The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS--4YESTERDA ) The Loan CHANCELLOR took his beat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given .by Commission to the following bills : Industrial and Provident Societies ; Seamen's Savings Bank Annuities Redemption ; Stock in Trade Exemption ; Luton, Dunstable, and Welwyn Junction Railway ; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway (Extension and Branches) ; Middlesborough Improvement ; Tormohatit Water ; Yarmouth and Haddiscoe Railway ; Scottish Drainage and Improve ment Co. ; Lymington Railway ; Borough and Eamont Bridge Road, Donington Turnpike Trust, Claycross Water, Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway, Leeds Water, Eastern Union Railway, Bawtry and Tinsley Road, Godley Lane Road, and Shipton's Disabilities Removal. The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Breadalbane, and the Duke of Argyll. PRIVATE BUSINESS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following bills were read a second time :—lsle of Wight Steam Bridge and Approaches ; Metropolitan Railway ; Wave ney Valley Railway; East Indian Railway Company ; Severn Navigation Improvement Commission ; Cleobury North, , District Roads • Dorset Central Railway ; Wimbledon and Croydon Railway ; Stirling and Dun fermline Railway ; Dunblane, Donne, and Co.llandar Railway ; Rhoaydd Railway ; Conway and Llandudno Road. On the motion of the same noble lord the following bills were severally read a third time and paseed : West London and Crystal Palace Rail way, Bagenal9tnign :And Wexford Railway, London Printing and Publishing Company (Amendment..) • NAWAB OF SURAT BILL. -•- - - Lord LYNDHURST asked whether the law officers of the Crown bad been consulted as to their opinion of the construction of the treaty entered into with the East India Company and the late Nawab of Surto, and if so, whether the Government would have any objection to lay a copy of the opinion on the table ? The Duke of ARGYLL said he was not aware of any formal question laaviog been put to the law officers of the Crown by her Majesty's Government as to the construction of that treaty. He was therefore unable to say what their opinion was on the subject. On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, • The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH asked whether the Government were prepared - to give the assent of the Cr iwn to the second reading of this hill, which would affect the revenues of the Crown, inasmuch as the coin• pang were only the trustees fur the Crown in She man agement of the affairs of India. The Duke of ARGYLL said he was not prepared to give the assent of the Crown to this bill. The Marquis of CLA.NRICARDE then. nese, and moved the second reading of the bd. He contended that it was founded on justice, and that the heirs of the Nawab were clearly entitled to a continuance of the payment of the money which the treaty secured to them. 'nesse could be no question tat in this case wrong bad been done. The President of the Board of Trade had admitted it, and the Solicitor-General bad spoken and voted in favcur of the claim. Every legal authority in the House of Gammons, with the exception of one (a gentleman who was one of the leading counsel to the East . India Company), had . taken the• same view, and that view he trusted their lordships would confirm by passing the second reading of the bill. (Hear.) The Duke of ARGYLL believed that his noble friend the chairman of committees bad moved that the bill .be visa a, 'third time that day three months. Undoubtedly that'amendment was proposed upon a point of form ; but ha believed be could •convince the house that in rejecting the measure upon the point of form they would do no : injustice upon the merits. Tne fact of hit nobleiriend (Lsrd Redesdale) refusing to under take the conduct of the bill, as he would do, as a matter of course, in- the case of an ordinary private bill, was a strong presumptive proof that there was some thing objectionable in it. The standing orders com mittee bad examined the bill and reported that none of the standing orders which the house had raised for the protection of public and private interests in private bill legislation were applicable t 3 it, the natural inference being that it ought to be treated as a public bill, if en tertained at all. That it affected the public interests wan beyond question, for it dealt with the revenues of the Crown to the extent in capital of half a million of money. And with regard to private interests it affected injuriously the private rights of a number of poor indi viduals in India, who, as far as be knew, had no know ledge that any such measure was in contemplation. He denied that the claimant bad suffered any substantial in jesiiee to warrant his appealing to Parliament. There were two questions involved—first, the di-posal of the public annuity granted by the E tat India Company under the treaty to the Nawab of Surat and his sue censor ; and, secondly, the distribution of the private estate. W 7 itli regard to the first he con tended, by a reference to,the trees) , itself, the diary of Geverner Duncan, the report of Sir G. Arthur, and the decisi in of the governor-general in council upon that report, that the iiitenton was that the annuity should attach to the Naseabsirip, and that such was the interpretation put upon it by the Nawab himself whet! the treaty was first concluded. The next point to which he alluded was the at empt of his noble friend to cast odium ors the C oirt of Directors. To show how unjust was this, he would refer the house to the general iustruc• tions of the Court of Directers, which wets, that the Nawab's family should be liberally dealt with ; in fee-, in the end they granted pensions to every one of them They chid the Bombay Government for their niggardli ness in the first instance, and at the present moment nn less than 11,0001 out of the 15.0001. claimed was by their order distributed amongst the family. Ha mann tained, then, that on the whole the Ceropany bad be lieved fairly and liberally to the Na Nab of Surat and his faintly.. He did not mean to say that, questions iniet,ht net arise out of this ancient for the judicial committee of the Privy Council ; but was it Lac under the fects wh ch he had related, to take ad vantage of the passing unpopularity of the cempeny to for . * a private bill through Parliament. Supposing the judicial committee to decide in favour of the claim, what were they to do wittr , the annuities which had been granted ? They must still be paid, and this necessity would place the Government in a difficult position. He should mention also, that when the priva•e property of the late Nawab was to be divided, Sir R. Arbuthnot decided that the present claimant was not entitled to any part of it. Nay, more, this very man was a consent ing party, to that arrangement. A special act was passed, authorising a.n agent to act in the distribution of the pro perty, and in it eas a clause suggested by the present claimant, going directly against the present application Only two years since he appealed to the Privy Council, and the decision was given by Sir Knight Bruce, to the effect the, no appeal lay in the case. Having cautioned the house against the impolicy of reopening the case, and thus disturbing the annuities which had been so long en joyed by a number of poor people, the noble duke con cluded by declaring his intention to oppose the bill. The Earl of ALBEIVIARLE'dteied the right of the Indian Company to be heard as against the Govern ment, of which they were merely a subordinate depart ment. The E srl of ELLEN BOROUG a said the noble duke ha l so clearly explained the case that it would bo unne cessary for him to trouble the house at any length He was not generally so fortunate as to be able to praise the conduct of the India Cimpany, but in this case he thought they had acted as became commissioners between the people of England and the people of India. They had no personal interest in it, and bat merely acted ac. cording to law and custom. It was perfectly ridiculoum to talk of the female heirs of a Nawab, and therefore the case set up in this claim was perfectly untenable. Having given the case his carefal cnn‘ileration, he was determined to oppose the bill. Let him imagine a parallel case. Suppose Moldavia and Wallachia to be released from the suzerainty of tie Porte, and to grant in return an annuity to the Sultan and bis heirs. Did any one imagine that it the Sultan's an hority were de stroyed, the Principalities would continue t , .) pay the an nuity amongst the Sultan's daughters, the wives of all the Pachas ? And yet this was precisely the case against which he Nished to guard their lordships, and he warned them that there were more to come, which were only waitiiig the decision ti which their lordshiPs might come that e yelling. He tru-ted that the question, whether by the treaty of 1800 the ant.uity was settled 'to the heirs male of the Nawab, would be submitted to the Judicial Committee. (Rear.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE replied. He also hopea that this matter would be judicially inquired into. But when that was done he truged that steps would be taken to carry the decision of the Judicial Committee into effect, even although a special act should he required to enforce the decision to which the Judicial Committee might c >me. After a few words from Lord DEMEAN, The second reading was negatived without a division. COM3IIS3IONERS OF SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL. The report of amendments 'sag reoeived. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL. This bill aai rea 1 a seco . ud time. DISTILLATION FRO..NI RICE BILL. This bill wag read a second • EVIDENCE IN FOREIGN SUITS BILL. This bill - pasoed through DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASES (IRELAND) BILL. Thislaili passed. through commit - ''• • BILLS (1,000,000 i.) BILL. Thii bill passed throughirnittto. C44O II TDGE UNIVERSITY BILL The rep.vrt of amenilin,rits wa.'recAved. S7.!IALL• DEBTS IMPROVENiENT- ACT AMEND MENT "(SCOTLAND) BILL. Tts4'bill wag read a•tt•irc• tirne'iv,d passed. CPLIZT-07EOEFECMEII, (SCQTLSND)'BiLL. Ve LORD C - 020 NCELLOR, in ninvi" g the ground reading of this bill, bri e fly explained objectthatthe of the measure was the abolition of th e C ourt of Exchequer of Scotland, and the merger of the jurisdiction of that couft4 the Court of Seesion. thtielOrdshipe adjourned at 8 o'clock. • , HOUSE -OP COMMONS. -.. ( 17 ;......,ERDAY.) en e ,tgia,ticeit_took the chair at the usual hour. • PRIVATE BUSINESS. - - The Lord-! f... , ,n,a!tnent3 to the f,):lo.ving were 3 ,-, re ei; to : lin%.ll.qh ‘V,lter rits - T 1 ,t) AD. j r ;, to,r.(-t ..wanca Mouse ; Stockton 'and Darling,tou and Newcastle and Carlisle Union Railway ; Swansea Vale Railway. Bell's Estate Bill was read a second time and passed. BEDFORD CHARITY. Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the trustees of the Bedford Charity, under _their coannon seal, complaining of the very heavy charges entailed upon their charity funds, owing to the unnecessary pro moting of, two bills in Parliament which 'were never passed into law by the Attorney General. The petition was read at length at the table. The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said in explanation that the bills alluded to were not actually brought in by himself, but by the trustees of the charity, and were read a second time. On the recommendation of Sir Page Wood the bills were withdrawn, iu consequence of a compromise. All he had done in the matter was to carry out the orders of the Court of Chancery. Sir J. DUKE, in the absence of the Hon. Stuart Wortley, begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the G ,vernment would as sist the Corporation of the City of London in passing e bill, during the present session, to extend the right of voting its the election of aldermen and members of the Common Council to all occupiers within the city who were on the Parliamentary register ? Sir G. GREY said he had received a copy of the bill, but as it was limited in its operation it would have to be introduced and proceeded with as a private bill. The standing orders of the house would prevent such a course at this late period of the session, but if the difficulty with respect to- these orders were surmounted he shauld have no otjection to the laying the bill on the table, but he should object to proceeding with the measure at this late period of the ses4on. MR. JAMES SADLEIR. Mr. MOORE asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it was true that Mr. James Sadleir had been permitted to leave Ireland without having been arrested ; and whether any steps had been taken for the arrest and prosecution of the said James Sadleir by her Majesty's Government ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said he had spoken fully upon this subject on a previous occasion. The hon. gentleman then pr Iceeded to allude to the observations made by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland respecting steps not being taken against certain parties as participators in the frauds committed by Mr. (Tolin - Salleir. In consequence of those obser vations he had been to Ireland, and there he could snd 'nothing to assist him in his endaavonrs to carry out a prosecution. The most active steps bad been' taken both iu this country and in Ireland for the apprehension of Mr. James Sadleir. With respect to the latter part of the question he begged to say that if it was intended t o convey an idea that the Government had permitted Jas. Sadleir to escape, that he would simply say wasnotafact. Warrants had been issued for the apprehension of Sad leir, and most active steps were at the present - moment being taken to prevent his eluding justice. CLOCK TOWER DEVICE—HOUSES OF ?AR. LIAMENT. Lord R. GROSVENOR, amidst much ,laughter, asked the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether it was too late to substitute a, weathercock for the devizti now placed on the summit of the Clock Tower, and complained that the only weathercock in the neighbour hood was tbat at St. James's. Palace I Sir B. HALL said that in coining down to the house he saw plenty of weathercocks—(laughter)--an , l he had no doubt the noble lord etiutd-find many weathercocks on both sides of the house. (Renewed laughter.) Mr. PULMAN. the Dvuty Usher of the Black Rod, summoned the Speaker and the members of the house to the House of Lords, to hear the R )Sal assent given 'by commission to various bills (for which see Lords' report). MILITIA COLONELS. ing to the second rea ling of the bill, to pro,ide the only practical remedy for an admitted evil which lay_in their power. Mr. - BOWYER then rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the bill.be read a second time that,day three months, and proceeded to comment at some length upon the unsa tisfactory character of the House of Lords as at present constituted, as a court of appeal, adducing in support of his argument the well-known fact that the Loid Chancellor oltea sat alone to pronounce a judgment upon cases in which the appeal lay against a decision which he himself had previously pronoun7ed. The hone and learned gentle- man then referred tq the provisions of thAbill, thdoperatiim .4 which he contended would be to, create a great constitu tional change in the,charaeter. of the Upper Hotise ; by dividing its members into two classes—hereditary peers ind peers for life. That he conceived to be an alteration so importan't that he did not think it Might to obtain the sanction of the house under cover of a' measure which pro- posed simply to deal with the appellate jurisdiction of the °tiler branch of the Legislature.. Another objecti , ,n which he entertained to the bill wa', that whereas that jurisdiction was regarded as being exercised by the " Queen and her Parliament," it provided that the L'rd Chancellor and the new deputy spiakers might hear ap peals out of session—thus interfering with a ..constitu tional principle which stated that Parliament could not be divided in point of time. He might also ob serve, that he looked with no inconiiderahle degree of apprebinsion at the probable operation of the - words at the end of the sth clause, to the effect that the proposed tribunal might not only deal with appeals and writs of err.J., but with " all matters connected therewith," during a, period when Parliament might not happen to be sitting. Those words opened the way to encroachments upon the privileges of the House of Com •1001:13, which he did not think it stall desirable should exist. (Hear.) While dealing with that point he might be permitted to ask whether the new Tribunal would be en abled to sit during the period which must elapse between the dissolution of one and the assemblin g of another Par lia,ment ? If such were not the case great inconvenience might be the result—an inconvenionce for which he thought some t emedy should, possible, be provided. The learned gentleman then referred to the various function ariei whom it was proposed should be eligible to be selected as deputy speakers, stating his objection to the inclusion among the 'number of the judges of the Admiralty arid .Pre rogative .Courts, upon the ground that the cases With which the new tribunal would be called Upon to deal were not such as usually came under the consideration of those judge's, lie also, wsuining that one of the new function- . aries was to be a Scotch and one a common law judge 7— pointed out the absurdity which in his opinion would result from sUbmitting appeals from the Lords Justices to a tribunal upon which there would be only 1 equity judge ; from 10 common law judges, in cases of writs of error, to a tribunal upon which only 1 common lag judge would pre-ide ; and from the 15 judges of goottand to a tribunal upon which there would be only one person conv,rsant with Scotch la*. He would next point out what he C. - msidered the great constitutional defect in the bill. L would continue the exi s te nce o f two courts of appeal in this country—the House of Lords' and the Judi ial Committee of the Privy Giuncil. 'He believed . that any measure which would leave that state of things undiaorbed 'would necessarilybe uniatisfactory. The existence of two co-ordinate courts of appeal was more objectionable iu this than in any other country, be• cause we had no comprehensive code to guide our judges in t.ieir decision's.. A. considerable portion of our law was made up of decisions of theju(iges, and of late years they had innined —and Lei ,ecl very properly, as . he thought —to the panties of looking more to subt.tantial justice than to, technical forms. But that very practice had ren• dered our jurisprudence less fixed than ever, and he believed that peopre in general had no idea hlw arbi trary' the power of our judges had - become. Our law wa it', present-in a transitory state ; the boundaries between law and equity were not so distinct as they had been ; and the tealency of.our judges was to unite the two sys• tens as much a i possible. In ti oh a state of things the establishment of a' single appalls o tribunal, whi c h would Col. FRENCH moved for an address for a return of the names of colonels of militia in Great Britain_and Ireland, appointed since the 30th day of March, 1853, who hadreceived pay during the time their regiment-5 had been embodied,--;Areeri to. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERA.NNUATION FUND The CHANCELLOR of the EXC a EQUER. brought up the report of the select committee in reference to th•• Civil Service Superannuation Fowl, which was receive ! and ordered to be laid on the table. THE TE RMAGANT. e . . - give fility tea the 'law, was peculiarly desirable ; and without it he - feared that it would be vain to attempt es e make any comprehensive consolidation of our system o f .. jurisprudence. e He felt perstaaded.. that, without the U ui t of °mistake.' in France, the bode Napoleon could never .bave been successfully a ituiaistere.d. The hon: and learned gentleinati (the Att aney-Gerieral) had asked what churse they could adopt for improVing out appellate system if they were to throw. out that measure. `Now, in •reply to that queetion,•he - (Mr. Bewyer), had to state that an obvious . remedy cou'd, its his . pinion; be devised for the evil . which they then wished to remove. He wotrA propose that a Supreme court of appeal should be eppoietod, consisting of five' of tee best men to be foun I on the. bench and at the bar, and that to that court sh mld be transferred the appellate jurisdiction at present exercise 1 by the, House of Levis, as well as that exer cised by the Judicial Commute : ef the Privy Council. He could•CounAve only one objection t , thatscheme, and that was, that it would le id to a coesiderabln outlay. B it he dal not think the House of Commons . wool I grudge any sum which mieEt be failay expended in esta blishing a therouglay efficient appellate system in this • country. He would further suggest that the expendi ture to be time created should be partially met by re moving a judge from the Court of Exchequer and an ether from the Court of Common Pleas. There could be no doubt that the county c urts had of !we years con siderably lessened, and might be expected hereafter fur ther to lessen the amount of business transacted in the I courts of Westminster Hall ; arid he bid not think that any inconvenience could itylea from diminishing to the extent he heel stated the jlalicial strength of the el part ot Comm its P eas and of the Curt of Ex chequer. He Would further mike the proposed new a mar: a, court of crinaiical appeal. At present a man might appeal from a judgment in which a small sum of money was involved. but he ha I no right of appeal to a case in whica hie life Was at stake. The only remedy left to him was a writ of error, and that could only be applied in case the error was apparent on the record. But there might be error apparent, and yet a roan might be substantially guilty, and on tee other hand, there :eight be no such error, and yet a man might be really innocent. Appeals on the merits of a capital case c mld only be addressed to the Herne Secretary, who had Vine imposed upon him a meat invidious office, and one which it was impossible that he could be the pereen heat quali fied to di-charge. It appeared to him (Ylr. 13,wyer) that a great improveineet would be effected in our jula cial system by the establishment of a court of appeal which would have the power of granting a new trial on cause shown in criminal casee. He trusted he had shown that the bill would be ina 'equate