses, the Poor Law Commissioners were to have power to revise at stated periods. He had every reason to believe, if the House sanctioned the Bill, the Valuation of Ireland would be accomplished by the next five years—that the present enormous expense would be done away with—and that the expense under the new system would be only about l½d. per acre, instead of 4½d. or 5d. as under the present system. The urgency of the case required that something should be done. If, therefore, the Bill was delayed, he was satisfied the greatest difficulty would be found in coming to a decision upon a question which all desired to see settled, namely, an accurate and uniform Valuation in Ireland.

said, he was not all convinced of the simplicity of the measure from the statement of the noble Lord, but, on the contrary, he considered it a very complicated affair; and the noble Lord had omitted to state any reason why the House should entertain the subject upon the eve of a dissolution, and after an understanding that none but matters of urgency should be submitted to them. Many of the Irish Members who were more particularly interested in the question, would be absent, and the Bill could only proceed by the noble Lord forcing it through the House by the votes of English Members. He, therefore, must enter his protest against the Bill being pressed under the present circumstances. To show that this was not a simple measure, but one connected with a very complicated system, it was only necessary to state that altogether six Acts of Parliament had been passed with reference to the Valuation of Ireland since the year 1826. When, in that year, the first Bill was introduced upon the subject, he had no doubt the then Secretary for Ireland assured Parliament that it was one of a very simple character, and that the same assurance was made upon each of the five successive occasions when Bills were introduced to alter and amend previous legislation. But be that as it might, he was quite convinced, if the House had been aware of the number of years which would elapse before the Valuation would be finished, the House would have paused before proceeding with any of those measures. During the last Session of Parliament another Bill was introduced upon the subject, and he believed recommitted upon two several occasions. Very material alterations were made in it, and the whole principle of that Bill was opposed to the principle of the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). The House would judge of the principle of the noble Lord's measure when they heard that it proposed, now that twenty-six counties had been valued by one system, to value six counties by another system, and to remodel the valuation of the twenty-six counties, that the whole might be uniform. He (Mr. Clements) contended that the Valuation under the Poor Law, as conducted by the Board of Guardians, was, upon the whole, satisfactory and perfectly sufficient for all purposes of rating. He would strongly urge that Valuation for County Rate purposes be concluded upon the original scale, and the going on with the Poor Law Valuation under the Poor Belief Act, because the principle upon which the two Valuations ought to be conducted were totally different. The Poor Law Valuation ought to be upon a fair net value, and the County Rate Valuation according to a fixed state of prices. He did not suppose any one had practically gone so far into the subject as he had, and he believed enormous expense might be saved by adopting a sounder system of appeals. The only system hitherto in practice was that of appeal to the assistant barrister at Quarter Sessions. The assistant barrister had no sort of knowledge of the different circumstances of the various localities affecting the value of land; witness was brought against witness, and he had to decide upon their statements, and the whole Valuation was thrown into complete confusion. He believed that appeals to the magistrates at Quarter Sessions would be no improvement, and he could only suggest that a proper Board of Appeal should be created with Mr. Griffiths to preside over it. He thought that plan perfectly feasible; he was convinced it would be more economical, and would enable them to revert to what he could not but consider was a very desirable state of the law, for each locality to manage its own Valuation. Such a system as that could not be entered into during the present Session, nor could the present Bill be fairly discussed. He challenged the noble Lord frankly to say whether he could get half-a-dozen Irish Members unconnected with the Government to sit upon a Committee to consider this important subject. He believed the noble Lord would admit that he could not. The delay of one year could not be of any great consequence, seeing the number of years this Valuation measure had been dragging along. The Valuation of every county had taken four years to complete. Six counties were still uncompleted, and they could not be completed in less than five or six years; the Bill, therefore, could not affect the constituencies either in the next or in the succeeding year. He was prepared to show that the revision of the Valuation would be attended with very heavy expense; but, without entering upon details, he was satisfied, if the Bill were discussed as it ought to be, it could not pass in the present Session, and therefore begged to move that it be read a second time that day three months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he could not forbear from replying to some of the observations of the hon. Member for Lei-trim (Mr. Clements). The hon. Member had said that the Bill could only be carried by the English Members voting for it, and had based his opposition upon the late period of the Session. Now, he (Mr. H. Herbert) represented a part of Ireland where some measure of this kind was imperatively and absolutely necessary, and he should be ill discharging his duty to his constituents if he did not tender his thanks to the noble Lord (Lord Naas) for having brought forward this measure, even at so late a period of the Session. With regard to the time required to go into the details, this was just the very case of all others where Irish Members might copy the example of Scotch Members, who invariably placed themselves in communication with the Government when intricate and difficult questions were involved; and he had no doubt any suggestions of the hon. Member would meet with that consideration from his noble Friend which they deserved. When the hon. Gentleman talked of the Poor Law Valuation being a satisfactory Valuation for the purpose, he (Mr. H. Herbert) could only say, from all he had heard, from all he had read, and from all he knew, he believed that assertion, with all due respect to the hon. Gentlemen, to be at total variance with the facts. But assuming that the Poor Law Valuation in the north was a good one, it did not follow, nor was it correct to say, it was good also in the south. It was not inconsistent with a good valuation to have a difference of 30 or 40 per cent in different localities; but other principles must guide them when they only wanted a valuation for local taxation, and when they wanted it in relation to the Franchise Bill passed last year. The Franchise Bill made it absolutely necessary that some general principle should be adopted, and the Valuation made uniform throughout the country. From his experience he could prove by facts and figures, that undoubtedly the remarks of the hon. Gentleman did not in the slightest degree apply to the south of Ireland. Therefore, he entreated the House not to be guided by representations from one part of the country, where, he admitted, everything was a model which, truth compelled him to admit, might be advantageously copied by the county of Kerry at least, with which he was more intimately acquainted—but that they would consent to the second reading of the Bill of his noble Friend. He hoped the hon. Member would communicate to his noble Friend the suggestions which occurred to him, and that the Irish Members generally would endeavour to perfect a Bill for this long-vexed question.

said, he considered that the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Clement's) figures were supported by facts. It was stated by a very high authority on such subjects, Mr. Joseph Kincaid, in his evidence before the Lords' Committee, that the Poor Law Valuation was, on the whole, sound and satisfactory. It was well known that the property which paid worst in Ireland was house property; yet it was now proposed to lay a heavy tax on houses under 5l. a year. He would throw out a suggestion to this effect, to exempt the north of Ireland from the Bill, and thus to save expense. He thought it would be apparent there was no hurry for looking into the system of Valuation adopted in the north; the urgency of the case was to be found in the south of Ireland; therefore, he said, let the present legislation be confined to the south. The Bill would have an unfair and an injurious operation in Ireland; it would tax the lower class of tenements very heavily; and this would be the more unjust, because no sufficient notice had been given of what was intended by Government. He should be sorry to oppose the Bill altogether; but as it did propose a change in the taxation of the country, he really wished the noble Lord would withdraw those portions of it which related to the parts of Ireland now under Valuation.

said, that in giving his support to the second reading of the Bill, he should take a different ground from that put forward by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert). He should support it because it would be inoperative in the county which he represented. Under the Bill brought in in 1846, power was given to alter the townland valuation to a tenement valuation, which had been adopted, he believed, in the Queen's County. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements) said that the Bill was brought in against! the wishes of the Irish Members; but, in contradiction to his hon. Friend, he would mention a Resolution agreed to by the Committee which sat in 1844, and which reported that there ought to be but one valuation for all the purposes of local taxation, and that, in order to secure a correct, fair, and uniform Valuation, it should be made by valuators appointed by a responsible authority, and independent of the local, or, in other words, the Poor Law authorities.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland might depend upon it that whatever opposition was now given to the Bill, he would himself be grateful for it, when it became his duty to bring in a new Bill in the autumn of the present year. His hon. Friend (Mr. Clements) had forgotten that, in consequence of the Bill of 1844, Mr. Griffiths was obliged to bring forward another estimate to get out of the mess into which he had plunged himself. Last year Mr. Griffiths said that it was impossible to carry out a tenement valuation, and therefore he contended that a certain fixed value should be based on agricultural prices. He (Sir B. Norreys) was opposed to the present Bill, because he considered that this was not the period to introduce a new system of taxation in Ireland. Were hon. Gentlemen who approved of this Bill aware of the useless character of the last Valuation, which had cost the country 300,000l. He contended that it was unwise to introduce a new system of valuation at a period of the Session when it was impossible to command an attendance of Irish Members. The noble Lord was about to establish a scale of prices 25 per cent lower than the Town Land Valuation, which Mr. Griffiths himself had said was about 25 below the gross rental of the country. It was monstrous to suppose that the Government should base a valuation upon such a principle as this.

said, that the Valuation was based upon the average prices of corn in 6,000 markets within the last three years.

said, he had gone over the prices from 1832 to 1844, and he told the noble Lord that they did not justify the prices upon which he had made his estimate, because they were from 25 to 40 per cent less. He held in his hand a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) of prices of oaths down to 1851, which did not support the present principle. The effect of this Bill would be to disfranchise a large portion of the constituency of the country. He heard hon. Gentlemen say that they wanted a fair Valuation; but what did they mean by a fair valuation? Hon. Gentlemen might depend upon it that the real and fair value of land, whether valued by Mr. Griffiths or not, would be paid for it. He believed the noble Lord had not estimated the cost of this system of Valuation. A perfectly good Valuation might be secured for 5s. per cent., whereas the cost of the Government Valuation averaged 2l. 9s. per cent. He hoped the Government would withdraw the Bill, as it could not pass through the House without great opposition and delay.

said, he considered that the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not persevere in pressing forward this measure. The Bill had been maturely considered last Session by a Select Committee of most competent persons. [An Hon. MEMBER: That was a different Bill altogether.] It had at that time very nearly passed, and since then the different objections urged against it had been maturely considered, and the Bill as it now stood, had been reconstructed to meet those objections. Many observations had been made this evening which it would have been much fitter to make in Committee, since they did not affect the principle of the Bill; and the House ought not to wander into a number of points which did not touch that principle. A great deal, for instance, had been said with regard to the expense, which hardly touched the principle. The main expense of the last Valuation, he might say, however, had been occasioned by appeals, the greater part of which had not been substantiated nor followed up. The principle of the Bill was, that it established an uniform Valuation throughout Ireland. At present two systems of Valuation existed in Ireland, the Town Land Valuation, which prevailed in twenty-six counties, and which was based upon the scale of agricultural produce fixed in 1820, and the Tenement Valuation of the 9th and 10th of Victoria, which was adopted in six counties. Thus one form of Valuation prevailed in one-third of Ireland, and the other in two-thirds, and what was wanted was one uniform system. The Valuation contemplated by the present Bill was to be made with reference to a certain scale of agricultural prices from fourteen years to fourteen years, which would take away all inducement to an unfair local valuation. At present, the Townland Valuation was complained of as too high when compared with the Tenement Valuation, and much dissatisfaction was thereby produced. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would be, he was sure, happy to receive any suggestions from Irish Members upon the details; but as the principle of the measure had been already affirmed, he trusted the House would be prepared to go into Committee on the Bill.

