The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-11 00:00:00

MONEY MARKET LN D COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE. CITY, Two o'CLocK. The Liverpool Cotton Market yesterday closed firmly, and without animation, [but with little or no change in prices. The sales were estimated at 8,000 bales, of which 1,000 have been taken for export, and 1,000 on speculation, comprising 7,000 Pernam and Maranham, at 6d. to 7d. ; 100 Bahia, Gid. ; and 1,000 Surat, 41d. to sid. per lb. The Railway Share Market exhibited:a quiet aspect, and a moderate business was transacted, at a slight decline. The Colonial Produce Markets, during the past week, have been rather quiet, but most articles have maintained fully previous prices. There has been a good demand for sugar, at an advance of 6d. to ls. per cwt. For coffee there has been rather a quiet market, but no particular alteration has taken place in the quotations. Cocoa has risen 18. per cwt., and rice has been purchased freely at an improvement, and saltpetre i 3 dearer. For spices there has not been muc`i inquiry. Cochineal has tended upwards, and tallow has been largely dealt in at improved values. The public sales of indigo commenced on Tuesday, and they have pro ceeded firmly at about last sales' rates. During the series 15,543 chests will be offered. The advices from New York per steamer Arago state that the market for foreign manufactures continued dull, partly in consequence of the large I arrivals of goods from Europe. Letters from Cali fornia mention that the gold mines were yielding abundantly, and business prospects generally were improving. The total coinage at the Bank Mint was $4,261,158. Accounts from Copenhagen state that the Ame rican ships which pass the Sound continue to pay the Dues regularly, on the same scale as the vessels of other countries. At the same time the captains of these ships accompany their payments with a protest from the American Consul at Elsinore, ad dressed to the authorities, which it appears is not acknowledged by them ; and they refuse to pro long the settlement of the question under the terms of the convention, which expired in June. The Australian Agricultural Company's report has been circulated prior to the half-yearly meeting , convened for next week. A statement of the bu siness transacted since the previous meeting is Made, fromwhich it appears that Mr. Odernheimer's report relative to the value of the coal field in Port Stevens is fully confirmed. Various sugges tions are made for developing the resources of the company, which are likely to be carried into effect. The Monthly Return of the Bank of France, com pleted to yesterday, has been published, and com pared with that of the previous mouth some very rin favourable changes are apparent. The bullion bas diminished about 5,430,954fr5., partly owing to the dividend payments, and the amount of bills discounted was much larger than in July. The Funds have been exceedingly heavy to-day, and a decline of fully to 1 per cent. has occurred since this time yesterday. The settlement of the account has resulted in the failure of one specu lator, but in other respects it has been effected in a satisfactory manner. The decline in the bullion of the Bulk of France, and the ex pected unfavourable B ink of England Return to ti Published to night, naturally have a depressing in fluence upon prices. Consols have been 951 a for Money, and 951 for .August. The New Three per Cents. are 96i 1, and the Reduced 931 to 96. Bank Stock is heavy at 217. Exchequer Bills are 1 6s. to 195., and India Bonds 20s to 245. prem. Foreign Securities are quiet, and generally at lower quotations. Turkish 6 per Cents. are 103 to 1031, being a decline of I, and the 4 per Cents. have receded to 105 to 106. Sardinian are 92k, Mexican Deferred 241, and Dutch 21 per Cents. 65 . Buenos Ayres have dropped 1 per cent., viz., to 87, and Peruvian 4z per Cents. are 81. The following are the nominal prices of Foreign Stocks :—Grenada Deferred Bonds, ; Mexi can, 221 3 ; Peruvian, 81 83 ; ditto 3 per Cents., 57 9 ; Portuguese 4 per Cents., 49 51 ; Russian 5 per Cents., 112 114 ; ditto 4 per Cents., 98 100 ; Spanish 3 per Cents., 46A- ; ditto Deferred, 2 4i A ; ditto Certificates, 6l ; ditto Passive, 61 7. Messrs. D. Bell, Son, and Co. report that— " The market for American Securities continues Without_material change. There has been during the past week less activity, but prices have been Well sustained. Government and State Stocks are becoming scarce, and only a very limited supply of the leading Railroad B mds, for which their con tinues an active demand Redeenrible. Per Cent. United S tates 6 per Cents. 1867-1868...1021 1031 U nited States 6 per C ent. B on d s 186i...102 1031 STATE SECURITIES. le ntuelcy 6 per Cent. Bonds lB6i-1872... 8; 00 Maryland 5 per Cent. (Sterling Bonds)... ... 89 90 AILROAD BONDS. not S; Central Central R 7 per Ce n t. l e t M or t gage , onvertible 1875... 81 83 Illinois Central 7 per Cent. Freeland Bonds . ....... . . . . . 