for the purpose se hick it was intended it should accornp'illi ; that It was replete, with ab urdities on the face of it ; and that the working of it would be scarcely, if at all, more satisfactory than the working ot the system it was to supersede. He might be asked whether the weasuze ought not to be accepted as an experiment and as an instalment of right. But to that question he should reply in the eegative. If an abuse were left undisturbed it core titut-A at least a good ground for working on with a view to obtain a complete and comprehensive remedy. But if it were par tially (Seale witb at would only impede the further pre green of legi-lation. He bad to more, in conclusion, that the bi!l he read a second time that day siorenniths.. Mr. R. PHILLIMORE seconded the amendment. He did not think they could properly consider, at that period of the session, a bill which, for novelty and importance, was almost unprecedented in the history of our legislation. It was universally admitted that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lordi required amendment. His hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had asked wh a could be worse than the present state of that jut isiliction, but he (Ilia Phillimore) believed that it would b 3 still worse to pass a hasty and ill-considered measure, which would ren der permanent evils of which overybo ly complained. Oae of the objects of the bill was to sanction the appointment of life peerages of a very peculate character, and limited to one profession. The memberaof the House of Common. ought not to conceal from themselves that the effect of the measure as regarded life peerages would be practically to lituitalie peerage in favour of the;existing House of Lords, area he could not help looking upon such an innovation with great jealousy. Many of them had perhaps read the reinai kable debates of the year 1719, in the course of which Sir H. Walpole had succeeded, after an admirable display of eloquence and reasoning, in inducing the House of Com mons to throw out a bill which had passed the House Of Lords, having for its object- to limit the number of mem bers Of thet heuse. It was true that the present measure was of adifferent character, but he believed it would lead - practically to the Beane result. He would ask the supporters of the bill whether they thought it would be wise to rest the right to the peerage upon the possession of. wealth alone. For his part, he believe 1 that if the principle had always been adopted the British House of Lords would not be what it was--the oldest legislative body in the world. In considering that measure they we se bean I to inquire. ' into the. feuudation of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. ' His first objection to the bill was, that itieft. untouched the great anomaly of the existence of two supreme tribunals of appeal in this ceuntry. How came it, he would ask, that one of those tribunals had gra dually won, while the other bed gradually lost, the respect' and confidence of the public ? That was the first question . they had to .answer. The next question to which they ha f to direct their attention was, whether it would be possible to amalgamate those two' jurisdictions, or whe ther they would be obliged to vote 10,0001. a-year for two deputy speakere, in order that the House of Lords might be able. - to centinue to exercise that jurialiction which had been described in language so depreciatory by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General? Let it be remembered that the ,Ilence of Lords bad only obtained theirjurisdiction ,in matters of equity in the year 1675 , after a long atraggto, and he would venture to add without the shadow aright: He had further to Observe that up to the year IMO that jurisdiction had been exercised with the concurrence of the judges as assistants. It was true that the judges had not voted, although it was the opinion of no less an authority than Lord &mere, that Privy Coun- Cinema had ,a right to vote with the Lords, and , that he con sidered the judges as ancillary to the House of (Peers, and that,the t we subsisted together.. The bill, did not carry, Out the-doctrine artlackstorie, that the members of the ether house were entitled to voae by the-right of peerage. It did not state in terms, it was true, that lay piers Were . not to vote on ja. halal e ases; bat it stated that in effect end 'it therefore Itbaralohed altogether:'' theeprincipleof an' hereditary jurisdiction in the House of Lords, while it Set up another and. an inferior court insteed - of 'that-house He found diet at as late a period asa a he year. 1786 the lay . beers li al divided, on a judicial quAtion of the 'greatest iinportareeeein which the late Bishop.of London had been osiptiff, andin,waitch-Lord Thurlow had carried his opi. akin by YB, votes .against Lord Mansfield, who had been . itupparted by 17. ' His hon, and learned friend the Attor , aey-General had told thehe that lawyers did not at present Malee'laratelditattea, and that they could not wish on ag• fount - of their poverty, to receive , hereditary peerage& N . 4 hie hot: and learned friend intact be will able to de cide whether lawyers did nor did not at present receive very large incomes ; but he confessed • he had heard with itewe surprise the steteenent of his hon. and.learned friend teln that point. 'lt was perfectly: well 'known, at all vebts, that Lord' W ens l eydale, w h o had received the re cent appointment to a -life peerage - was a rich man, and ' that ' h e had no fiolat!eVut holtrii,Wd biiattutotiatitlinitto•, In answer to a question from Adtniral WALCOTT, Sir CHAS. WOOD said that the yellow fever had broken out on board the Termagant, on the West Indian Station, but not in a malignant form. The vessel ha been sent to the north war I, which was considered a spe cific against the further spread of the fever. THE RETURN . OF THE GUARDS, In reply to a question from llijor BARING, Lord PALMERSTON said the Guards, on_their en try on Wednesday into London on their return from tl - e Crimea, would march from the railway station to Char ing-cross, along Pall-mall, in at the gate near the G.!,r man chapel, and inaugurate, as it were, the opening of the road through the park to the public ; pass in front of Buckingham Palace and up Constitution Hill . Hyde Park. .He was unable to say at what hour the Guards would enter London, but it would be early in the day. The details were arranged by the Q larter master-General, but the Government was ans werable for them. TFIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, JULY 8 1856: of the, Privy Council engrossed the confidence of the pub lic ? Th,at tribunal was of modern growth ; for, although the jurisdiction of the Privy Council itself was pf great antiquity, the present tribunal had been remo delled at the suggestion of Lord Brougham, when be had been filling the office-of Lord Chancellor. That noble,aed learned lord. had laid the foundation of the court to wisely —he-had - made it eo - flexitile,sand at the same time corn poted it of eminent judges, that it had since gone on gain ing more and more of the public confidence. How coul the house expect that a similar success would crown the adoption of fhe present miserable measure? That measure would sanction the appointment of two deputy speakers, with salaries of 5,000/. a year each—the amount of the salaries 'Of *sire judges—who were- to assist the Lord Chancellor in deciding appeals which might be made from decisions of ten of the most eminent judges in Westmin ster Hall sitting in oleo in Exchequer Chamber. He said that the house ought not to be forced auto passing a bill of. that kind 'at the end of the session. He had great coMpail sion for the suitors, but thought that the Howie of Corm mons ought not to pass a law affecting the liberties of the subject and the constitution of the ultimate court of appeal simply because certain unforsunate suitors would suffer a year cr two longer than they would otherwise have done.' He admitted it was doubtful what course ought to be adopted by Parliament ; but there were certain - landmarks by which they ought to be guided, such as the necessity of having one supreme court, and the necessity of procuring as muchealent, ability, and learning in that court as could be obtained. With respect to the question of money, he apprehended that neither the house nor the country would grudge any sum that was. necessary to secure such a court of final appeal as would obtain the confidence of the nation. But if it was doubtful what course Perliament ought to pursue, it was not at all doubtful what ought to be done with this bill—a bill which did not remedy one-third of the evils complained of, and did nothing more than skin over the diseases undet which it was alleged they sriffered. In his opinion, the proper course would be to send it to a committee up stairs, for he had no, hesitation in affirm ing that the inquiry which took place in the House of Lords did not exhaust the subject, for many eminent persons existed who could throw light upon it who were not examined at all. The house must consider the position in which it was for the first time placed. The Peers had presented a bill to supply certain detects 'which they 'ac knowledgee existed in that house as an appellate court ; they desired the assistance of the House of Conimons in framing a measure which would enable theta - to discharge the most solemn trust confided to them by the constitu .tion. How were they to answer to their constituents or to posterity if they did not take the advantage of an opportu nity which might never occur egain ; if they neglected to confer the greatest boon which an enlightened country could receive, viz., a court of final appeal based upon the soundest principles of justice to which none would raise an objection, and which would be received with gratitude and joy by the whole country ? How would they excuse them selves hereafter if, in consequence of a party combination in the House of Lords, they consented to perpetuate a de fective system, or, because some suitors would suffer in convenience a year or two longer, they inflicted upon the country that greatest of curses—a court of j odic-turd in the last resort which would be ellen to the sympathies and feelings of the people, and would neither inspire - colifi - deuce nor create respect ? Me. WHITESIDE-a:Sir, the two hon, and learned gentlemen. wile spoke last have : contented themselves with urging all manner of objectious to the bill from the first word in the preamble to the last in the clauses. Surely, if the subject is full of difficulty, a gentleinan so eminent for his legal ability as the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. R. Phillitnore) might have suggested some mode of.reMoving those difficulties ; and if it is the duty of the House of Commons to strike out some practical mode 'of redressing the grievances adniitted, who .inorefit to Flo so than the hon. and leaetied member for Dundalk ? • Mi. BOWYER-4 did so: Mr. WHITESEDE--The hon. and leerned member amused,' and perhaps instructed, the house by a reference to the French laws, and the practice of thnFrench courts; but with all-respect to him, I should not wish to see either those laws or that practice introduced into - this country. What the hon. and