said, he considered that this was the simplest and the best Valuation Bill which had ever been introduced into the House. There might be improvements effected in its details in Committee; but he believed that the measure would prove on the whole to be a very useful one. He saw no reason why they should then refuse to read it a second time, although he regretted that it had not been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. It possessed over all other Bills on the same subject the great advantage of proceeding on a uniform system. With respect to the scale of prices, he should observe that the scale laid down was, to the best of his belief, that which had generally prevailed of late years in the north of Ireland. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should feel much pleasure in voting for the second reading of the measure.

said, it was in no spirit of hostility to the Government that he intended to oppose the second reading of this measure. Several of the Irish Members had left town for the purpose of addressing their constituents with reference to the coining election; and he thought it would be unfair in their absence to press forward a measure in which they, as the representatives of Ireland, were deeply interested. If so important a Bill as this were pressed forward this Session, the Government would act in violation of the promise given by their chief, to the effect that no measures except such as were of absolute urgency, should be submitted to the consideration of the present Parliament.

said, he must protest against the argument, that because they were at present in the month of May, a sensible and useful Bill was not to be discussed. That argument would imply that the House ought to abdicate its functions, because the period of the Session was an advanced one, and because some Irish Members thought fit to leave London at a time when they ought to be in the House. No argument had been adduced against the principle of the Bill, which was one of a sensible, judicious, and economical character. He had been told that the proposed new Valuation would be effected for three farthings per acre, while the old Valuation had cost fourpence per acre.

said, he thought they were much indebted to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland for the introduction of the measure. In his opinion, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had shown that it was the only mode of obtaining a fair valuation in Ireland. He believed that, with the aid of morning sittings, they would have no difficulty in passing the measure through its several stages in the course of the present Session.

said, he must deprecate the suggestion that they should dispose of this measure at morning sittings. He felt persuaded that a great deal of bad legislation had taken place at these morning sittings. It appeared to him that at the present advanced period of the Session, they could not proceed satisfactorily with a Bill of that description. Although he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, he hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee.

hoped that no such reference would take place, for, even if it should, every clause would be afterwards submitted to the ordeal of a Committee of the whole House. As the Bill would, in his opinion, confer great benefits upon Ireland, it was of importance that it should be pressed forward.

observed, that he differed from the Attorney General for Ireland, who had stated that this Bill was a mere Valuation Bill, and not a Taxation Bill. He regarded it as a Taxation Bill. Its sole object was to lay a basis to regulate all future taxation throughout Ireland. Therefore it was a mere Taxation Bill, to be effected by means of a Government valuation. He differed also from the assertion that this was a measure which could not possibly involve any political interest. He could easily conceive how its machinery might be put in motion by a Government officer to unfairly forward the ends of a Government for the time being. He thought also it might be converted into a political engine by improperly reducing the valuation of some tenements, or by unfairly lowering its scale of agricultural prices, so as to deprive many of the county voters of their elective franchise. What Ireland required was a fair and just valuation, to be ascertained under a well-considered measure of legislation, as perfect as might be capable of being framed, and such as would not require to be realtered in a few years more, after the waste of large additional sums of Irish money. He did not regard the present measure as being of that perfect character, although he considered it contained some useful improvements, which it would be adsirable to adopt. It would be right, in considering this Bill, to recollect, that there had been already no less than nine abortive attempts made to legislate upon this most difficult and important subject. There had been six Acts of Parliament for establishing a public system of general valuation, commencing with the Act of 7 Geo. IV., c. 62, up to that of 9 & 10Vict., c. 110, under which latter Act the noble Chief Secretary stated that Mr. Griffiths was at present acting, or rather that he had come to a dead lock. There was also the system of valuation established by the Irish Poor Law Act of 1 Vict, c. 56; and there were the two Valuation Bills of last year, namely, the Bill introduced in February, 1851, by the late Government, and the same Bill as amended in March, 1851. by a Select—or rather by a selected—Committee. He would not designate those Bills of last year in the strong terms of condemnation which they justly deserved; and certainly the present Bill was, in some respects, a great improvement upon them—being of a more simple character, and not incumbered with so many complicated clauses and impracticable provisions. He thought, however, there were some sins of commission, and several of omission, in the present Bill, and he hoped it would not prove the tenth abortive attempt to legislate properly upon a subject which, as a practical matter, was one of the most vitally important to the interests of Ireland. He thought it was not just or fair that Irish measures of this difficult and important character should be deferred until towards the very close of a Session, and then taken up and pressed forward by Government during the necessary absence of many Members representing Irish constituencies, and at a period when it would not be possible to afford sufficient time for the due discussion of all the details. The Attorney General for Ireland had deprecated all discussion of details at the present stage of this Bill, upon its being presented for a second read- ing—thus taking on this occasion the very opposite course from that recently adopted by him in regard to the Irish Tenant Right Bill, when he had occupied the House with objecting to each of the details of that measure. Now, he did not intend to follow that example by discussing the several clauses of the present Bill, which he had already admitted contained improvements upon the present valuation system. There were, however, some matters which others might look upon as details, but which he considered important principles of any Bill for establishing a perfect system of public valuation. In the first place, he thought that no new Valuation Bill ought to be assented to which did not secure to the Irish ratepayers some efficient mode for having a bon° fide account and audit of the vast expenditure of their money by an irresponsible Government officer. It appeared by a Parliamentary return, dated May 6th, 1851, that up to the spring assizes of 1851, no less a sum than 258,6,71l. 13s. 7d. had been expended upon this general valuation, and it had been stated that the expenditure was still proceeding at the rate of about 30,000l. a year. So that the total expenditure up to the present time could not be far short of 300,000l., for not one shilling of which vast sum had the Irish ratepayers received any sort of account or audit. By another return of June 17, 1851, it appeared that up to May 1, 1851, the sum expended upon this general valuation of the single county of Tipperary was 23,688l. 5s. Since that period the valuation of that county had cost some additional thousands, and it was still very incomplete. It has probably already cost near 30,000l., and would certainly, before its completion, cost far beyond that sum to the ratepayers of Tipperary, for which neither they, nor their Poor Law Guardians, nor their grand juries, will have received any account whatever. Every gentleman who had served on grand juries in Ireland knew that the sum demanded by Mr. Griffiths on account of his expenditure was always a compulsory presentment, and that the only information ever laid before a grand jury was contained in three or four lines, which simply certified the bulk sum expended. This sum constituted a portion of those compulsory presentments, which usually left but a very trifling percentage of the entire county cess in the discretion of an Irish grand jury. He should wish to obtain from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland a distinct assurance that in case the present Bill were allowed to he now read a second time, a provision would be introduced in Committee for securing to the Irish ratepayers an effectual account and audit. In the next place, he objected to the principle involved in the seventh clause of the Bill, which transferred from the Lord Lieutenant, and vested in the Valuation Commissioner, an absolute and irresponsible power "to nominate and appoint, from time to time, any number of writing clerks and surveyors, or any number of persons to be valuators." Upon this enormous patronage, to be exercised at the expense of the ratepayers of Ireland, the only limitation contained in the Act was the provision in the thirty-ninth Clause, that no valuator or writing clerk should receive more than twenty shillings per day, besides such allowancess to cover his hotel and travelling expenses as the Commissioner might think fair and reasonable. It would be easy to suggest how this immense patronage might be abused in many ways by some future Commissioner. It would add to the evils of that system of bureaucracy which had already inflicted so much injury upon Ireland. Again, he should wish to known upon what fixed data had the scale of prices been made out which were given in the 11th Section, as the basis of future valuations for all land in Ireland. That section preserved the present principle of valuation in regard to houses and buildings, which were to continue to be valued upon an estimate of the net annual rent; but, in regard to lands, a different principle was now to prevail—for the value of all lands was to be based, not upon an estimate of the net annual rent, but upon an estimate of the net annual value, with reference to the average prices of produce given in the Bill. The principle of net annual rent being thus repudiated by the Bill, it was quite idle to suppose that, practically speaking, any valuation of lands based upon an arbitrary scale of prices, would be generally followed by landlords in Ireland to regulate their rents. It was plain, therefore, that should too low a scale of prices be adopted, the effect would not be to lead to a reduction of any of the rents of occupying tenants, but it would undoubtedly have the effect of lowering the poor-rate valuations, and of thus, perhaps, disfranchising many thousands of the county constituents. If, therefore, a very low scale of prices were adopted in the proposed Act, its effect should be counteracted by a corresponding reduction in the county elective franchise. It had been stated by the noble Lord that the scale of prices in the present Bill was taken from an average of prices mentioned in a return made out from the Irish newspapers by Mr. Griffiths. Now he was not aware of any return except that which had been presented to Parliament in the course of last Session. He would give a few specimens from that return, to show the mode in which the averages it contained for 1849 and 1850 had been struck by the present Bill. As to wheat the average price per cwt. in that return was 8s.0⅘d. for 1849, and 8s. 4d. for 1850, from which two sums, he presumed, there had been deduced the average of 7s. 6d. in the present Bill. As to oats, the averages in the return were 5s. 4¼d. and 5s. 10d., and that in the Bill, 4s. 10d. As to pork, the averages in the return were 35s. 8d. and 38s. 4d., and that in the Bill, 32s. And so as to the other articles of produce. But, really, that return itself was, perhaps, the most extraordinary statistical paper ever presented for the information of Parliament, to form the basis of an important practical measure; though, perhaps, its very blunders were some test of the honesty with which it had been compiled from the different local newspapers. About one-third of the items were not filled up, but were left in a blank state. Those that were given, exhibited the most incredible discrepancies in the prices of the same article in different towns. For example, in this return for the year 1850 the average price of pork was represented as being 53s. 10d. in Waterford, 37s. 4d. in Wexford, and 30s. 5d. in Cork; those three being all export towns, each possessing the same seaboard and equal facilities of sale. In 1849, pork was stated to have been 54s. in Waterford, and only 35s. 7d. in the adjoining town of Clonmel. In 1849, barley was 7s. 9d. in Clonmel, and only 4s. 6d. in Roscrea, both being towns in the same county of Tipperary. In 1849, oats were 8s. 4d. in Monaghan, and 3s. 7d. in Maryborough. Again, in 1850, 8s. 7d. in Monaghan, and 4s. 0¾d. in Maryborough. In 1848, wheat was 12s. 3d. in Limerick, and at Nenagh—distant from Limerick about eighteen miles—9s. 8d. Numerous other instances might be accumulated out of this return to show its utter fallacy as the basis of a fair and permanent valuation, or such a perfect measure of legislation as it would be desirable now to introduce for the pur- pose of finally superseding all previous systems. The absurdity of that return had been pointed out during last Session, and had, he believed, contributed in a great measure to the total abandonment of the amended Bill recommended by the Select Committee. For the Attorney General of Ireland was mistaken in supposing that that amended Bill was the same as the present Bill. It was not the same Bill, but the very reverse of that Bill; and this total dissimilarity was one of the chief recommendations of the present measure. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the scale of prices was one of those details which might be considered and amended in Committee. But he would like to know what satisfactory information the House could expect to obtain in Committee. He did not anticipate that the noble Lord would be prepared to supply a satisfactory scale of prices in Committee, or that the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the University—or, as he had lately styled himself, "the representative of the Church"—would be able to furnish any useful information on the subject. He thought that an undertaking should now be given to introduce some proper measure, such as was partly promised last year, for establishing in Ireland a system of official corn averages similar to the English system. A correct system of corn averages was essential to any plan of valuation, such as it was now proposed to introduce, namely, a valuation based upon the prices of produce, and not upon the net annual rent. It had also long been required in order to regulate Irish tithe rentcharges and the rents payable under ecclesiastical leases. In Ireland there were no corn returns made in any town except Dublin, and even there the returns were merely voluntary and of a most imperfect character. With respect to the power of final appeal, the present Bill left it with the assistant barrister, or rather with the Quarter Sessions, which he confessed he regarded as preferable to an appeal to the Government commissioner, He thought, however, it might be well to consider whether some better tribunal might not be devised for obtaining a satisfactory and uniform valuation at a reasonable rate. He had shown the enormous expenditure incurred within the last five or six years in valuing the single county of Tipperary, being, as he believed, thirty times as great as the cost of a valuation under the Poor Law Acts. He had heard it suggested that one mode of obtaining a cheap and satisfactory valuation of any particular county or district would be to set it up to public competition, subject to subsequent revision by an appropriate tribunal, at the risk of the valuator, who should be bound to sustain his valuation at his own expense. He thought that suggestion worth consideration, having regard to the great expense of all past valuations, and to their unsatisfactory character. He did not conceive that the present Bill would very materially diminish the future expenses of the Government valuation of Ireland. It would certainly get rid of the useless expense of all appeals to Sub-Commissioners, and so far was a desirable measure; but nearly the same expense might be still incurred in appeals to the quarter-sessions courts. His great object in making these observations was to suggest the propriety of framing such a Valuation Bill for Ireland as would effectually obviate the necessity of legislating again upon the subject. He had mentioned some reasons for not thinking that the present Bill was as perfect a measure as might be framed, after full deliberation, by a Select Committee or a Committee of Inquiry composed of such of the Irish Members as were best acquainted with the subject, and who might assist their investigations by examining some intelligent witnesses. He was quite aware of the general objections to Select Committees, and of the course taken by the Select Committee appointed last Session, who had separated without making any report or examining any witnesses, after a mere conversational examination of Mr. Griffiths whose statements before them had not been published. But he thought that a Select Committee of Inquiry, such as he had described, might succeed in producing a valuation measure such as they could submit to the House after mature consideration, and be able to stand by in all its principles and details. He did not think it likely that a measure of that perfect character could be framed by this House when in Committee on the present Bill, especially at this advanced period of the Session, though he thought there was much to approve of in the Bill, which professed to introduce one uniform system of valuation for county cess and for poor-law purposes.