1360..• 87 89 Michigan Centra. .... . .. ... v ........ ..... 860... 98 100 New York Central 7 Cent.," Convart 1864... 94 96 New York and Erie 7 P Per Cent. 3d Mort 14"gage 83 90 ... York and Erie 7p. Cent. Convertible 1862... 60 82 N. York and Erie 7 per Cent. Sinking 1875... 85 87 Pen n sylvania Central 6p. Cent., Ist Mort 1880... 90 91 The English Railway Shares are on the average about to 1 per cent. lower, with a very dull Market. The Foreign are also dull, and Rigas are fiat at 6. East Indian and Canadian lines are Weaker. Bengals are A premium, Ceylous 2to 2i, and Metropolitans 111 premium. Mines are neglected. Ottoman Bank Shares are lower, and in the miscellaneous market former prices are in most instances current. BRITISH FUNDS THIS DAY.-CLOSING PRICES. Nro , the OXeird .; • .. done. B unk Stock .... 217 18i 3 Per Cent. Reduced Ann u iti es... 0 Per Cent. Consols Annuities 954 .; / i ‘ ,. 141 . I per Cent. Annuities . ". t .," 7 3i per Cent. An nu iti es •" 4 evr 24 per Cent. Annuities Lone Annuities, expire sth Jan. 1860... 3 Ditto :10 Years, expire sth Jan., 1860 3k . Ditto 30 Y ears , ex pi re sth April, 1885.,. 18A 1.16 India Bonds, £lOOO ~......., 2O 21 3 Ditto, ander £lOOO 24 p Consols for Account &chlooequer Bills, 20. £0 Small ..._ Ditto Bonds, 1858, 3i per Cent. lOO i Ditto, 1859 PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY. Buenos Ayres Bonds, 6 per Cent. B7 6 8} Equador New Consolidated l4s Grenada New Active, 2$ per Cont. Ditto Deferred Greek Bonds Mexican 3 per Cent Peruvian Bonds 41 per Cent Ditto Account ... Ditto 3 per Cent.... Ditto Account Ditto 4i per C en t. SA, diniau Howr-li., T. per Cent. lip i ii.l ttolids, :-', per Cent ... ........... ... - Ditto Account ........... ....... Ditt“ .` ew i werred, 3 per Cent. Ditto Account ................... 9 1 1 x d _. - .1 SD,nist, Committee Cert. of Coup • wit fun 6l 6 p c Tarkith Bonds, 6 pur cent..... . ........... Ditto Account 1031 i 3 Ditto Guaranteed, 4 per C en t. Ditto Account Divi. en is on the Ahoy*, , ayabit, I n L ormor , 'rench Rentes, 41 per Cent. Ditto 3 per Cent' 72f ex 25f 25c Dutch Exchang;:, 21 per Cent., 12 Guilders 651 6i 221 THREE O'CLOCK. Cansols (Money) Dittu Account (Aug. 7) . 951 i x d etrI3TAL PALACE.—We are requested to call attention "" the fact that the second display of the Great Waters at the Crystal Palace will take place to-morrow at half past fou r in the afternoon. At the Underariter's rooms, on Wednesday, a notice 17 ,,,a 4 Posted th at the Oliver Lang, from Mel b ourne, wa' ," the pert. A. sttarner was sent out yesterday to meet, but could not find her, and it is supposed that there. must have b een some mistake in telegraphing the num uer.--Liverpool Me r cury. • The letters from P ar i s ment i on t h e stoppage o f t h e ba nking firm of M essrs . Alliez, Grand, and Co. Their hou se was considered respectable-although not a leading ° nu, but they ba re l a t e l y b een much mixed up with new , Ic epanies. th e s h ares o f which have proved unsaleable his event, ti,gether with a rumour of Nome unfavour able news from A:giers, had produced the heaviness ob servable ou the Bourse. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) ADVOWSONS BILL. This bill, on the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, also passed through committee. INTESTATES ESTATE BILL. This bill, on the motion of Earl FORTESCUE, also passed through committee. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was reported with amendments. DISTILLATION FROM RICE BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. DWELLINGS FOR LABOUItING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, The Marquis of WESTMEATH, while agreeing that this was a very good bill, objected to the ninth clause, which he said was a libel on the magistracy of Ireland. He moved that the ninth clause be expunged. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE bore testimony to the high character of the Irish magistracy, but their high characterlvas no reason why they should not take precautions against the abuse of power which with ma gistrates, as with any body else, would sometimes occur. Lord CAMPBELL observed that it was unlawful for any judge to adjudicate in his own cause, and if any ma gistrate in Ireland, or elsewhere, decided a case in which he was personally interested, he would be guilty of a misdemeanour, and might be punished. Such a prohibi• tion, therefore, in this bill was unnecessary as regarded principals. At the same time he thought it desirable that agents who were magistrates should be disqualified. Viscount DUNGANNON supported the amendment. Ti,e Earl of DONOULIMORE urged the necessity of passing the bill as it stood. The Ear! of WICKLOW hoped the amendment would not be withdrawn. L lid DENMAN would vote for the amendment. The Marquis of WESTMEATH intimated an inten tion of pre-sing his amendment to a division. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE proposed an amendment to the clause, co as to make the disqualifi tion applicable only to the agent of the landlord. Lori REDESDALE thought the amendment too important to be introduced without notice af,er the third reading of the bill, and recommended that the dis cussion be postponed, and that in the mean time the proposed amendment be printed. The LORD CHANCELLOR advocated the amend ment proposed by the Marquis of Clanricarde. Viscount DUNGANNON did not see why a stigma should be cast upon agents who happened to be in the commission of the peace any more than on the landlord. The Duke of RICHMOND would vote for the rejec tion of the clause. After some further conversation, the Marquis of Cianricarde's amendment was adopted, and their lord ships divided upon the question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the bill : Contents Non-contents Majority The bill then passed. THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND) BILL. This hill was read a third time and passed. The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill, and the Grand Juries (Treland) Bill, severally passed through com mittee. 25 . -12 of Ton• his last tier and !cleared, iitor by s, 8161.; 1,2061. ; trade forthern .nt, and me:.cing capital 33. 2J. ; W. 104. 1,3871. ; insisiting ,GO5l ; iouthall, nated of are the )3., and nr a fur itimated Arupt'o t, which trntaect, ng to do tie court Day.) g a re• ers, was charged rd Of the ie, it or tiered his ind sods the bar' cash C3llar, equired• - note, .forgery rnparing applied Feet wag visible, rated it. iota to bad one , lOner not d y . id be did 18 a very ner vise he wrote the note D ry and ssia ve to the the pre his band taterneet Id her he r as the nocent of .Cility for Case till English ge; hence Les of red ions. 11 ! acted, 1" to hand the busi• hero was uIO J 1,07 0 3,570 bra. e )n Mow i• suppae .ly at 2d. and the from 2d. imbs was :alves, at lch cove ing their t. 0 2 5 6 0 4 0 0 5 4 4 0 4 41 9 0 30 0 1.8 0 Et, US fol• d. 6. it. 6 4 u 2. 4 6 8 5 0 4 4 8 4 4 are log 1 prices, msr cwt.; irehasera ere have COllBO - descrip a brisk )rtation. Porto ) brigh* ;ea, and • Imam!, ised fair five ord erry 74s cwt. __ and full rinidad hied 503 1 quali s rates 10s 6d 9.1 per I; there e with- lescrip -2s sd, ;o 28 4d for fine d 2s 7d is lld )d sold quest umatro tit few 10d to ad 27s prices iug in it pub- Ac let the mther. ling to ship -I.:gypt, ed the ,7251. com- shows s then how- Auded ,a this r. was sent to in the thnost CHARITIES BILL. This bill passed through committee. CHURCH BUILDING COMMISSIONS BILL. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Lord PORTMAN expressed his satisfaction that one of these commissions was coming to an end. He should, next year, introduce a bill to consolidate the whole of the laws on the subject. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that they were at that moment before the Statute Law Commission, with a view to their consolidation. DULWICH COLLEGE BILL. This hill pa,,sed through committee. BISROPRICS OF LOND , N AND DURHAM. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked leave to introduce a bill, the object cf which was, he said, to enable two distinguished members of the right rev, bench, whose health rendered it unlikely that they could continue to perform their episcopal duties, to retire, due provision being. made fur suitable retiring allowances. He alluded to the Bish.ps of London and Durham, who ha , i both signified their assent to such a measure, and therefore he asked leave to have the bill read a first time, proposing to fix the second reading for to-morrow (this ray). Lard REDESUALE said that this was a question that required careful consideration. A general measure embodying the principle would be very desirable, but the policy of legislating for two sees only was in his opinion very questionable. They would by this bill establish a precedent,,so that every time a bishop wished to retire, it would require a special act for the purpose. In his opinion this was a subject for general not special legisla tion, and should have been brought forward at au earlier period of the session. - Tile Earl of HARROWBY said that this would not int:rfere, with a general bill, and it was called fur by an immediate and pressing necessity. Lord CAMPBELL said he trusted that before long the prelates would be put in the same position as the judges of the land—that was to say, would have the privilege of retiring on a suitable allowance when no longer able to perform episcopal duties, To lay down a .general rule on the subject would require a great deal of consideration, and as a friend of the Church he should rejoice to see such a measure brought forward ; but there was an urgency in the present case, and the man ner in which the two prelates had come forward and re quested permission to retire must increase the estima tion in which they had before been held by the whole community. He did not think that because there was not time for a general measure they should be obstructed in