learned gentleman did was to 'suggcist a number of difficulties and objections to the bill, but he sat down without hiving applied his abilities to solve in any way the difficulties which he raised. Now, rem not here to discuss the question of criminal law, or appeals from criminal law—l am not here to ,offer. au ,opinion us to whether the Attorney-General tot Ireland ought to be empowered to grant a writ of error - or not, but with an en tirely different question—a question which is quite enough to engross the whole attention of this house, and one to which' the hon. and learned gentleman . woun hey() done well to hal-reapplied his mind. The lion. and learned gen tleman' among other things, spoke of the low scale of sala rses to be given under this bill, but that seemed to me no argument aestiust the principle of the measure. if the bon and learned gentleman was, snz ,d with a fit Of Liberality he might have proposed to increase those salaries in com mittee ; and perhaps he would have prevailed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so, if he could persuade him that by so doing he could- procure a greater amount of ability in the persons to be appointed. But the salaries pro posed in the House of Lords had been already reduced, be cause it was thought they would not meet the views of some of the political economists in. the House of Com• mons, so there was little chence of success in that direc Hun. The honourable and learned gent!eman also spoke in high terms of the eligibility of the Judicel Committee of Privy Council as an appellate court. I fully.ad mit that this is an excellent court, that it has discharged its duties faithfully, and is worthy of the • coifidence whish the • public place in it ; while at the same time its members are cautious enough to suppress any difference of opinion whielr - may arise between them, so that. its decisiOns appear e e2 have the stamp of unanimity when that is. net always the case. But the hon. and learned gentleman who so highly eulogised that court di I not condescend to einforrn. the house that the judges of the Committee of Privy Council are entirely dependent upon the pleasure of the Sovereign ; he did not tell us that evet-y sae of those juices might be struck out of the list tie-morrow. If such a court as that is to be made an ultimite court of appeal, it would indeed be the most ueconstitutional tribunal that could well be imagined. It, dues not follow that because a number of gentlemen, orni ne.nt indeed for their great abilities anti extensive learning, are acquainted with Dutch law, with Sesnish law, with lerliten law—if there be any such—they should be called upon to discuss and decide questions of criminal law — cases-great cases of equity. The hon. and learned gentleman assumed, but he did not prove, that the two courts of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of Privy Council were co-ordinate tribunals. When was that fact discovered? It is true that they both take cog . alsaeca of cases in which personal property is the subject of dispute, but iris a strong assumption that, because they both decide a Certain class of cases, their jurisdiction is co-or lieate. Nor is it the fact that there is any danger of the Committee of Privy Council conflicting in opinion with the House of Lords, for that veryquestion was inquired into in the House of Lords, and I find it stated by a very eminent authority that when there was the least danger or the least chance of their corning into conflict in consequence of simi lar cases being before the House of Lords and the Judicial C imuittee of Privy Council, the latter court stayed all proceedings until the House of Lords had pronounced an opinion on the case, and they thee took the law as affirmed by that tribunal. It is therefore entirely an assumption that the committee owe a great deal to the circumstance of some of its members being judges of other courts, because I have shown that they decide in conformity with the opi nion of the House of Lords. I now*come to the practical question, and I give the House of Commons credit for not indulging in abstractions, but at all times attempting to solve difficulties in a practical manner—what are we to do in the present instance? Now, I must say, it seems to me that there has ba6n a want of generosity in the way in which my hon. and learned ft lends have spoken of the House of Lords. They have represented the jurisdiction of that house as failing for many years. What is the fact? All the 17 witnesses examined before the Lords' committee, and among them were the foremost men in this country, de clared that never was there a tribunal which commanded more perfectly the respect of the bar and the confidence of the country. It has given laws to half the civilised word: ; Amelia ei lawyers and writers have passed the highest eulogiums upon it, and it was proved by all the witnesses that at the time when Lord Cottenhain, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Lord Lyndhu'st sat together under the Chancellorah!p of the last named noble and learned lord, no tribunal was more distinguished for despatch of business, for ability, or for learning. They discharged their duty to the country ern a grasp of intellect, a power of language, arid a display of legal acumen, which it was wondrous to behold. (Hear.) Is it just, then, that because one of these learned •men can no longer attend, and an other is obliged to absent himielf in coesequenceof you are to say "this tri Aural is no longer weat it was; it is unworthy therefore to exist?" Every gentleman who was examined before the committee has stated that until the lest two or three years that tribunal . was one of un equalled excellence. An inconvenience has arisen. How has it been met? A question arose respecting the confer ring of a life peerage, put that is a question with which we cannot deal, however eminent may be the person, d an we all admit his ability, whoit was intended should have been theieeipiept but. with what justice ,can the hon. and learned gentleman say that it is proposed to two miserable persons to preside in a, miserable court, and dis pose of c :use's in a miserable manner, at a miserable rate of reinuneration. If I held that ()Onion I certainly would vote, not . efor referring this measure to a select comittee, but for relinquishing it altogether. , Th m e .Piencipal argu ment Made use of by the hon. and learned gentlemen who have opposed. this Measure is, that the' cases will be de cided by three persons. But what . becomes of that argil- Mont when we find that during the period of which all the Witnesses spoke as being a period when the House of Lords was considered a tribunal of unexampled excellence seldom more than three attended; and no one will .deny that when Lord Campbell attended, trefoce he was Chief Justice, Scotch appeals were admirably disposed of. Still bUt three persons attended. Well, an Act of Parlia ment passed to regulate the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. What did that act do? Made three judges a quorum. If then the cases in the popular court of the Ju dicial Committee of Privy Council were decided ley three judges, and if the cases_in the House of Lords, when that tribunal was one of acknowledged excellence, wore decided by three judges, where is the objection to the cases brought before the new court contemplated by this bill. being decided by three judges? (Heir.) 'Seine of the wit nesses have pronounced an opinion in favour of five in stead of three being the quorum. I have no objection to that. The greet point shstild he to have an unequal num ber, tee that there shall ha a casting vote ;" and if such a gentlernan as Mr. Pemberton Leigh could be induced to enter 'the other house for that pdrpose, he would doubtleas be a great e addition to the learning and ability of that tri bunal. But the bill, which is one of the strictest Modera tion, has only propdied two, and to the principle of that bill I see no objection. Indeed, I can speak from my own eXperienae, with reference to case which haee come from Ireland - , as to the feeling in that cparter in favour of the House of Lords being the court Of final appeal. ' Those cases have been political, equitable, and crirriinal—they have involved the higheit Interests and questions of the deepest importance, but the fruit Of my experience is ehat nothing should induce me to give up the right of appeal to that home. It would ill become me to speak of - O'Connell's case, because in that I was cOunselebut I isepeet to the great case of the Preebyterian ministers, which affectel the interests or the feelings of thousands of parsons, and I ask whether in that and eimilar cases the greatest confidence was not felt by theipublicin the House of Lords as le court of eppellateejerisdiction? (Hear.) The House of Lords has always had a right to call in the as- . eistance Of the judges °f e ttle land, andehe bill 'does not'dg peiee them of that' right, - The' assumption of hon: and leeened members is that the risible lord at the bead of the Gevetnenetit, instead of searching foe „trim of the first .bility 'end' gestiteet'neeiiienceetti place in high offices erected bythis bill"; will look - 00 for, roetk. of inferior -ability, and be infliiirecedbe . dtliter "Contidefeticinse T do not believe -in idiot 'essiumpliee. (Heer.') I would also -mention that thsT6ttet'etlililefdli jiultioei really con: lists of three; because although only two justices are ap pointed, in case of difference of opinion the Lord Chan •oellor is called in and a-sists them. Now on this point I will just refer to the evidence given by the hon. member fur Wallingford before the Lords' committee. He says " An appeal. to the Lord Chancellor sitting alone is not , satisfactory ; an appeal to the Lords Justices is not quite • satisfactory. It is not because I think the decision is not _;orrect, but because I study the way in which the public look at the matter. I think there ought to be four or five judges; five would be a convenient number ' but four would ; ' and in another place my hon. and learned friend stated his opinion that three would. be satisfactory. The hon. and learned gentleman the member for Dundalk ex pressed an opinion that there ought to be, at least, one Scotch judge among the number, but I confess I was sur prised at the le indour of the Scotch witnesses whdexpressed an opinion that the decisions on Scotch questions were very , ouch better without them, and gentlemen . of such eminence Mr. Hope and Mr. Bellenden Ker expressed an opinion in favour of leaving the appellate jurisdiction with the House of Lords. The writers to the signet have themselves acknow'ss igei that very great advantages to Scotch law have lessen by the intervention of distinguished English lawyers in the House of Loa's. In f tct, not to multiply oases, al uostall the witnesses examined on the subject were maxi ms to retain that jurisdiction. I also am anxious to re. tain it in the House of Lords for the very best possible reason, because it possesses it, and that is a good Conser vative argu,.ient. The House of Lords has had an appal- , la ju , i diction for a long period of time, and if there are .ny defects it' is our duty to improve but not to destroy it. If at any time, in consequence of infirmity or length of veers, three judges are not able