said, he was glad to hear from all quarters that there was no real objection to the principle of the Bill. He believed it was almost universally admitted that it was desirable to establish a uniform system of valuation. His hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements) recommended, as he (Lord Naas) understood him, that the different Unions should have the power of effecting Valuations for themselves, subject to the superintendence of a Government officer. But he (Lord Naas) was afraid that that arrangement could only lead to a continuance of the evils of the present system. He did not hold himself pledged to all the details of the measure, and he would be prepared carefully to consider in Committee any suggestions for its amendment. He could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. V. Scully) that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He had seen a great many measures referred to Select Committees, but had never known any good to follow from the adoption of such a course. He believed that in Select Committees hon. Members never changed their opinions, and were occupied there from day to day in urging arguments which they afterwards repeated in the House.

presented a petition, praying that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

presented a petition from Pentonville, praying that the measure be not referred to a Select Committee, but that certain clauses be altered.

was of opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to take evidence as to the effect the measure would have upon various interests in the country. No one could be more convinced than he was that the patent law required amendment; but he thought it was impossible to pass a satisfactory law on this subject during the present Session, and therefore he thought they ought to devote the time that yet remained to obtaining evidence from practical men, whose suggestions might be adopted in the next Session. There were one or two objections to the present Bill, to which he would call their attention. In the first place, the prerogative of the Sovereign was injuriously interfered with; for, though it was provided in the 17th Section that nothing contained in this Act should interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, yet in other sections he found that the Bill appointed certain official persons as Commissioners who were to administer the new law, and a part of their duty was to appoint an Examiner or Examiners, to whom all applications for patents were to be referred; and he put it to the House whether a power of that kind ought to be committed into the hands of any subject. Then it was provided that the legal proceedings connected with all patents in Scotland and Ireland, should be transferred to the Courts in Westminster Hall. Now, various complaints had reached him from Scotland with regard to the efforts which had of late been made to transfer the ancient rights and privileges which Scotland possessed as an independent kingdom, to English courts. Besides, it deprived the legal practitioners in Scotland of their legitimate professional occupation, and would be productive of great inconvenience to litigants, who would all be obliged to come up to the Courts of Westminster, though they already possessed in Edinburgh courts in which they had the fullest confidence, as well as practitioners who were as capable of defending them as any that could be found in this metropolis. Another objection to the Bill was, that though one series of payments extended the right of patent to the three Kingdoms and the Channel islands, yet it did not include the Colonies. On all these grounds he thought it would be better to delay the measure. He did not like to move to that effect. [Cries of "Move!"] No, he would like to hear first what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in its favour; but he thought it would be much better to send the Bill to a Select Committee, with the usual power to send for persons, papers, and records.

did not concur in the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman that the Bill should be postponed to another Session, because he had received representations from various quarters regarding the evils of the present system; and he thought there ought to be some alteration without loss of time. Without doubt the present Bill was regarded by practical men as a very imperfect remedy for the evils that existed; and therefore he thought it ought to be referred to a Select Committee, who would have the power to examine practical witnesses upon the subject. The House of Lords had had a Committee upon the subject; but he regretted to say that that Committee did not call before them the class of witnesses who were best capable of giving information. He regretted that the complicated machinery of the present system was continued in the Bill, believing that the right principle of dealing with inventions was to assimilate them as much as possible to the principle of copyright of books; because, after all the pains and expense an inventor was put to in procuring his patent, if his right were questioned, he had still to go to a jury; whereas, if an author had a copyright worth 10,000l., he had only to. go to Stationers' Hall to secure it. He thought it ought to be the same with regard to inventions. He could not see any distinction between the two cases, whether a man impressed the image of his mind upon brass or steel or paper. Was it not a hard thing that a poor man of inventive genius, if he discovered something that would raise his reputation, as well as be to him a source of wealth, and a benefit to the country, should be encountered at the very outset by the payment of a sum of money which he was not able to command; so that his only resource was to go to some speculative capitalist, who would purchase from him for 10l. or 20l. an invention which might be worth 50,000l, He thought that every facility should be given, especially in a country like this, to persons who brought out inventions; and yet the fact was that in this respect we were behind almost every country on the Continent. In France, Belgium, Denmark, and the United States, a man might secure all that the English law of patent gave him, for less than 10l., while in this country he was required to pay between 300l. and 400l. In France a man had merely to go and register his invention; and by that act of registration he would have perfect security, and at a cost of not more than 4l. This was a preposterous state of things, and ought not to be permitted. He would be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) would apply his own powerful and vigorous mind to the subject; and he was sure he would come to the conclusion that the patent law ought to be assimilated to the law of copyright.

said, this measure had already been before various Select Committees, and it appeared to him that the proposal to refer the Bill to another Committee was only in effect to postpone it to another Session. For his part he thought this was a useful Bill; he had received several letters from his constituents in its favour, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to send it to a Select Committee.

said, that hon. Members had stated that this Bill had already been before several Select Committees; and one hon. Gentleman had stated that if it were now referred to a Committee, the Session would pass over before it could be considered. But he (Mr. Stuart) could not see why sending this Bill to a Committee should necessarily result in throwing the Bill over to another Session. This Bill was prepared by the late Government. [Mr. HENLEY dissented.] He had understood so; but it now appeared the right hon. Gentleman treated it as his own Bill. The subject was no doubt one of vast importance, and one on which public opinion was greatly divided. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had proposed a principle which he believed had never been sufficiently considered. He had proposed that the law of patent should be assimilated to the law of copyright. He did not accede to that proposition; he was not prepared to abrogate the patent law; but still he believed that between the present state of the patent law, and the more extreme opinion advocated by the hon. Member for Finsbury, there were many intermediate points which well deserved consideration. The measure not only affected the rights of individuals, but it dealt with great questions of constitutional and international law. He referred more particularly to the 27th Section, in which he found an extraordinary provision, which might be very good or very bad, but which was certainly entirely new. It provided that English patents should not prevent the use of inventions in foreign ships resorting to British ports; so that as far as regarded discoveries applicable to navigation and commerce, the whole value of the patent would be annihilated by that clause of the Bill. The only exception to the clause was the case of countries which did not concede the same right to English ships. He longed to hear what the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had to say in favour of that clause. A bad alteration of the law was worse than no alteration; and therefore he implored the House not to pass this measure without due consideration. They had a warning before them in another Bill which was to come before them to-night—the Wills Amendment Bill. Some years ago the law of wills was thought to require alteration; and though the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Edward Sugden, implored the House to delay the Bill for three months, yet it was forced through, and the consequence was, that no man now knew how to make his will; even one of the ablest lawyers of his time (Mr. Jacob) made a will, which was among the first litigated under the new law; and after seven volumes stuffed full of reports of litigated cases, they were now going to alter the law again. He trusted that this would prove a warning to the House, and therefore he implored his right hon. Friend not to press the measure during the present Session, but to agree to its being referred to a Select Committee.

said, that a Bill on this subject had in some degree been prepared by the late Government before they went out of office; and, in point of fact, the present measure was substantially the same Bill that passed both Houses of Parliament last Session—which was sent down from the House of Lords to this House, where some amendments were made in it—which was then sent back to the House of Lords, where the amendments were agreed to; and which, if the Session had continued but one day longer, would have become the law of the land. With the exception of a single clause, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart) had not stated one objection to any of the provisions of the Bill; and he (Mr. Henley) did think that that was very odd, coming from a person of so much acuteness. Instead of bringing objections to the Bill, his hon. and learned Friend had amused the House with a long discussion on the subject of wills, as if wills had anything to do with the matter before them. With respect to the 27th Clause, he (Mr. Henley) was ready to admit that the subject to which it related was one of the greatest difficulty; and whether the clause could be amended so as to be put into a better shape, and deprived of its retrospective effect, was a matter well worthy of consideration in Committee, where he should be ready to attend to every reasonable and proper suggestion. The hon. and learned Gentle- man had, however, omitted to state that the provisions of that clause were to have effect only in case of reciprocity. Now, what were the facts in relation to this subject? A person takes out a patent, say for a screw steamer. He takes the legal steps open to him, so that a vessel cannot use his patent in the ports of the United Kingdom; but there was nothing to prevent the patentee from going to Holland or to America and taking out a separate patent in each of those countries, so that when any unfortunate vessel using his patent went to those countries it might be seized upon by any parties that had an assigned right in the patent, and universal injury to commerce would ensue. He was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend should have fastened on this clause, and that he should not have given the House any information on the main subject and purport of the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had stated that this Bill invaded the Queen's prerogative; and as an illustration he said that Her Majesty was to appoint Commissioners who were to perform all their functions under the authority of the Crown—and this he had called an invasion of the Queen's prerogative: but since Her Majesty was to appoint certain officers, it appeared to him (Mr. Henley) not to make much difference whether the duties to be performed were executed by the law officers of the Crown or by Commissioners. Then the hon. Member had said that he thought it hard that Scotland and Ireland were to be deprived of the power of settling their own quarrels in their own law courts. If that were really the effect of the provisions of this Bill, no one would be more ready than he (Mr. Henley) to agree with the hon. Member; but the main principle of this Bill was, that this being a United Kingdom, if a patent was granted, it ought to run through the United Kingdom. That was one great principle of the Bill; whether the machinery for carrying it out were the best and simplest that could be contrived, he, for one, would be sorry to say: it might be capable of improvement, but that must be done in Committee. Now, since it was desirable to have one patent for the United Kingdom, it was necessary to set up some machinery common to the three countries; and the Commission would consist of the Master of the Rolls, with the law officers of Ireland, Scotland, and England, so that a Scotchman applying for a patent could make reference to the Scotch law officers, and an Irishman to the Irish law officers; and there could be no doubt that each case would be adjudicated upon in accordance with the particular law and custom of the country from which it proceeded. The extension of patents to the Colonies was a subject not altogether free from difficulty, and the practice with regard to what were called Crown colonies and other colonies was somewhat different. But the Bill might be amended considerably in Committee; and, if necessary, a clause might be introduced further securing the prerogative of the Crown in this particular. It was his desire to make the Bill as simple as possible, to save expense, and to relieve parties from the necessity of future litigation. With regard to copyright, many persons supposed that there was the greatest difference between that and a patent. For his own part, he could not see it, and he did not believe that the law with regard to the two was very different. Copyright could only be sustained by proving that the work was original, and a patent by its being proved to be a novelty. But it was said that a man with a copyright sets forth his ideas for the benefit of all the world. It was true that he did so; but then he put his own price upon them. Well, then, a party with a patent exhibits his patented article for sale, with a price affixed to it. Therefore he (Mr. Henley) could not see any great difference between them. Then some persons said that patents ought altogether to be done away with. He confessed that he was not of that opinion himself; but it was held by many men of great practical knowledge and intelligence. The subject of expense was a material feature in this question. He believed that he was not wrong in saying that a patent for the three kingdoms could not be taken out at present for a less sum, in fees and stamps (independent of the expense of a patent agent), than 250l. or 260l. The present Bill proposed that patents should be taken out for the expense of 25l. That would be an enormous boon to parties seeking patents; and if they found their invention so useful that at the expiration of three years they wished to extend the period of the patent, they might do so by paying a further sum. He was afraid that, in reducing the price of patents so low, there must be considerable loss to the Treasury—[Mr. WAKLEY: But gain to the public] The hon. Member said there would be gain to the public; but if parties were to have privileges it was fair that they should pay for them. It was not certain what would be the extent of this loss to the Treasury—that would depend upon whether or not there would be an increase in the number of patents, owing to the diminished cost. He would not now enter on the various details of the Bill, which might be better considered on a future occasion. With regard to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he (Mr. Henley) had throughout expressed his readiness that this Bill should go before a Select Committee, if hon. Members believed that they could not see their way with respect to some of the clauses, and wished to hear evidence. But he thought that to wait for an entire year, until every Member of that House should have his objections removed on every point, would be equivalent to saying that they should never do anything for the amendment of the patent laws. There must necessarily be considerable difference of opinion; but they should act on a balance of arguments, and thus endeavour to amend the law. He hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, with a view to its being improved in Committee.

observed that the loss to the Treasury by the diminution of the patent fees would not be so great as had been represented by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; for it appeared from the Schedule that the total amount of fees would be 149l l1s. That was enormously too high, and he should propose in Committee to reduce it considerably. With regard to the punishment to be awarded for pirating inventions, he thought that the simple fine proposed by the Bill was not sufficient, for he held that an individual was guilty of as flagrant a wrong who pirated another's invention as the man who robbed his purse. He thought it would be a useful Amendment to make the piracy of patents a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprisonment.

was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that the Bill was the same in principle as that of last year. He considered that it was altogether different, and that it was as bad a Bill for inventors as could be devised. It had, in fact, only one redeeming clause, and that was the one which enabled an inventor to obtain a patent for a small sum in the first instance, and to renew it afterwards at a little additional expense. He considered that it would be impossible for the proposed Examiners to investigate the novelty and utility of an invention before deciding that a patent should be granted; for it often took seven years in order to prove that an invention was novel and useful. His own invention, which was now adopted by all, required fully that period; and he was convinced that if it had had to go before the Examiners proposed by the ill, they would have said his discovery was not worth notice, and would have refused his application altogether. But there was a much more important principle than that alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Newark, namely, a clause by which no invention, if it could be proved to have been used in foreign countries, could be patented at all. They would only have to get a couple of vagabonds from the Continent to swear that they had seen the invention before, and the inventor would be deprived of the fruits of his ingenuity; and after the celebrated case of Queen Caroline, nobody could doubt that they could get foreigners to swear anything. The principle of the clause relating to ships was most objectionable; especially when they considered that the recent alteration in the law had caused a much greater number of foreign ships to come to our ports. Where he himself used to sheathe one foreign vessel, he now sheathed three. The provisions relating to the Colonies were also extremely important. Take sugar for instance. The English manufacturers would be materially affected if they had to pay a heavy royalty, while the colonial manufacturers escaped with impunity. He had said that the reduction in the expense was the redeeming feature of the Bill; but that might, if the Government chose, be equally well carried out under the present law; and it would be a great deal better to make the reduction with the existing system, than hastily to carry a bad Bill through the House. He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman could not refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and if he selected his Select Committee well, he might get a very good Bill. That would depend very much on the practical knowledge of the Gentlemen composing the Committee. If they happened to have no practical knowledge, the Bill would be a very bad one. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to alter the Bill in the parts he had indicated, he should oppose the second reading.

said, that were it not for the great injury inflicted by the existing patent laws during the last half century, he should not be disposed to support the second reading of this Bill.

said, that reference had been made to a possible charge on the Treasury for the carrying out of this Bill, and he hoped an estimate would be given of that charge. Last year he had understood the amount for compensation and the reduction of fees would be very considerable.

said, it appeared to him that this was a subject of great importance, and that it would be very much to be regretted if, for the sake of a hurry which he confessed he could not see the reason of, the House should be led to pass a measure which introduced not only new regulations, but also, in many respects, new principles into the patent law of this country. He, for one, had formed a very strong opinion that it would be useless to pass the Bill, even through the present stage; and that it would be a far wiser course not to attempt to consider the clauses of the Bill in Committee this Session, but to postpone the whole subject to a future Parliament: and he would shortly state to the House some of the reasons which had led him to this conclusion. He knew it had been said that this was the same Bill which was pressed forward at the end of last Session, and which had advanced to the last stage in that House; and that this was a reason why they should pass the present measure. But he begged to observe that the measure of last Session was introduced at a late period, and that, it having been urged upon the House, that on account of the peculiar reasons which existed in connexion with the Great Exhibition, it was of great importance to pass it at that particular time, many hon. Members—himself among the number—were led to pay a less vigilant attention to the Bill, under those circumstances, than they would otherwise have done. Now, he had looked carefully through the present Bill, and it appeared to him to involve three entirely distinct subjects, if not more. One part of the Bill embraced a very useful class of clauses; and if the Government would content themselves with those, the Bill might probably pass without difficulty through Parliament. The clauses to which he referred went merely to the reduction of fees, and the better regulation of legal proceedings on the subject of patents. This was a most useful part of the Bill; but with respect to the rest of the clauses, he thought them open to serious question. In a case of this importance he thought the House were entitled to know whether the Bill had received from the Government that mature consideration which would enable them to say that it embraced those principles upon which they thought the question ought to be dealt with by Parliament, and whether they were prepared, upon their own responsibility as Ministers, to urge it upon the House. If he mistook not, this Bill was not prepared by the present Government, and they were by no means responsible for it. They might have felt it to be their duty to facilitate its consideration by the House, and that might be a very proper course to take; but it was not their Bill. It was prepared by the preceding Government, and chiefly, he understood, by a noble Lord (Earl Granville), who, with great candour, had stated in another place that he was unfriendly to the whole principle of a patent law, and that he looked forward to its entire abolition at no distance of time. Now, this was a very important question, and one, the dispassionate consideration of which the House was not likely to enter upon at the present period of the Session. In reading through the Bill, he thought he could trace the tendency of the noble Lord's mind in the different clauses; and if the Bill should pass as it stood, he believed it would be found hereafter to have undermined and subverted the whole principle of the patent law. Now, was it right that the Government should urge the House to proceed to the consideration of a Bill which was supposed to have such a tendency, unless they were prepared to state either that they were satisfied it had no such tendency, or that they were willing to legislate in that direction? The Government ought to state whether they were prepared to defend the principle of a patent law as calculated to afford a salutary stimulus to useful inventions, or whether they agreed with the noble Lord that the principle of a patent law savoured of monopoly, and ought to be entirely abolished, in conformity with the general rule of free trade. There were, in his opinion, two principles involved in the Bill, which went far to undermine the whole system of the patent law. The one was that which referred to the Colonies. It was a remarkable fact that last year, when a similar Bill came down from the House of Lords, the House of Commons introduced a clause retaining to the Crown the power which it at present possessed, of giving patents to the. Colonies; but the present Bill contained no such clause, and if it was passed in its present form, the power of the Crown to grant patents in the British Colonies would cease to exist. A large field would thus be swept away from patentees; and then it would be said, "You have abolished patents in Australia, Canada, and the West Indies, how can you continue to maintain them at home?" There was another principle, even more important, and that was the one concerning foreign patents, and the relation of foreign patents to English patents. There were three clauses in this Bill which were not in the Bill of last year. The first of these provided that the use of an invention abroad should be as fatal to letters patent as use in this country. Now, let the House look at what would be the immediate effect of that provision. How could a patentee be prepared to meet evidence from all parts of the world on the subject of his patent? How could he avoid being taken by surprise by witnesses whose character and competency he had no means of investigating? He (Mr. R. Palmer) had been credibly informed that there were parts of the world where, as soon as an invention was announced as having been discovered in this country, it was immediately found out that it had been long known to scientific persons in the countries referred to. Another clause was still more extravagant, and was to the effect, that if the same invention which was patented here was also patented in a foreign country, no matter at what time, no matter by whom, whether friend or enemy, whenever the foreign patent expired, the English patent must expire at the same time. No one, he thought, could introduce or devise any means more likely to undermine the patent law than this. Another clause provided that no letters patent should prevent the use of inventions in foreign ships resorting to British ports. He thought it impossible that these three clauses could be agreed to. But his objections to the Bill did not stop there. There was a series of clauses at the beginning of the Bill which introduced a new system of investigation preliminary to the granting of a patent, of which the effect would be, first, to create a number of new salaried officers; and, secondly, to drag the patentee into two expensive lawsuits, one before the Examiner, and another before the Attorney General; and then, when all was done, and he had got his patent, he was no better than before, unless he could satisfy the original conditions of his patent with respect to novelty and utility, to prove which any one could oblige him to come into a Court of law. He thought the present system afforded, upon the whole, as good a check as could be provided for preventing undue extension of patent rights, and that the proposed plan would, in contested cases, expose patentees to most expensive processes of a preliminary nature. He also considered that that portion of this Bill which provided for publicity being given to patents and specifications, required great consideration. If all the patents, with specifications and drawings, were to be published at the public expense, the scale of fees proposed to be established by the Bill would be utterly insufficient. He thought there were many other provisions of the measure which required grave consideration, and that it was hopeless to proceed with it in a Parliament which must so soon expire. If, therefore, a division took place, he should, feel it his duty to vote against the second reading of the Bill.