to attend in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it will be our duty to re place them. The hon. and learned member says that his objection to the House of Lords being a permanent tribu nal of appeal in the last resort is, because it depends en irely on the volition of individual _lords whether they . will attend or not. That is to be cured. • by the appoint went of two learned persons as assistants to the Lord Chancellor to attend constantly to hear and determine cases. But it is alleged that in public opinion, such a ribunal will not carry the weight and authority of the House of Lords. I believe it will, for I believe that the members composing the House of Peers will always have such an influence over the judges constituting that court as to impart to their decisions the dignity of the whole house, while they will always be able to check any ap proach to irregularity. It is of the greatest consequence thio the appellate jurisdiction of the house should be vested in, and discharge by, the whole body, which it will be in the persons of thesejudges. Surely the hon. gentleman lid notWfiect t o get more perfect, more brilliant, more usiainous judgments than had been delivered in that house during the last half century, when Lord Redesdale and Lord Eliot sat there. Is the house of opinion it will I hitviq-ead repeatedly, and to the uninitiated it seems to concede to the Crown the absolute power of creating peerages for life. It commences by granting the ~ power to appoint for life two deputy speakers, but than it gods further to provide that there shalluot- be - more than four persons holding peerages for life at the same time. Th e pl a i n mean i ng i s th a t the Crown would have power.to create two deputy speaker; and keep up two life peerages, chosen either from the Lords or elsewhere. . 1 But I believe the true_e_oudtruction.ia that it is limited to two deputy speakers. in the .first instance, and that the gross number shall not exceed four Then what is the po sition-of Lord Wensfeydale ? (Hear.) Either he must be de signatkid as one of the. deputy speakers, remaining a peer fur life; or his position will be most anomalous. (Hear.) He has_ presentedn - materially affect a right which be claims ; and his position is one which has a claim upon our consideration. (Hear.) It is a ,strange inconsistency that the thampions of the peerage by iuheritance should now propose peerages for life.; (Hear.) This is so ; if it is contrary to the duty of the advisers of the Crown that any peers for life i.hould 'se created without consent of Parliament, and if it be nut mited, then it is open to abuse for party purposes, and dap, geroui to the - goTse Of Lords. (Hear.) The bill has thkre. ties of Lc ard Lox ent peril present a; would be mbureed j and it wi Lord No deed by t &ion was two thins proprio v es, failinj ably, and Whioh th It has be quite c, intervent I believe common '1 Council ; each sessi Ileation o to comrnc eillors. Within tb imakable characteristic, that there ought t o b e a genera l conentrence of these who are in favour of peerages for life and, those who are opposed to them in rejecting it, for it leaves in uncertainty that great question of prerogative. (Hear.) T have the gravest doubts as to the policy of peer ages for life. (Hear.) Look to colonial assemblies, and see there the effect of nominees of the Crown holding in an rimier chamber what aro analogous to peerages for life. Nothing cart be--more injurious. Now, an hereditary or - independent peerage' (I lase the terms as synonymous) are characteristic of our mixed form of government. There is nothing else in principle but that second elective chamber, which is characteristic of republicanism. (Hear.) It isalleged • as an evil that there is too much of the law element in the House of Lo ds ; that the sons of great lawyers inheriting peerages, perhaps, may be without adequate means of sup- porting the dignity. The case suggested is extraordinary. It is to introduce the law peers themselves into the house before they have earned in their profession sufficient to sustain • the dignity and independence of their position. (Hear.) Poverty is, for the first time, avowed as_ one of the ingredients of qualification for the peerage. (Hear, and a •laugh.) What will be the effect of it? It will brand the slution, don thei things ca the profs, is as a get better men ? I think not. Nor will they be miser able judges because they are moderately remunerated• for devoting their talents to their country. Sod far from objecting to the bill I think that the hon. and learned gentleman should vote for its second reading and s 4• v us in commi , tse how it can be improved. (Hear.) It ,is said that life. peerages would be created. That is true ; but you hear the opinion of eminent authorities, that if limited in number the adoption of that principle may be beneficial ; there is no likelihood that the House of Lords will be deluged with life peerages. You must give ivaY to the exigencies of tlie ;line. You have reformed the Court of Ch tncelN —you have created the .Judicial expect t to debat keenness rooming had happ Leonards that to th ea the lav and learn fends his bees. (I] the Rai( O'Connel. Enniskill , common-1 tioo, and the law lt Suffolk w have his nary ton the other life peers with the mark of dependence and inferiority. It will engender the constant hope in the peer for life, who feels•himself thus degraded, to work out his independence, and obtain from the Minister of the Crown the more ho nourable station of the hereditary peerage. (Hear.) It will have also another effect. The very title of peer implies equality. But here will be a degraded class, unequal in their position, and looked upon by the hereditary peers As not their equals, on the ground of their poverty as well as. their inequality. And what have the law lords done to deserve this indignity ? I cannot conceive any position to be worse than one in which " favour' isto follow fawning," and when they will have to hang upon the skirts of the minister - of the day t 6 obtain a more homagrable situ - ation, and to be made equal in dignity to their companions in the peerege. No Lord Chancellor, if this bill passes, will ever obtain that hereditary peerage which was won by Claren don, by Hardwicke, and by. Camden, whose descendants are among the moat revered members of the House of Peers. The, only chance the Lord Ch ance ll or w ill h ave o f obtain- iog the hereditary peer ge will be that he is rich or child.. less—not that he is Ore-eminent in his profession. Lord Soirieri has been mentioned ; ho was a poor nso.n when he had become a in at eminent one ; and such was his noble spirit that he sat as Chancellor, deciding cases by his learn ing, influence, and virtue, while he was content not to have a voice a because he had not then acquired that independ enOe which would entitle ; him to an hereditary peerage.' ~ But he never dreamt of a peerage for life. He afterwards , earned that independence, and was raised to the peerage, which his descendant still adorns. (Hear.) It is said that this measure, though it may not be the. best that can be formed, is yet at least efficient. But it is, said, YOn limit the power of creating peers for Unto four:peerages. From '! the very nature of tbe.choice, the deputy speakers must be aged men, whoshave long occupied a prominent station. , Age and infirmity will rapidly come upon them • 'and . it is possible that they may 'ceese to be' able td perform their --judicial functions and yet remain peers for life. There your difficulty will occur, and you must legislate again; or , else _what becOme's of your remedy? You cannot stop , here. You will ,find it necessary, if this precedent is esta blished, to.go on, and extend the creation- o f p eers f or life , td the army and navy. '' Poverty is not confined to the law; .on the contrary, . 1 belieie the law to be a frir more hicrative profession than, that of arms, for, aamirals or , generals de not make their ten thoussanal .a year. The lenders of the bar never made larger incomes than they do now. I need only glance round the bowie -to show that . they never were more distinguished. Posseisiug as much „: talent, and as large incomes as they ever did, they are not in need of this paltry measure, limitingthe enjoyment of,, fame to the abort' pe riod - of a life. But if the measure is a s . nOceisary for the law, then, a fortiori, it is necessary for 1 the army or, the navy; and you establish the precedent 7) ypu cannot stop here. But then sou will touch the noble,ai mainspring of, human action. All the highest aspirationem of noble naturei—everything that really is part of genittil• ,2 —is connected with the longing for immortality, the desire '' ,, , , os t 4 make and to perpetuate a name. ' 4 i " Ergo ipsas quamvis angusti terminus awl ' ~,.4 Excipiat (neque enim phis septims, ducitur antis) At genus immortal . ° menet, multosqUe per annos Slat fortune domus, et avi oumarantair avornms" . - 1 4 hat is the principle which actuates the noblest spirits In all professions. (Hear, hear.) Then its to politicians, the ' Rouse - of Lords, though it may be regarded as a refuge from -the storm, is a miserable arena to men who have . occupied prominent stations in the House of Commons. , (Hear.) History has taught us this by examples. History has taught it to us in that very period to which I have been referring—the age of Walpole and Pulteney. We • know that Pulteney had the opportunity (having over thrown Sir B. Walpole) of forming an administration, but shrank from the responsibility and asked for an earldom. The King was unwilling to grant it, and Sir R. Walpole, whom lie had displaced, used his influence out of office to - obtain the earldom "for him, and having succeeded, Horace , Walpole records that when he went home he used the ex . i pression " I have turned the key of the closet upon him." (A laugh.) Lord Chesterfield, commenting updn the trans action, says that Pulteney " shrank into insignificance and an earldom." And Walpole himself, having, after 20 years of triumphal power, been raised to the peerage by the title '' of Orford, we aro told that. Lord Orford went up to the E irl of Bath and said, " Now, here we are, the two most insignificant fellows in England." (Laughter.) Yet those were hereditary peerages.. Think of the effect of this re treat for decrepid statesmen when it becomes a peerage for life. How miserable, how degrading will be their posi tion ! I tell you that if you pass this bill many years will not elapse before you must extend it to politicians; and the days will come when your statesmen—peers for life— will stand like thesialsourere in the parable, saying " No man huh hired us." (Laughter.) Their political deges ' neration will be extreme, At present the peerage is ra picity-diesinis.hing; butt if you gratt_peerages for life to any - considerable extent the independeuce of the House of Lords will be swamped in the easiest way. Since the year 1841 29 peerages have become extinct, and only 16 have been created, showing that the number of new peerages have been less than those which have elpired. Thus the inde pendence of the body will be sustained (unless you tam- ' per with it by such amendments as this), both by the course of nature and by the constitutional forbearance of