said, if his hon. and learned Friend had been present when his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained the object of the Bill, he would have found that it did not interfere with the principle of the patent law, but maintained it as a wholesome stimulus to invention. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there were two clauses of the Bill which contained such new and important principles that they ought not to be adopted without more consideration than could be afforded to them during the present Session: the one the clause relating to foreign ships, and the other to inventions the use of which was known in foreign countries or the Colonies. With regard to the first, the object was to anticipate those differences which might arise and become matters of international law in reference to foreign ships carrying their nationality with them, which would be extended to articles used on board ship. The President of the Board of Trade had stated, however, that the House, in passing the Bill, was not bound to adopt that provision. With respect to the use of inventions used in the Colonies or abroad, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the principle of the Bill in that regard required great and careful consideration. But those two provisions were quite independent of the main object of the Bill, which was first to diminish the expense of a patent to the inventor—and the reduction would be from 260l. to 25l.—and next to establish one patent for the three main divisions of the United Kingdom, so as to prevent a patentee being obliged to take separate patents for England, Ireland and Scotland. He could not help thinking that the effecting of these two purposes would constitute a great benefit to the public and the inventors; as for the objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) to the Examiners, the hon. Member appeared to have misunderstood their proposed duties: the object of those officers' functions was to give to the law officers of the Crown an assurance, based on scientific knowledge, that the inventions proposed to be patented were worthy of a patent, and not to determine upon the novelty or the propriety of the grant. But if there was an insuperable objection to that provision, it could be altered in Committee. He hoped the House, then, would allow the Bill to be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee; after which they could see whether they would adopt the whole Bill, or separate from it the two provisions to which he had adverted.

felt obliged to detain the Committee for a few minutes upon this important measure, while he stated the reasons which had necessitated the bringing in of the Bill on the propriety of which they had now to determine. The law of this country in respect to wills, as it stood before the 1st Vict., c. 26, required that every will, as far as it respected real property, should be signed, although it did not require that the signature should be affixed to any particular part of the document. Great difficulties arose from the application of that law. The Committee would understand the mischief that resulted, if they bore in mind that, if the signature was prefixed to the will, or contained in the first line, and that it was a signature acknowledged by the testator, and attested by the witnesses, it left room to the testator to add at any subsequent time a further clause to the will. It therefore occurred to the Commissioners for the improvement of the law, that the signature of a testator should be placed "at the foot or end of the will." They recommended a provision to that effect, and that provision was accordingly embodied in the Act passed in the first year of the reign of Her present Majesty, which was recited in the Bill before the Committee. Unfortunately the words "at the foot or end thereof" had led to as much difficulty, litigation, and distress as any other similar number of words that had ever been introduced into a statute; and they had made that plain enactment "a delusion and a snare" to a great number of persons who believed they were making and executing their wills according to a plain rule which was intelligible to ordinary capacities. The construction put upon these words had been that if the signature was not actually put at the end of the last clause of the will—if the signature was placed at the foot of the clause, or outside, or occupied any other position on the face of the will than that which strictly corresponded with the words "at the foot or end thereof," the will was pronounced to be informally executed. Now that evil had increased to so great a degree that it was hardly possible for any man to tell whether his will was signed in the manner required by the strict interpretation which those words had received—no man could possibly tell whether his will was legally signed or not. That interpretation had unfortunately been carried down by such a long series of authorities, and confirmed by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council—the court of ultimate appeal—that there was no possibility now of altering it by a contrary decision, and the only possible mode of relief was a resort to the Legislature of the country. The present Lord Chancellor, perceiving the evil, with that care for the administration of the law which had always distinguished him, and for which his countrymen owed him a large debt of gratitude, had come to the relief of the subject by the introduction of the present Bill. But whilst he (Mr. Bethell) gave that eulogy and approbation to the intent and purpose of the Bill, he could not but express his surprise and regret that it should have been framed in the manner in which he found it to be framed, which, if adopted by the House, he would venture to predict would not only not remove the mischief that had arisen, but would mul- tiply and augment that mischief to a painful degree. The Committee were now concerned in laying down a plain ordinary rule for the guidance of plain ordinary persons in discharging an important duty. But with regard to every solemnity, and every rule requiring solemnity, if they made such rules or solemnities complicated, and if they expressed them in language either techical or difficult to be understood or interpreted, then, in point of fact, they dug so many pitfalls for the ordinary people of the country, whilst they multiplied the causes of litigation and the chances of defeating the intentions of testators. He should have thought that the plain and ordinary mode of remedying the mischief would have been to repeal the clause containing the obnoxious words so liable to misinterpretation, and substitute for that clause another clause or section containing words having a plain ordinary import. But instead of adopting that ordinary and plain mode of proceeding, the Bill had recourse to this singular mode or attempt to redress the supposed evils; it left the original enactment, the source of the mischief untouched, but it made that enactment more complicated by a very long section, which was to be taken into their hands as a rule, partly for expounding, partly for remedying, the evils produced by the interpretation of the existing statute. And that was sought to be obtained by the use of a collection of adverbs, which he thought was unmatched, even in the structure of English Acts of Parliament. The first clause of the present Bill directs that every will shall be deemed valid "if the signature shall be placed at or after, or following or under, or beside or opposite to the end of the will;" and then it proceeds to remedy the confusion and difficulty thus occasioned by stating in an interpretative manner," so that it shall be apparent on the face of the will that the testator intended to give effect to the writing signed as his will by such his signature;"—thus introducing, as he (Mr. Bethell) contended, all the elements of future difficulty and litigation. He did not think this part of the Bill could be passed into law with any security or safety. He proposed, as an Amendment, that the will should be valid if the signature of the testator were so placed, and in such a manner, as that it should be apparent that the testator intended to give effect by such signature to the writing as his will. He had adopted words which were sufficiently explicit and definite to furnish a general rule—namely, that the will should he valid when, from the position of the signature and from the attestation, it was apparent that it was the intention of the testator to give effect to the instrument as his will. The only object of the signature was to authenticate the will. That might be done in a variety of forms; and the reason why a particular position was required by law was, that the signature should be so placed as to authenticate the will, and to prevent any additions being made to it after it had been signed by the testator and attested by witnesses. These objects, he believed, would be accomplished by the Amendment which he was about to submit to the House. But the mischief in this case was not confined to that part of the clause to which he had referred. To show the extraordinary system of drafting which had been pursued, he might mention that the latter part of the clause entirely nullified the former part. For instance, there was first an enumeration of particulars, in his opinion perfectly useless; and then there were some general rules which followed that enumeration. If the general rules were useful, then he must contend the enumeration of particulars was altogether useless. The signature was still to be at "the foot or end" of the will, for the original Act remains unrepealed; but then the clause went on to say that the signature, wherever placed, was sufficient, if it was apparent that the testator intended to give effect to the will by such signature; but notwithstanding this, it further went on to say that no will should he invalid in the great variety of cases which were enumerated, although in each of those cases the rule previously laid down was violated. Nothing, he must be permitted to say, could be more inconsistent than the clause as it stood at present; and the effect of this jumble of enactments would be that the very commentary which was furnished in the clause, would abrogate the existing law, by the terms which were expressly introduced for the purpose of preserving it. Such a mode of legislation was pregnant with evil. Nothing could be a greater vice in the composition of Acts of Parliament than that they should take part of an Act of Parliament and leave that standing, and alter it by a subsequent enactment, so placed as to throw on the Judge an obligation of taking the two statutes in his hand, and yet the one which is altered is left in force, and you must ascertain from the second Act the extent of the alteration. The Judge had thus to construe the existing law, and then the alteration of that law, and to derive the rule of law from the combination and comparison of two separate things, which to a certain extent were contradictory and at variance with each other, the one being introduced for the purpose of altering the other. What he proposed to do was to repeal the existing rule, and to substitute a new one which would he plain, intelligible, and perfect in itself. He proposed to repeal the particular clause in the existing Act of Parliament, and to substitute the words which were in his Amendment. The Committee must recollect that the question now before them was one of the deepest moment, and be should be happy if this discussion gave rise to the conviction in the minds of hon. Members of the necessity of having the House provided with some tribunal, or with some set of men to whom might he referred questions of this kind, in order that the great opprobrium which now accompanied the Legislature as far as regarded the structure of their statutes (the worst, perhaps, which existed in any country) might be removed; for, however admirable the mode of their legislation in some respects might be, it was certainly miserably deficient in providing for the correct expression, in point of language, of the Acts passed by them. The language of these Acts was often left to mere chance or caprice—provisos were added at a late stage, negativing, or altering, in the most extraordinary way, all that had been done before; and the consequence was, that the Judges could not put any intelligible construction on the jumble of inconsistencies thus submitted to them for interpretation. He had spoken freely of the Bill; but he had the greatest possible respect for the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the measure into the other House, and who, he must be permitted to say, was entitled to every credit for his exertions to amend this branch of our law. He believed that this Bill was not the workmanship of the noble and learned Lord—that he had trusted to some other person to prepare it; but even if it were the workmanship of his Lordship, then it was not the first instance in which a man of the highest eminence in the profession, had failed as a Parliamentary draftsman. He (Mr. Bethell) remembered reading in the memoirs of the late Sir Samuel Romilly, that Lord Eldon had sent for that great and accomplished lawyer, and read over to him some clauses which he had prepared to alter an existing law—a matter of very ordinary difficulty—and that Sir Samuel, after reading the clauses, was obliged to tell the Lord Chancellor that he was totally unable to apprehend or divine what was the meaning of his clauses. He (Mr. Bethell) must say, that whoever read the first section of this Bill, would find himself in a maze without plan, and would toil in vain to discover any meaning. He hoped that his attempt to simplify the Bill would render it more intelligible, not only to the Judges who might be called upon to interpret it, but to the public at large, who would be so greatly affected by its provisions. He would move to omit the whole of the first clause, for the purpose of inserting in lieu thereof the following:—

"That so much of an Act passed in the first year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, intituled, an Act for the Amendment of the Law with respect to Wills, as enacts that no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing, and executed in manner hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, it shall be signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and such signature shall be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and such witnesses shall attest and shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, and no form of attestation shall be necessary,' be, and the same is hereby repealed: And in lieu thereof, be it, and it is hereby enacted, that no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing, and executed in manner hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, it shall be signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction, in such manner as that it shall be apparent that the testator intended to give effect by such signature to the writing as his will, and such signature shall be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and such witnesses shall attest and shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary."

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had better move that the original clause be negatived, and then bring up his Amendment in the shape of a new clause.

said, that he would adopt that course.

not concurring in the opinion that the Bill would correct the evils which at present existed, or in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury, desired to express as shortly as he could his view of the difficulties which affected the question, and the course which it appeared advisable to take. This was a question which ought to be decided on the principles of common sense, and in which it was of the greatest possible consequence to avoid anything like technicality. The question related to a matter to be performed only once in a man's life, frequently by uneducated persons, and was one which was of vital importance to them; and it was the incumbent duty of the Legislature to enable persons of common understanding to perform it in such a manner that the law might carry into effect their last wishes. The Act regulating the law, as it stood, was a remarkable instance of the evil arising from so much legislation in a matter of great importance, and when little interference of the Legislature was required. The existing law arose out of the fourth Report of the Commissioners of Real Property, who, referring to the evils of technicality, suggested various remedies; but in the attempt to carry their recommendations practically into effect, they brought a still greater number of technicalities into play. Before the existing law was enacted, men, so far as regarded personal property, might make a will without a witness; they might sign in the first line, or in any part of it; but it was constantly found that men began to write wills who never intended them to be wills until they were completed, and, leaving certain papers which contained merely the commencement of something meant for a testamentary disposition, those papers were established as wills contrary to the real intention of the testator. The Commissioners tried, he thought wisely, to put an end to that. They required that a will should be attested in every instance by two witnesses: this was quite right, and was a very simple, plain, intelligible course. An attestation by two witnesses was a thing perfectly intelligible to all common understandings; but in addition to this rule they suggested further rules, which had produced considerable mischief, the first of which was only important in the case of a will being unattested; but unattested wills, and what were called "holograph" wills, were properly put an end to. The rules suggested were three: first, that the signature should be at the foot of the will; secondly, that the signature should be made in presence of both witnesses; and, thirdly, that the witnesses should both attest in the presence of each other and of the testator. There was one clear and plain principle which, in his opinion, ought to be kept in view by the Legislature in regard to all instruments which required any authentication: the rule ought to be perfectly uniform, so that there should not be one species of rule for one species of instrument, and another rule for another species of instrument. And another principle equally clear was, that every rule of law which went to nullify any instrument, should be permitted to exist only where there was some clear, distinct, special reason which rendered it absolutely necessary to nullify the instrument unless that form were adopted. Try these rules by these principles, and they would all three be found to be injurious. It was difficult for Gentlemen not acquainted with what took place respecting probates in Doctors' Commons to conceive the evils produced by framing rules at variance with the principles for which he was contending; but he spoke without exaggeration when he used the language of the late Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, who told him that every week there was a basketful of bonâ fide wills which had not been admitted to probate. Now, after pointing out the defects which the existing law and the present Bill were equally chargeable with, he would ask the Committee whether they were confident that they were competent, without further inquiry, sitting there as they were then, to deal with the subject, and to cure the evils which had been introduced into the law of wills, without occasioning others to an equal or greater extent, by the legislation which they might substitute. He wished to submit to them whether a subject of that kind would not be better considered in a Select Committee, composed of persons conversant with the law, who could call before them persons familiar with the mischief to be dealt with? Now, as regarded these evils, the Bill before the House only attempted to deal with the first of these rules, leaving the defects arising from the other untouched; and, with respect to the first of these rules, both the Bill and the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend did so imperfectly, for they left untouched the provision which required signing at the foot. The words "signed at the foot" must have been inserted by the Commissioners with the idea of a deed present to their mind, which it was usual to sign at the foot, and therefore under the impression that it was proper to insert these words. They did not foresee that these words would necessarily raise a question in every instance, what was the foot—whether the will was signed at the foot. He believed if they had simply required that the will should be attested, they would have done all that was required for the authentication of the document. For instance, a sign-manual by the Crown must he attested, but the Queen signed at the head of the document; and the authenticity of it was ascertained by the proper authority attesting it at the foot. What was an attestation was a very simple matter, about which there could be no difficulty in arriving at the proper conclusion. He was of opinion that no such provision should ever have been inserted as that requiring the "signature at the foot thereof," and that nothing more should be requisite than that the will should be signed and attested, which would leave the Judge free to determine whether what had been done was a sufficient compliance with the law, which required signature and attestation of that signature, and nothing more. Then the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend proposed to enact that the testator "shall sign it in such a manner that it shall be evident that he means to give effect to it as his will." The effect of that would be to institute a lawsuit on every will, to determine whether the testator had sufficiently evidenced his intention on the document; it would be a source of profitable employment to the lawyers, and of serious calamity to the public at large. Test this by the case of deeds conveying an estate: all that is now required is execution and attestation; if the law required that the execution and attestation should be in such a form as to show that the gentleman meant thereby to convey an estate, great expense and litigation would be the consequence; but the law only required execution and attestation, and he was of opinion that no more should be required in a will. The present Statute of Wills positively stated that no form of attestation should be requisite; and it would be naturally thought that was the effect of the statute. The fact, however, was, that since it was required that the testator should sign or acknowledge his signature in the presence of the witnessess, these must attest it in the presence of the testator; but unless the written form of the attestation stated these facts, each of them must be proved before the will was admitted to probate, and to prove these facts was generally found to be a very difficult thing to accomplish. As an evidence how this worked, he would mention one case. A will had been executed in India with all the due formalities, and two witnesses were present, both natives of India. It was suggested that it would be desirable to have one European witness, and one was sent for. Before he arrived, however, the testator had executed the will—he did not acknowledge it in the presence of this witness, and it was in consequence declared to be invalid, arising from excess of caution in endeavouring to comply with unnecessary rules. Nay, he believed it sometimes led to fraud; for the heir who wished to overturn a will had merely to say to the attesting witnesses that he was displeased with the provision made for them—that something better should be given them; and then he would ask whether they had signed it in the presence of the testator. It might happen that they would not recollect, or could not, and it was found on these occasions very difficult to refresh the memory of the attesting witness when his interest was opposed to his recollection. He confessed that he had considerable doubts as to the propriety of requiring the witnesses to be present when the testator's signature was affixed. The main object to be effected was to secure the greatest possible amount of uniformity, and the absence of anything like a series of questions and decisions hereafter upon the subject. Would the present Bill have that effect? He ventured to say that not a single lawyer conversant with wills in the courts of probate had been consulted who had expressed his belief that such would be the effect of the Bill; and, for himself, he believed that the clause, as it stood, could not possibly obviate the existing evils. The defect of the Bill was, that it left the evil principle untouched, but it pursued the various decisions made to enforce that principle, and repealed them; but new cases and fresh decisions would arise which the Bill did not, and could not, meet. The law should be such that every man might be able to make a will, which, being signed by him and attested by two witnesses, should be binding. If they had that, they would require nothing more; the law would be perfectly intelligible, and it would give effect to every will intended to be bonâ fide. Forged wills were fortunately very rare; but where they did exist it was the unanimous testimony of all acquainted with the subject that in such the formalities were most strictly observed, and that all these technicalities only affected bonâ fide wills. Under these circumstances he begged to press upon his right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Solicitor General the propriety and importance of referring this Bill to a Select Committee, that it might receive that due consideration which would enable the House to pass a measure to remedy the existing evils. If the Committee could go through the clauses in the present Session, and agree upon the framework, there would be no difficulty in passing a Bill speedily through Parliament; but even if the delay of another Session should be the consequence, the evil would not be so great as passing a crude and imperfect measure which should give rise to a new series of decisions in courts of probate, and the necessity of amending it again in a future Session of Parliament. Upon these grounds he would suggest that the Chairman should now report progress, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell) that it was impossible to overrate the importance of this subject; but regretted that he was obliged to differ from his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls as to the expediency of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, or interposing any delay whatever to its passing into law. Let them consider the state of the law when the Bill was brought in, and remember what was the object of his noble and learned Friend in another place, and they would then see how necessary it was at once to carry out that object, and to perceive that delay would only tend to introduce confusion into the law, and to prevent any immediate remedy being applied to the existing evils, which were of a most serious character. While they were debating on this Bill, people were making their wills, and some of them were paying the debt of nature; and it was quite possible that many wills had been made in the interim, which, unless this Bill pass, would prove to be inoperative. For a moment he would call attention to the present state of the law. A great and important amendment had been introduced into it in 1837 by Lord Langdale. By it wills of reality and personalty were placed on the same footing: both were required to be executed by the testator at the foot, and to be attested by two Wit- nesses; and it was thought that by that Act the object of the Legislature had been attained, and that no doubt could arise. Nothing could be apparently more clear and simple than the provisions of that Act; but unfortunately a series of decisions had taken place upon the particular clause which required the will to be signed at the foot, which had had the effect of defeating the will of a great number of testators. It had been held by various Judges in various courts that where an interval was left of an inch or an inch and a half between the end of the will and the signature of the testator, such will was not valid; so also if it were written on one side, or in fact anywhere except immediately following the last word of the will. In consequence of this, and the evils and difficulties which arose under it, the noble and learned Lord who now sat upon the woolsack had felt it to be his duty at the earliest possible moment to bring the subject under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, and to suggest what he hoped would prove a complete and efficient remedy. He had heard with great surprise the observations which had been made upon the structure of this Bill by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury; and he had heard with equal surprise the disapprobation which had been expressed by the Master of the Rolls. He could not but remind the Committee that the noble and learned Lord who had performed the great service to the country of undertaking this task, was not only the greatest of living Equity lawyers, but that he possessed more extensive experience in that practice and administration of the law than any man now existing. Moreover, he was eminently familiar with the subject. He had published a work upon it, and had long dedicated his attention to it both at the bar and on the bench; and, above all, he was the author of some of the most useful Acts of Parliament relating to the disposition of property. Bringing all these great qualifications to the task, he had framed the Bill which was now submitted to the Committee for its approbation. He would just call the attention of the Committee to what the effect of the Bill was. Seeing that by the Act of 1837 it was enacted that no will should be valid unless signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator, and seeing that those words had given rise to doubts and to numerous decisions adverse to the express provisions of the wills of the testa- tors, what his noble and learned Friend proposed was this, that every will, so far only as regarded the position of the signature of the testator, or of the person signing for him, should be deemed to be valid, whether the signature should be placed at, or after, or following, or under, or beside, or opposite to the end of the will. Now, what was the grievance intended to be remedied? It was this—that whereas the statute contained the expression "at the foot of the will," and unless the signature appeared at the end of the last word of the will, the will itself was declared to be invalid. The remedy proposed was, that whenever the signature should be placed upon or to the will, so that it should be apparent upon the face of the will that the testator intended to give effect by such signature to the writing as his will, it should have that effect. He apprehended it was not the intention of the noble and learned Lord, nor the intention of that House, to enter upon the general subject of the making and execution of wills, but to remedy a specific grievance. He would not say that much that had fallen from the Master of the Rolls was not entitled to the serious attention of the Legislature; but the question at present before them was this—that whereas, there being one specific grievance that required to be remedied, was the remedy proposed an effectual remedy? He apprehended that it was. With regard to other defects of the law of wills which required amendment, he should be happy to concur with the Master of the Rolls in any proposal he might hereafter bring forward to amend the law in those respects. His hon. and learned Friend considered the specification of the particulars which should not affect the validity of a will to be superfluous; but since those particulars were in fact the decisions of the Courts on account of which wills had been declared invalid, unless they were particularised, in order that it might be declared that they should not in future invalidate a will, even the adoption of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend would not prevent the Prerogative Court to-morrow again declaring a will to be invalid, if similar objections were to be raised against it as any of those which had formed the ground of such previous decisions. He apprehended, therefore that the whole of the clause was necessary to supply a sufficient remedy to the specific evil that existed; but he by no means affirmed that all the evils arising out of the Act of 1837 would he remedied by this Bill. He would add one word more. His right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bethell), seemed to suppose that these Acts of Parliament were intended only as a guide to those who made a will as to how they were to make it. But that, he apprehended, was not the intention of an Act of Parliament. The great mass of the makers of wills seldom looked at an Act of Parliament to learn how to make their wills. It was not the province of Parliament to teach people how to make their wills; it was rather to inform Courts of Justice how they were to interpret wills when they came before them, and how they were to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the execution of those wills. The true question was this, would an Act of Parliament thus framed enable a Court of Justice which had to pronounce upon a will to do justice and give effect to that which was clearly the intention of the testator? With regard to this clause, he thought, as it was now-framed, it was calculated most effectually to remedy the evil which existed under the Act of 1837; whereas the Amendment of his hon and learned Friend would leave all future wills open to the very objections which it was the object of this Bill to put an end to. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would agree to the clause without any alteration whatever.