the*Mieisters Of the Crown to augment unduly the num- • hers of new creations. But if you break ground in this direction. you will, fora paltry object (so far as the object is avowed), inflict the greatest injury, and cause the greatest evil to the co-or mate branch of the Legislature. (Hear.) , I UOW turn to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. There is a fiction and a reality. The fiction is, the appellate jurisdiction of the house. The reality is, the jurisdicti o n of the Lord Chancellorchosen ' amid the fluctuations . f party chiefly. for his activity as a politician ; and he constitutes the appellate tribunal, with three or four ex-Chancellors chosen in a similar way. The : Attorney-General says the rest of the lords qe - "mutes and ' ciphers." The fiction is, that these mutes and ciphers exere cise the appellate jurisdiction ; and at the present moment ; the tribunal which has thus avowed its incompetence con-', sists of the Lord Chancellor alone. There have been times , when "there were giants," and tini house might have been the best tribunal. Bat we have passed from an age of giants i to an age of pigmies. Now, I cannot say that one judge sitting atone to reverse decisions of the highest tribunal in the realm is - satisfactory. (Rear.) A great complaint of the present system is the uncertainty. The client:neyerknows how th I tribunal will be constituted. But what is the ree medy ? Two deputy speakers are to be appointed ; but the ; bill contains no ouster of the jurisdiction of the ex-Chan cellors, tit, ee or four of whom are always floating about the house. (A laugh.) Then there is the Lord Chief Jus tice, and there was Lord Devon, who, having been clerk of the house, was reckoned a law lord. There is no ous ter of the, jurisdiction of these: law lords ; and .the fiction which confines the appellatejurisdiction to the house is so transparent- that it escapes . through all disguise even in this very measure, for it provides that the appellate juris diction sha 1 continuo during prorogation ; and it was almost carried that it should continue after a dissolution. (Rear.) Again, pay is said to have hecome necessary to exercise the due discharge of the judicial functions of the ' house. While the house maintained its jurisdiction with* ' out salary, that jurisdiction might strengthen its position; but when the law lords are to be hired like journeymen to do their work, there is neither dignity nor honour in it, and the strength of the position of the house will not be the same as it was when they discharged their ancient here ditary duties in the ancient hereditary way, with superior ability, and to the satisfaction of the country, without salary. There is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who it is agreed by all parties, perform their functions most satisfactorily ; and they are unpaid judges. (Rear, hear.) Let me remark -that the second clause limits the selection'of the life peers, so that in 18,0 it would hive excluded Lord Camphell, Lord St'. Leonards; Lord Rather. furd, and Dr. Lushington ; and it would now excludebir. Pemberton Leigh, Vice-Chancellor Sir P. Wood, and one ' of the Lords Jristices. Added to which it would exclude , the Attorney=Genesal and Solicitor-General, as well as the ' law officers - of - Lord Derby's Government—mea equal in learning, independence, and character to any who ever fillidllgiiiiffiheri.7(Hear, hear.) Again, consider the num ber of the life peers. It is to be three ; although all the leading witnesses—Sir F Ke'ly, Mr. Malin, the Solicitor- General, &o.—agreed that three was the worst possible : number, - and that - the - number should be at least five. . (gear.) If yita desire to Secure that the three judges shall - be men of high standing, you must give adequate induce noetnht tthoeabtetnraccht and d ch t h men b a ; r. t is of v e w r h y i c r h a , r only to be 50001., that of a puisne judge. (Hear, hear.) I must touch upon another topic, which may he painful to - the legal profession, but my love of truth compels me .to mention it. (A, laugh.) This bill will, if it passes, debauch • • puisne judges are promoted to the chief Judgeships.- But ' now the Crown will have the power of selecting from the , bench two judges to be deputy epeakere and peers for life, . with the. prospect of hereditary peerages in reversion. (Rear, hear.) Quantdin bore se gesserint will -be well construed at the Treasury—(a laugh)—and complaisant .' peers for life who always vote with Ministers will obtain' the hereditary peerage. (Herr, hear.) 'The effect of such patronage will be to debauch the bench, and though the - effect upon the bar will be less direct, it will knot be the less powerful, and the result will be unduly to trench , rarely ye tshalaatryt the , - on the . honour and independence-of the bar. I *slue pighly that honour and independence, believing the -bar ' to be the champions 'of freedom; rind I should be sorry to hold out temptations tending to.destroy their independ ewe. , 'With regard, to. the appellatesbusiness of the House ; of Lords, there are only 70 cases, on- an•average in a year, which , cannot occupy 'more than four months of legal ; l a s aa i ; and, before yeti re-ceristitute the tribUnal, you - must coosidei whether additional bu mess should 'not he : sent to it,,eitherfroni the Judicial C omm itt ee o r th e L or ds ! Justices. All these are questions not to be decided , hastily - In the middle:ofJuly, under pressure If a threat that if we , do not pass this particular measure the House of Lords 'Will - agree to none. If there is the least spirst in this reuse they will reject' the measure and secure time,and ppportnnity'tO consider the subject. (Hear, hear.) Hal;:• the, apPellateabusinees.of, the_ liouse of- Lords been satiss . ° , tictiP faetorily cojiducted of late years ? Webtvre-theintt . Committee of the Privy Council—you have established the Court of the Lords Justices ; and I think there is no ground either for surprise or alarm in this proposition. By adopting it yen will get eminent men, who wilt not only increase the judicial strength of the House of Lords, but who will suggest good laws, and more, correct those laws, sent up to them by this house.. Considering that almost all the amendments of the law which we have had of late years originated in the House, of Lordeil am the more con firmed in my opinion that I am right in giving my support to this measure. (Herr, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM--Sir; I have listened,to gentlemen of the long robe with great respect, but; inasmuch as you h sve . been addressed by fear legal gentlemed iu succession; conscious as I am of my own incompetency to deal with questions of so much g ravi ty and importance, I still up- hold that the Houk) of Commons will .always allow gentle men not learned, in the law to give their opinion upon a question of . great gravity, and I would add of, the , highest constitutional importance. The hon. and learned gentle man who has just sat down has passed a swelling eulogium . upon the House of Lords. - Ilinagine that that eulogium is meant to apply to its jurisdiction as an :ultimate court of appeal. He has referred to great names, and has car ried his eulogium back to the time when there were giants in the law. I shall not differ from him with respect to the earlier times, but I ask him if, indeed, the House of Lords be so strong in its legal power and legal efficiency, will he tell me whence at iseS this bill itself? Is the House of Lords of the same opinion as the hon. and learned gen tleman, that its present constitution is satisfactory or such as to inspire the public with confidence ? What said the Attorney-General when he proposed the second reading of the bill? He said the defects in that tribunal were glaring, and that it was in consequence of those defects that her Majesty's Government proposed this bill. Certainly lam bound to add that several of the observations 'made' by the Attorney-General filled me with amazement and fear. He said, if I mistook not, that although these defects were glaring, a bettor course might-have been 'possibly pursued, and he added es a reason for passing this mea sure that the House of Lords would not surrender its ap pellet° jurisdiction. I said some of the hon. anti learned gentleman's observations tilled me with fear and amaze ment. Rave we arrived at a period ; when the Commons of England, not' being satisfied with the inefficient exercise of the judicial functions of the House of Lords, is callee ou to apply a remedy ? Have we arrived at a period when• the house, a co-ordinate portion .of the Legislature, is not to exercise an independent judgment, bat is to be coerced by the assertion of her Majesty's Attorney"-General that because the Hons. of Lords will not surrender its appel latejurisdiction the representatives of the people must consent that a new tribunal shall be erected which, it is admitted, is not one that will fulfil all the requirements of such a court? Have we, indeed, arrived at that period? (Cheers.) What is the meaning of the assertion that this is not the best measure that can be brought before us ? It brings to my mind the observation of the late Lord Mel bourne, who said be could very well understand a great change proposed, but there was one thing which Lille him with apprehension, which was, that it was said, "Something must be done," an indefinite change, a change not supported by reason, but pressed as cogent from necessity, without a distinct idea of what it should be. Yet I have heard from the lips of the At torney-General this evening that the defects are glaring —that the best remedy is not the prop ,sed remedy—that the House of Lords will not surrender its jurisdiction— and yet that something .must be done. The hoe. and learned gentleman says it is our duly, if we reject this bill, to propose a better measure. It may be possible for us to do so ; but before we do so, as the House of Lords has in quired, is it too unreasonable that the House of Connhous should ask toiuquire also? But I turn from what has been said by hon. gentlemen ahout the me wire to the measure itself, and will state the view I am disposed to take of this matter. The bill presents itself to our consideration in a double aspect. It seeks to dispose of the controversy as to peers for life, and it seeks to uphold the fiction of thejuris. diction of the - House of Lords. A compromise on this sub ject has been a matter of necessity, and her Majesty's Go vernment found themselves unexpectedly in a difficulty with respect to the creation of peerages for life, which they sought to effect, while their opponents in the House of Lords u!so found themselves in a great difficulty, inasmuch as having come to a vote against peerages for life, they were involved in and embarrassed by a struggle with the Crown on a question of prerogative. Compromise iu sucb circumstances, between the two contending parties, was both natural and inevitable, and the compromise which was euterel into in this case is, as has been admitted by the noble lord at the heat of the Government, in the nature of a com promise to relieve the Government of thetedifficulty in re spect to the creation of life peerages, and to release the Op position from their difficulty in relation to their struggle with the Crown on the