said, that no person could dispute the gratitude which the public ought to feel towards the noble and learned Lord for attempting to remedy a grievance which was pressing with great severity upon a large portion of the people. No person could dispute the magnitude of the evil, or the necessity of the remedy; but it was quite another thing to say that the Bill in its present imperfect form should be placed upon the Statute-book. He only regretted that the Bill had not long ago been referred to a Select Committee. Very little time would have been lost; but when it was proposed, the Solicitor General said, the delay would be fatal. He recollected that the Bankrupt Bill, which contained 280 clauses, had been passed through the House in about six hours after it had been referred to a Select Committee. In this instance the Bill only contained four clauses; it might therefore be disposed of in Committee in two days, and pass through Parliament in a couple of hours. He could not concur in the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, that it was not necessary for the public to understand the Bill, if it became law. If anything came home to men's bosoms, the making their wills did so; and it was very well known that in the great majority of cases wills were made without professional assistance. It appeared to him that the measure, as it stood, was so encumbered with a farrago of words, that, instead of making the matter clearer to ordinary apprehensions, it involved it in additionsl mystification. A whole string of words—"at, or after, or following, or under, or beside, or opposite"—were set forth to indicate the position of the signature; all of them simply meaning, as was admitted by the Solicitor General himself, "wherever" such signature was placed. Why, then, instead of this string of words, not have the word "wherever?" Or, why the string of unmeaning "ors" which followed? Why not simply adopt the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend to omit from the present statute those words which had created all the difficulties—"at the end or foot?" Then followed a set of words, the reason for whose introduction into the Bill he was quite at a loss to conceive. The Solicitor General indeed said that unless they were inserted they could not tell that, if any one of the cases referred to occurred again, the same decisions which were now condemned might not be given again, and the same evils which it was now sought to remedy might not again arise. But it was plain that all these decisions and these evils had arisen from the words "at the end or foot" in the existing statute, and that when they were removed, the difficulty would cease. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, seemed indeed to have felt that the enumeration of these circumstances, which were not to affect the validity of the signature, was not sufficient; for the clause went on to say that their enumeration should not affect the generality of the enactment. Why, then, insert them at all? for the only effect of their statement would he to confuse the minds of simple persons. But then followed a portion of the clause the effect of which would be absolutely mischievous, for it declared that "no signature under the said Act, or this Act, shall be operative to give effect to any disposition or direction which is underneath, or which follows it." Now, suppose a person after signing his name, fancying he had concluded, thought of something additional, and wrote it at the side, and a little below his signature, this will would be invalidated by the words to which he had referred, although the witnesses might have signed their names below it, and although the testator might have acknowledged it as his disposition in their presence. Now this would be a most unjust proceeding, and would create very extensive mischief. All that they wanted to know was, whether a man, by his signature, really meant to attest the document to which it was placed as his will. It would be a discredit to the Statute-book to adopt such a farrago of words as this clause contained; and he begged Her Majesty's Government to assent to the Bill going to a Select Committee, that this clause might be considered, and the Bill sent back to them in a proper

said, this Bill came down to them from the House of Lords, from a Select Committee of very distinguished lawyers, and he thought it was therefore a very extraordinary thing for the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed them to propose that it should be referred to a Select Committee of that House. What was the mischief which this Bill proposed to remedy? The Act of Victoria requiring the signature to be at the foot of the will, the question of validity of the will came to be decided not by a rule of law but one of space; and this Bill, therefore, provided that wherever the signature was placed, the will should be valid, if it was apparent on the face of the document that it was the intention of the person signing to attest it as his will. The next part of the Bill negatived every bad decision heretofore made condemning the wills of honest men; declaring that none of the objections which had prevailed heretofore should do so hereafter. But lest it should be contended that only the enumerated defects were remedied, the Bill went on to say that the enumeration of these circumstances should not affect the generality of the enactment. He contended that the clause was therefore sufficient to remedy the mischief complained of—first, because it provided where the signature should be placed; second, because it negatived every bad decision; and, lastly, that the particularity of the language employed should not impair the generality of the enactment. The Bill was not intended as a general statute on the subject of wills, but it would be a useful reform; and it expressed, not by a jumble or a labyrinth of words, but very clearly and distinctly, what it intended to accomplish; and he therefore hoped that it would receive the support of the House.

said, that in the course of the present debate, it had been proposed to strike out all those words which had been placed in the Bill in the other House of Parliament, and to insert another clause. It was also admitted that the original clause was the work of a noble and learned Lord, the greatest lawyer now living; and was not only his production, but had also received the sanction of the whole House of Peers, comprising the eminent Judges who sat in that House. To hear it said, therefore, that what had thus passed the House of Lords, was a mere farrago of words, showed the debate had declined into something very far from the real debate on the clause. The principle of the clause was plain; it declared what should be a sufficient authentication of a will, and what was called a farrago of words was a plain and accurate description of what certain Judges had declared not to be an execution of a will under the existing law, and a declaration that in so doing they had proceeded on a misinterpretation of the existing law, or, at all events, of the intention of the Legislature. Could they proceed on a safer principle than to say that the existing law should remain in force, but with a distinct correction of the misinterpretations? He thought it was not reasonable to refer this Bill, which had passed the House of Lords, and had received the sanction of the Lord Chancellor and of all the law Lords who sat in the Upper House, to a Select Committee, seeing that no two of the lawyers who had criticised it had agreed with respect to the language in which another enactment ought be framed. Neither the Master of the Rolls nor the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood) would adopt the Amendment before the House; and yet the latter had promised that if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, it would be brought into a better shape in a couple of days. He believed that if that Committee were composed of the lawyers who had addressed the House that night, the only conclusion to which they could come would be, that some authority should decide between their different views, and that they would take as the best the authority of the House of Lords, from which the measure had emanated. All were agreed that there ought to he an Act passed this Session. The object of the Bill was, that these objectionable decisions of the ecclesiastical courts should not continue the law of the land, and every body was agreed that these decisions ought not to be the law of the land. If, then, the Amendment were adopted, they would have, instead of a legislative enactment annulling those decisions, a new set of decisions, a new mode of construction, and something would be required ten years hence for the very purpose which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked the Committee to repudiate. A safer principle he never saw in any Bill. The late Solicitor General had shown so little of his usual accuracy that he had misapprehended the scope of the Bill. He seemed to think that this Bill repealed the law as to wills being signed at the foot or end; but was it not a safer thing to take the existing law passed in 1837, and, with ten years' experience, add this explanation, than to repeal the most important section by which the whole authority of that Act would be set at nought? He was not prepared so to deal with such a question. The same criticism might be made upon any enactment as had been pronounced upon this. The House would consider that the referring to a Select Committee was, in fact, only a mode of rejecting the Bill for the present Session. Instead of two or three days being occupied in discussion, if it went back to the House of Lords altered by a Select Committee, it would be referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and would not pass this Session. The proposal to send it to a Select Committee was, therefore, a proposal to leave the law in the disgraceful state to which it had been brought by decisions contrary to the spirit of the Statute of 1837.

observed, that the reason why the words "signed at the foot of the will" were originally introduced, had been lost sight of. It was done to prevent fraud, for it was well known that by inserting dispositions on the second sheet after the will had been signed, great frauds had been committed on the families of testators. He knew a case where a person had lost a large fortune by a fraudulent insertion of a disposition contrary to the wishes of a testator on the second page. If, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, those fraudulent practices could not be guarded against, and the law would be left open to all the difficulties that now existed.

said, his object in referring the Bill to a Select Committee was not to prevent its passing this year, but to obtain the assistance of some of the learned Judges and those most conversant with the practice of the Courts of Equity, to put the Bill in a proper form. He reminded the House that a Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners recommended the course with respect to wills which was now suggested. He would move that the Chairman report progress, with the view of having the Bill referred to a Select Committee; but if he should not succeed, he would not trouble the House further.

was understood to say he was sorry his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls should press his Amendment to a division, because the effect of sending the Bill to a Select Committee would be to send it to a Committee of lawyers, who would all differ on the subject. He thought they were more differing on the peculiar mode in which the Bill should be worded, than upon the effect it would have when brought into practical operation. The law relating to the execution of wills would remain as settled in the year 1837—namely, that the testator should sign in the presence of two witnesses, and those witnesses should sign in the presence of the testator, and in presence of each other. The effect of this Bill would not be to alter the law of wills with reference to their execution, but would simply say that the Judges were not to put that forced construction upon the Act of Parliament which had had the effect of leaving a vast number of wills unadministered. He hoped the Committee would pass the clause.

moved an Amendment making the clause applicable to the wills of all persons departing this life after the passing of this Act.

opposed the Amendment as unnecessary, the clause having already a prospective effect.

objected to legislating on so important a subject in so hurried a manner. He feared the system of legislation upon which they were entering would lead to endless ligitation, and place the law in such a state as to be unintelligible to anybody.

said, the Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members a long time; and as no lawyer except the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury had offered an Amendment, which the House had negatived, he thought there was no reason why the Bill should be delayed. He considered the Act ought to apply to every will already made in cases in which vested rights had not been acquired.

said, that this was an enabling Bill—to enable certain burghs in Scotland to raise money for the purpose of improving their harbours. The Bill had been recommended by two Commissions, and had been revised and approved of both by the Board of Admiralty and the Board of Trade. It was considered of very great importance by these burghs, because at present they had no means of improving their harbours without the power of raising money on the security of rates which the Bill would enable them to levy. He was informed that unless some measure of this kind was passed during this Parliament, some of these harbours would become utterly unless during the ensuing winter.