question of prerogative. Is there any. thing extraordinary in this stew of :affairs? The unanimity with which, in the House of Lords, this bill was sent doh n to us, in my opinion ought to excite the jealousy of the HOll3B of Cum mons. It is no common-place exp:ession that iusidiouiallia.nees are oftentimes more dangerous than the array of hostile parties. I think that the House of Commons ought to view with jealousy a compromise based upon mutual difficulties. But there is nothing new in this matter. The hon. gentleman behind me referred to the last ooeasion upon which the question of peerages was discussed in this house. Then also is bill came down from the House 'of Lordsin the year 1719 to the Commons. It received u very general support, in the house in which it was moved, from the government and many of their opponents. It was met by Sir R Walpole in the House of Commons with signal success ; and not only in this house, but out of it. Upon that occasion he published a memorable pamphlet, which is remarkable as illustrative of the present state of affsirs. He found himself, he says, united with the oldest of,his opponents, and opposed t) the warmest of his par tisans—(laughter)-anal. he thus expresses himself ; -"I am free to own that there is one thing in it which has deserved commendation, for it has produced the most convenient unanimity atnoug our great nien that r have ever known. It has yoked the lion with the lamb." I don't know whe ther the learned Attorney-General and the hon. aed learned gentleman opposite (Mr. ,Whiteside) will recognise the parallel :--- 4 .! It has associated men in power with these they have turned out." The - hon. - and learned Attorney. General will still see how the past resembles the present : ' —(renewed laughter) : " Ministers .of state are -beconee patriots, and professed friends of, the prerogative the strongest friends for lessening it." lam almost ashamed toread a passage from another pamphlet,. written about. the same tune, by Sir Richard Steele, .who also took part in. that political struggle. He says, "It was suspected that there was great influence afloat to carry in the Coin- Moss a bill which had come down as a compromise. from: the House of Lords." He describes some member under the name 'of Eels% and he says, " He is thegreatest traitor to civil society that ever yet appeared who will contend for such a bill in. the House. of Commons, with the assur sums inhis pocket of being a peer as soon as the bill passes." (Laughter arid cheers.) Ido not know whether that is ap plicable to the present state of circumstances, but it is cer takaly suspicious to see such unnatural unanimity. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I only put it as an instance of there being nothing neiv - eunder the sun. (Renewed laugh ter.) Every line of the bill which we are now dis cussing is marked by the feebleness, obscurity, and impo tent indecision which is inherent in middle measures. The principle upom which the bill is framed is clear. Lord Derby 0ve.114 the clue to it when he,said, "Can we frame h bill in such a manner as not to call upon the Government to pronounce a condemnation of the. policy they have up held, and.,on the other hand not tocommit the booty of the peers to any proceeding inconsistent with the stand made by them in defence of the hereditary ch erecter of the peer age ?" . (Rear, hear.) Now, that is a frauk .avowal of the principle on which the bill is framed, and leaves no doubt hf, the .compromise it effects. The prerogative of the Crown is either limited' by it, or, if there be no such limi tation, the precedent of a peerage not of inheritance is us. tablished by it. (Hear, hear.) And what is most remaik able is, that such ,teke Ambiguity and obscurity that on Its third reading it - was received in opposite senses by two classes of its supPerters. The Lord 'Chancellor declared , iwith the Lord President that he never would have given his consent to it if it limited the prerogative, and the Lord hief Justice and Lord St. Leonards avowed that they agar would have consented to it if it reco gn i se d th e pie ogativesto create peers, for life. (Hear, hear.) Either the ajority of the lords were deceived with respect, to the measure, or her Majesty's Ministers havelootrayed the pre togative7 (Hear, hear.) It is adilemma from which there - sno ese ,pe—(bear, hear) •except thii—to reject the bill — hear, hear)—and thus to give time for the framing of a measure, not doubtful and ambiguous, but clear, 'patent, Sind- intelligible. (dear) Tne bill is studiously obscure.: &et the house leek ier ientsincetat-the , Oh olauseiwhiehJ, opinion o the ileum cllctiOnsl tilde thei tanjority ( the case THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY. Lori J. RU ELL sai lit was desirable that the house on an early day should be informed of what had been done by foreign Cr - mernment4 with regard to Ita Tian affairs. (Cheers.) He should theref.ra move on Fri day or Monday next for c )pies of the correspoudence between foreign Glvernrnents on this question, be csuse it was desirable the house should know if any fruits might be expected from the declaration made at the late Conference at Paris. NIEDICIL PROFESSION BILL. Mr. COWPER statei that he Intendt:d t► abanion this bill for the present session. THE VACCINATION BILL. Mr. COWPER said it wa, his intention to pro zeed with this bill at whatever hour it might come on in order. WAYS AND MEANS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCEIEQUER brought up the report on Ways and Means. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY took objection 3 to it, hu: it was ultimately agreed to. THE TIPPERARY BANK. Col. F. FRENCH wished t ► correct a matter which appeared to him to reflect on the character of one of the most talented an 1 honourable men on the judicial bench either in England or Ireland. The Attorney-General fur Ireland had stated tbat it would be owing to the irregu lar conduct of the Master of tbe Rolls if any failure of justice took place in Mr. J. Sadleir's case. - The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND quite agreed in the high character awarded the Master of the Rolls, but must repeat that the observations which fell from the Master of the R (lls were irregular. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he (lid not want to go back to the old system. All that he had.said W.tP, that the statesmen of George 111 's reign were wiser men than they were, because when they wanted to get ac c'iunts they pt them. He ',till inainta ned that they ought not to stultify themselves by passing a revolution about what they had no informAtion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Paid the hon. baronet was wrong in assuoneg that the Govern ment desired to withbohl any informatoon from the house. Trey wished to lay all information connected with tho.,e accounts before the house, and they only delayed cloti . g so because it was absolutely necessary to wait till the accfsunt-i were completed. Mr. WILLIAMS said that there were several clauses in the Approprialon Bill.to which he bad objections, and he hoped it would be printA. Mr. WILSON said that be held the bill in his hand, and that he would introduce it that night and have it printed. APPELLATt JURISDICTION (LIOUSE OF LORDS) BILL. On the oreor of the day for the second raadiog of this bill, Mr. E. DENISON said be had a petition to present, the substance of which he would shortly state, from James Baron Wensleydale, on the report of this bill. The petitioner stated that he had by letters patent under the Great Seal, of date 24th January, 1856, been created a peer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire land for the term of his natural life ; that her Majesty had been pleased to direct the usual summons to be issued for him to take his seat in Parliament ; that he had been prevented from doing so by illness ; and that before he could take his seat the question hal been referred to a committee of privileges to consider the letters patent and to report, The petitioner stated that the committee re ported that neither by the letters patent nor by the letter, patent with the writ of summons was he entitle:l to take his seat, and that the house afterwards agreed to that re port. The petitioner further stated that when he received his letters patent he had no doubt of her Majesty's ri g ht by prerogative to summon to the Souse of Lords any of her subjects not disqualified by laW—to ennobte by grant ing a peerage for life one on whom she had conferred the honour of knighthood ; and that he, theref. ire, con fidently expected that the decision of the )use of Lords would haVe been in favour of his ri.,ht to kit and vote in that house. The petitioner then stated• that a bill bad been introduced, the la t clause of which Tiro vided that nothing contained in the bill. should affent.the right of her Majesty to appoint Deputy Speakers hi the House of Lords, but that it did not save her Majesty's prerogative fir creatiog life peers to sit in Parliament, and that it limited the number of life peers to be creat e d to four. The petitioner represented that he ought not in any. way ti be. prejudiced or affe o t4l . by any clues. dons raised as to his - title or right to take his mat ; that he had - au undoubted right t, petition the' House of Lords reseinl its resolution,. which was not final, .and,.. might :be altered; at- any time ; that. be felt satisfied that the house would consider his case ; 1 that :he: • believed the question of, the creation ( f tetion life peers had -been so mixod up pith the question of appellate jurisd iction that ' it was impossiole to say' th'a't - they had decided the oi l y .question. a ect lug the petitioner:--viz.,. whether" her Majesty bad the power by prerogative to issue a writ of.surnin.J . ns to Peer ini pb . 44l for s , ) . 7,89 as. , entitle hun to sit and vote in t'arliainent. The petitioner then },;rayei l. l . that su c h epc l me nts might• he introduced intentb e b as should—leave-the; 'Royal :irerogative and. .the spat ti mer'e rlght nnafftcted-, by t Hiere - (101 1 ?ciallY - . 