said, he must oppose the Motion, upon the ground that it was not desirable that these small boroughs should have the power of levying rates on exports and imports.

said, he should support the Bill, and hoped the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would state the reasons of the Government for opposing the measure.

said, he was not satisfied that the Bill placed a proper check upon the taxing power proposed to be conferred by the Bill. Nothing could be done under the Bill before the summer of 1853, and therefore it was unnecessary to pass it in a hurried manner.

would suggest that at that late hour the Committee on the Bill should be postponed.

moved that the debate on Maynooth College be adjourned till To-morrow, at twelve o'clock.

said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. It was now nearly two o'clock in the morning, and it was too much to ask the Speaker and hon. Members to come down again at twelve, and then sit till four or five, and expect the Government to go on with their business after that. It would be impossible for the Government to discharge its functions—it would be impossible for any Ministry to get through the business of the several departments of the Administration, if the Members of it were in this way to be obliged to sit from twelve o'clock in the day until two o'clock the next morning. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press the Motion.

had no doubt the hon. Member for Boston would accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He had no doubt the proposition was made to invite the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] If the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh" had been present at eight o'clock on Tuesday, the difficulty would not have arisen. There would have been four hours to continue the discussion, and bring the question to a division. But it was known to every one that it was not intended to make a House at eight o'clock. He himself heard it stated. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in answer to a remark of that kind, said that he himself must be present. He meant the hon. Member who moved for the continuation (Mr. Newdegate), because his hon. Colleague was absent. And so with the hon. Member for Boston, who, having moved the adjournment, was entitled to precedence on resuming the debate. Every single Member of the Cabinet was absent; and with the exception of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Hamilton), every Gentleman in the remotest degree con- nected with the Government was also absent. The majority of those present were Members of the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. Mackenzie) was absent. Why did he mention those facts? In order to enable the Government to do something to facilitate the object of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. Member for Boston, and to enable them to resume the discussion at an early day. As the difficulty had been created by the Government, whose duty it was to make a House at eight o'clock, they ought to give up a night for the discussion. They took care not to be present at eight o'clock, and other hon. Members took care that the debate should not be brought on on Wednesdays; and now, at two o'clock in the morning, they were called upon to enact this most idle farce. If the Government would not fix a day, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and those who acted with him, instead of making impossible Motions, ought to move that the Order be discharged.

said, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that he had a right to resume the debate at eight o'clock on Tuesday; for the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) was not willing to postpone his Motion, and there were two other Motions on the paper afterwards. He was willing to make any arrangement, so that it should be understood he was willing to go on with the debate.

did not complain of the proceedings of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). On the contrary, the hon. Member's proceedings met with his entire approbation. There was not a Roman Catholic Member who would not join with him in saying that the hon. Member was the most harmless antagonist they ever met with. He (Mr. Keogh) was not in favour of a twelve o'clock sitting this day, and he should like to know who was. What was the condition of the Government on this question? There sat the hon. Member for Peebles—he who had jumped through three hoops upon this question. There sat the hon. Member for Peebles, the whipper-in of the Treasury bench, and there sat the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, with that tone of deep anxiety which had characterised his whole career, said he could not think of asking the Speaker to resume the chair earlier than eight o'clock, leaving the impression that the Government would make a House at that hour. But what was the fact? There was not a single Member of the Government present, except the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hamilton), who did not profess to take the active part of the hon. Member for Peebles, the candidate for Liverpool. It only wanted the hon. Member for Peebles to make a House. Where were all the Members of the Government, who had been going from John o'Groat's to the Land's End, declaring hostility to the Maynooth Grant? They shirked the debate because they wanted to go to the Derby. All the Committees were allowed to sit on that day; and yet forty Members could not be found to discuss the all-important question of Maynooth. Having asked where were Her Majesty's Government, he would ask where was the National Club? A club within earshot of the House could only muster three Members, and Her Majesty's Government contributed one. But where was the Colleague of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire? He asked the country to put this question to each eager and earnest opponent of the grant—why were you not there at eight o'clock last Tuesday evening, and why did you come at two o'clock in the morning and ask the House to get you out of the scrape in which you find yourselves?

expressed his regret at having been taken by surprise by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), the whipper-in of the late Government. He certainly did not expect the Whig whipper-in would have taken such a course, when there were on the paper three Motions on that side of the House—one by the hon. Member for Lambeth, one by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, which he insisted on bringing forward, and one by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He was at the door six minutes after eight, and, to his surprise, heard that the Whig whipper-in had counted the House. The most persevering attempt had been made to bring the question to a division; and the hon. Member for Athlone, gifted with the acute-ness which was the characteristic of his countrymen, could not so far humbug, or rather delude, the people of England, as to prevent their understanding the process which, as the leader of a certain section of Roman Catholics, the hon. Member was pursuing. He would ask the Government whether there was no day at twelve o'clock, or any other hour, at which the question could be brought to an issue? The advo- cates of the measure had endeavoured to do so, and would persevere; and although the hon. Member for Athlone might try to talk the question out of the House, he would see that its advocates were determined to let the people of England understand who were really favourable to an inquiry into Maynooth, and who were not.

said, that it was in that House first that he desired the subject to be discussed, for out of it discussed it would be. A grave and disastrous imputation had been indirectly cast upon the members of his Church, on account of the books that were said to be used as text-books at Maynooth. Now, he would boldly state that to all the imputations thrown out upon the loyalty, the truth, and the purity of the doctrines of the members of his Church, he would give a flat denial. If the documents which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire quoted from, had any existence at all, they were repudiated by the clergymen of his religion. He courted discussion on the subject; and he, therefore, called upon Her Majesty's Ministers to respond to the appeal made to them by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).

thought it was a mere waste of time to continue this discussion. It could scarcely be expected, considering what the hour then was—a quarter past two o'clock—that the debate could be resumed at twelve that day. He would therefore suggest that the most convenient course would be to put a stop to this desultory conversation, and to endeavour, when the House assembled in the evening, to come to some arrangement with regard to the day on which the debate might be resumed.

said, the House ought now to be made acquainted with the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers. It was clear they could not carry on this discussion without facilities from the Government, and the Government ought to say whether they were willing to afford these facilities. It was too much to say that the Irish Members wished to burke the discussion; for, after the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, it was impossible to go to a division without first having a full discussion of the subject. There had been as yet very little opportunity afforded for discussion; but the Irish Members were entitled to it, and the Government ought at once to say that they could not give them that opportunity, or that they would arrange for continuous morning sittings until the question was discussed.

considered it most desirable that the debate should be resumed as soon as possible, to enable the House to come to an early decision upon the question; and as he found that a strong feeling existed amongst Members around him that the Government should place no impediment in the way, and that another whole night should be given for the consideration of the subject, he would suggest that the debate be resumed at 5 o'clock this day. The hon. Member for Youghal had broadly asserted that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, and two hon. Members who had notices on the paper for Tuesday night, were willing to give way. He should wish to know upon what grounds the hon. Member made that assertion after the unequivocal declaration of the noble Lord that he would not consent to abandon his right to priority. He (Mr. Edwards) would not have taken notice of this had he not been censured as one of the absentees at the time the House should have been made. This was a question of such general interest throughout the country, and one in which a great portion of his own constituency felt so strongly, that he certainly would have been at his post at 8 o'clock on Tuesday evening, had he not believed that the discussions upon the other Motions on the paper would have occupied some hours. He would only add, that if instead of an investigation into the system of education pursued at Maynooth, the proposition had been one for the entire abrogation of the grant, he would have supported it with much greater satisfaction.

said, an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) had taunted the hon. Member for North Warwickshire with insincerity, while he claimed for himself and those who acted with him a sincere desire to bring the question to an issue. Now, he (Mr. Portal) would put the hon. Gentleman's sincerity to the test by asking him whether he was inclined at once to go to a division? Both sides of this question had been amply and fully discussed; and, considering the period of the Session, and the extreme difficulty in finding a day for renewing the discussion, hon. Members opposite ought to give evidence of their sincerity by assuring the House that if another day were fixed they would not occupy unnecessary time, and would on the day so named bring the debate to a close.

denied that hon. Members on his side of the House had had a fair opportunity afforded for discussion, for only two Roman Catholic Members had as yet spoken in this debate. Four hours occupied in a morning sitting would not be sufficient for the discussion of this question, and the Government were bound to afford not part of a morning, but a whole evening, for the renewal of the debate.

said, the House might have come to a division long ago if it had not been for hon. Gentlemen opposite. As for the renewal of the discussion, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would tell him that the Government would give a day for that purpose, they (the Government) should have their own day and their own hour. But, if not, he would take the sense of the House now as to whether they should adjourn until twelve to-morrow.

called upon the hon. Gentleman to observe in what a position the Government were placed. He had given a day once in his hon. Friend's absence in the hope that this debate would be concluded then, or, if not in the morning, that it would, at least, be concluded at the evening sitting. Now the Government were asked to give another day, when they had themselves hardly a day to spare to get through the ordinary business of the Session, in order to facilitate a dissolution as soon as possible. The House would remember that they could have no day now until after the Whitsuntide recess, and then probably a similar objection to that made before would be urged again—namely, that it would be putting the debate off to a day which would be making a division futile. It had been said that this was a Motion brought forward by the sanction of the Government. Now, that was not so. The Motion was brought forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) upon his own account alone; and he (Mr. Walpole) had felt it his duty, as a Member of the Government, to take a course independent of any which his hon. Friend might think it right to take. The Government had nothing to do with this Motion, except just as any other person in that House had a right to express his sentiments upon the question, and he protested therefore altogether against the idea that the Government were bound to give a day on the ground of its being a Government Motion. He wished very much the debate had been brought to a close on Tuesday evening; but he thought if a morning were appointed for a renewal of the discussion, there could be no doubt there would be another adjourned debate. If another day were given, he hoped it would be understood that the House would come to a division on that day.

said, he had intended to move that the debate be adjourned till the 12th of August; but after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), he should withdraw his Motion, and vote with the Government in opposing the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, if the House came to a division. He was sincere in his desire to quash further proceedings in this matter; but he did not believe there were ten sincere men in that whole assembly at that moment who were not heartily sick of the question, and who did not wish they were out of it.

said, the only sincere Member in the House was the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Edwards), who said that his constituents were deeply interested in it; and he was anxious to be able to tell them that he had voted for the inquiry into Maynooth. He congratulated hon. Gentlemen opposite on the dissolution of partnership between the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the Government. To repeat the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied to the late Sir R. Peel's Government, the present position of affairs was nothing less than "a reorganised hypocrisy." The Irish Members did not want to divide—they wanted to speak, and they would put the opposite party on their trial, and convict them of rank and unadulterated bigotry and hypocrisy. If the Committee was granted to-morrow, they could not act, and he was then entitled to call it a rank unadulterated hypocrisy.

regretted the tone and temper the debate had assumed. The Government was placed in a peculiar position. They wanted a day, and if the matter was postponed to the end of August, a day must be had. The Protestant feeling of the country required it. He proposed to postpone the debate till that day, and then let the Government be prepared to name a day. The question must not be blinked, and the country required that it should be fully and entirely discussed,

then withdrew his Motion for resuming the debate at Twelve.