1 r vestion of h er Maj estfe pr r gah:ve and the p-titio ' n r, right ' was in hi:, ,ci',4d hobs 'dry fje considered' . toe . ~! end' ling effiiiient a bill to the - app 'Hate jurisdictionel fife:Oilier hourw. (dear, hear.l fzi, he= if ,_ll9,;yl,irkttis,Settc in what respect he agreed with the petitioner. (Loud cries of.)' Order," and ',s ,No.") The, petition was, then ordered to lie on the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to move the second reading of the bill, which, as they were well aware, had been-introdaced in' the other house on the report of a committee appointed to inquire into tie state of the appellate jurisdiction of that house, with the view of seeing whether it could not be amended. That committee, after receiving a great deal of evidence, might be said to have in substance reported that the appellate jurisdiction was notin a satisfactory state; that it was capable of improvement ; and they adapted certain re- coinmendations which would be found embodied in the present bill. There could be no doubt of the great im portanie-of tliii question. In all suits both at common law and equity the House of Lords was a court of appeal in the last resort, and by its decision the law of the land was finally settled. It wasnnotorious, and could not be contradicted, that for some time very great dissatisfac tion bad been felt by suitors and the public generally with the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the other house had been exercised. Hon. members were aware that though by the theory of the constitution the appellate jurisdiction centred in the House of Lords, practicallyit was not exercised by tbe whole body, but was left to those members of the house who held judicial offices, and were also members of that house. With the 'exception of the Lord Chancellor for the time being and the Chief' Justice of the .Queen's Bench, the judges of the appellate court consisted generally of members of that house who had held the office of Lord Chancellor. It was quite evident that this body of judges, consist ing of the persons he bad referred to, must fluctuate ; but, even supposing a sufficient number could be secured to act as a Court of appeal, ,there was nothing which made it oblige! ory on them—the law lords holdine office excepted-4o attend. The result had been that the number of law lords attending to hear appeals had been reduced below the number thought neeessary for the dis charge of the business with satisfaction to suitors and the public. It bad frequently happened that the number of judges had' been. redeced to two, ,and sometimes to one. When it was recollected that these appeals often came from inferior courts of appeal with several judges, 'it would at once be admitted that it could not he satis factory to the public, or the suitors, that such appeals should, in the last resort, be decided, perhaps, by only one judge. He had heard - Scotch appeals decided by ' yne judge in the House of Lords, though these ap pktls were from the judgment of a court composed of several judges necessarily conversant with Scotch law. Often when only two judges were present they b e d dif fered In opinion, and the result was that the judgment of the iufei-ior court remained unaltered. One cilia had teen allufed to by his bon. and learned friend the Soli citor-General in his valuable evideiice before the com mittee, in which there had been conflicting decisions between the Court of Exchequer and the Master of the 'TLere were only - tie judges present in the other Louse when the case came on, and as the Lord Chancel lor differed from Lord Ste Leopards, the judgment Of the Master of the Rolfe stood confirmed against a con trary j a lgmsnt of the judge of the Court of Exchequer. It might even happen that the Lord Chancellor on appeal might, under such - circumstanees, c infirm his own judgment in the court below. There was another great inconvenience which nothing but legislation. could remedy.. At present the sitting of the House of Lords as a court of appeal could only be co exten• sive with the sitting of Parliament. The result was that all its business was suspesded, from the pr .rogation Of Parliament until it met for actual bted teess. Ih many cases this produced great inconvenience to the parties, and also led to considerable arrears and. delay. He believed that the shortest period in which en' appeal could be brought in for hearing was two years. Tue number of judges was not sufficient—that number fluctuated—their attendance was voluntary, and for ene-half the year all the proceedings were suspended: These were tiie points, for consideration. There were other topics referred to-in the evidence, relating to the dress of 'the j edges, toe waist of cornbieation arid arrangement, whictrrequired to be considered, lit which d d no. require the interposition of the Legislature. But tee matters to which he had referred could not be rectified except by the Legislature, and therefore an act of Parliament was necessary. He was aware of the strong objections that might be urged to the mea sure • but the question to consider was, w h e th er , wh e n the defects of the House of Lords as a court of appellate jurisdiction, as at present constituted, were so glaring, it was not necessary to do something to remedy those: defects ? And whether, under all the circumstances, the present measure was not the best that could be pro posed ? That was the question which *he had to invite Them dispassionately to consider. 'He knew that some' thought that the simplest course would be to withdraw the appellate jurisdiction from the House of Lerds.. (Hear. He recognised that cheer, buedeeired, to know wheteer there were not serious, if not insuperable, difficulties to such a course ? Would it not lead to delay, and leave the unhappy suitors in the same position in which they now were ? Many people thought that to deprive the House of Lords of its judicial functions would be to strip it of ope element of its imp .irt ince and dignity. Ha did not leek at the matter in that light, and did not, con stitutionally speaking, see any necessary connection be t veen the functions efethe House. of_Leris and its judi • cial duties, which, as he had, observed were exercised only by the law lerde, the lay lords being present only formally, the remaining mute on such occasions. . Ile could not help thinking that the dignity of the House of Lords would be more likely to be impaired if the exercise of its judicial functions was not satisfactory, but a cause of co uplaiut to suitors and the public. Oa the other hand he knew many who objected to divest the House of Lords of its judicial functions. The question had to be answered to what tribunal, if these duties were to be transferred, would they transfer them ? Redid not think they could proceed to constitute a tribunal of the last re sort, independent of the House of Lords, without re c nistituting the whole judicature of the country. He knew it had been-said that all the appellate business might ne transferred to the J udicial C mmittee of the Privy Council. He admitted that it was impossible to conceive a court, the functions of which could be die- Ala-ged in a in, re admirable manner ; but they must not overlook the great difficulties of ttansferrtag the whole appellate business of the Howe of L irds to the Judicia Cnnteittee of the Privy Council. That court, with one or two exceetions, consisted of members of the legal profe .sion who had held office or who hold judicial office. One of these exceptions was a right honourable gentleman— a shining light of justice, who must ado dignity, lustre, and efficiency to any court of which be was a member, and whose nen-promotion to a h.gher judicial office . had ever - been a siurce of regret to him Atterney-General). It would not be fair to call on th ice members who tad discharged their term of effice, and with regard .to those who actually held office it ought to be kept in view that, they only attended the Council .occasionally, that their time was not largely drawn upon ; but if the whole appellate jurisdiction was to be confined to the Council it would be imp issible for the superior judges to devote that time to the Council which was due to the administration of justice in their own courts, Moreover, they ceu d not divest the Houte of Issesis of its appellate jurisdiction without the consent of that house, and as fares hecouid learntheir appeliahe jurisdiction was the last thing - which the House of Lords would give up. That being the case they must take the best means in their power of , making the House of Lords efficient as a court of the last resort. A=- 'tempts bad been made to amend the court without resorting to legislative interference. The house was aware that Lord Wensleydale, , whose petition they bad heard presented that night—a distinguished man and meeting, the honour .more than any one—had been selected for a judjcial meiuberpf the other house. The attempt to introduce the noble bold had failed, because, though many persons were.of opinion that her Majesty had done no more than exercise her undoubted pre , oga tive, the constitution put it in the power of the ilouse of Lords to determine on the validity of the patent. Under these ,clreumstances Lord Wensleydale bad not been able,te take his seat. To secure a sufficient number of judges it was necessary .to elevate distinguished mem bers of the legal profession to sit and vo - e in the other house. He believed that if the House of Lords could prevent ,her Majesty calling eminent judicial men to the Hogse of Lords as life peers, the effect would be to ex clude some of the ablest and fittest lawyers from tbat _house, because few of them could afford, with- a due. regard to their families, to take on themselves the dig nity of an hereditary peerage. Court-i ha I been multi plied—business hart been diminished and divided— much .to the advantage of the administration of justice —but large fortunes, sufficient to support the onus of the peerage, were not now made at the bar. Tee house of Lords bad cicised the door, with some few exceptions, t ) life peers. The jurisdiction as at present existing was condemned by the house itself.; ti,e mitter was one of great importance, one in which no he erect but that of the public ought-to be allowed to prevail. It ought not to be made a party question. They could not create life peers. Some persons were averse to accept an hereditary peerage, and.the jurisdictiOn could not be transferred. ' Were they prepared to enter into a contest with the House of Lords on the question ? The result to the suitors would be ruinous, and on the whole he thought the better,course.te take was that proposed by the bill. Even if the difficulty of.life peerages was got over there remained another, difficulty, that. of making the sittings of the appellate tribunal co-existent with the sitting of Parliament. By the plan proposed her Majesty would he enabled to introduce into the other house a member ,of Scotch judicature, which vvoull supply that ?retell was felt to be at present a grievous, almost a ecanda !nue proceeding. At present appeals from the Court of Session were decided by one or two lords, who, what ever might- be theirdsnew.lecige of English law,. had' not that kno wledge_of _the Scotch . law. .which. the judgea of the court appealed from had. He believed that the Scotch peiple.vrdeld be 'glad to see in the appellee: court e f the other houseat least one member of [the Scottish courts, -who. would give his assistance in appeal cases. EMI present plan would enable the Government to . proe Ode touthateweeite It 'was contended, also, by the op. goner:As of.the bitlehat it would operate as a surrender' of the prerogative of the Creel). (lliar.) All he could. day in .auaiXer to. that objection Was, that al.:hough he should be prepared to support that prerogative whenever the fitthig epportpnity presented itselfee(a laugh)—yet he did not mushier it expedient that the House of Cum-' rnoriu stkopl4494o;tip,in its defence to theAejectieh pf . 'measure which tensed ,the effect that improvement in the appellate jurisdiction of, the liaise of .:L wcle Which members of every party dawned to .be.,aVio luttltrleoesugy, -He could only present that. measure to the notice of the house ne_ Ole hest mode of gettine r - Out of a difatmitte i and heerineter,nuiritainteat unicera hore. tretebers could show etiet t enyreepre eetb , factsry way of ‘Overchtaieig the ob 7 .tactenTby : which the qtw.ti9.n !eel eras open to tiwcifoigOttali(kiit Lit