so praiseworthy a proceeding, and therefore he trusted that the present bill would be adopted by the house. Lord RED ESDALE thought that time should be given for considera , ion before the second reading. - Lord DEN \IAN supported the bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped that the house would not consent to postpone the second reading, as upon that stage there would be ample opportunity for discussion. There were pecuiar facilities in this case, as the Bishops of London and Durham could be provided with retiring pensions without trenching on any fund. Lord DUNGANNON deprecated the precedent, and supported the motion for de'ay. The E.rl of PO WIS would prefer having the second reading taken on Nlonday. Lord REDESDALE said he should certainly divide the house, if it was proposed to take the second reading on the following day. There were many noble lords who took an interest in the question who might be absent if the second reading were taken without sufficient notice. After some further conversation the bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Monday next. CONSOLIDATION OF THE LAW. The LORD CHANCELLOR announced that he should speedily lay on the table nine bills for the consoli dation of the criminal statutes, which bad been prepared by L ,, rd Wensleydale, Lord Chief Justice Jervis, M r . Grey, and Mr. Bellenden Ker. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—CrEsTERDAy.) JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS OF INDIA. Sir E. PERRY wished to ask the President of the Thard of Control whether he contemillated bringing i n a bill to provide a judicial tribunal in andia,with appeal investigation and the Privy Council in England, for the and decision of such claims on the private rights of the native princes and grantees of Government as were now decided by the executive government without hearing and in the absence of the parties? Mr. V. SMITH said he had no intention of bringing in such a bill, as he did not see how any satisfactory measure could be introduced on this question. NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE. Col. DUNNE asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether by the treaty of Paris, which provides for the opening of the navigation of the Danube, any persons other than Austrian subj e ct s wou ld b e allowed to pos sess steamers and navigate that river above the frontiers of Austria on the same terms as subjects of that empire? Lord PALMERSTON replied—By the Treaty of Paris the navigation of the Danube is to remain liable to the provision of the treaty of 1815 applicable to rivers which in their navigable course separate or traverse dif ferent states. The provision of that treaty is that such rivers in their navigable course are to be free for naviga tion to the commerce of all nations, subject only to such regulations of police and other matter s as a commission composed of the representatives of the bordering states may devise, and I apprehend it enables the vessels of any country to enter the Danube at its mouth in the Black Sea, and to ascend the river, as far as it is navi• gable in its course, subject always to such regulations as those contemplated by the treaty. I apprehend, how ever, the question of the hon. and gallant member applies more particularly to a certain monopoly given to an Aus trian by a former arrangement with Austria ; and if so, I may say that, in my opinion, that arrangement can not stand against the stipulations of the treaty itself. The Austrian Government cannot upon its own autho rity make arrangements at variance with the spirit of the treaty, so as to exclude from the navigation of part of the Danube ships of other countries. CURRENCY OF INDIA.. Mr. CHEETHAM asked the President of the Board of Control if his attention had been called to the great inconvenience at present sustained by the co!nrnercal class's iu India fr m the scarcity of a metallic specie in that country ; and whether it was the intention of the Indian Government to take any measures to remedy the same by the creation of a gold coinage as a legal tender, in addition to the silver coinage now current there ? And .if be was able to lay upon the table of the house a report of the extent of railway communication now iu operation and in course of construction in India ? Mr. V. SMITH said no such complaint had been made since he had been at the Board of Control ; but the question of extending gold coinage to India was well wor thy of consideration, and had not been lost sight of. (Hear.) With regard to the second question, there was no such - detailed report in the possession of the Board of Control, but some correspondence had taken place upon the subject, and if it were moved for there would be no object o❑ to produce it. SITE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY. Mr. VERNON said since her Majesty had undertaken to issue a royal commission to inquire into the site of the National Gallery, he wished to put a question upon the ~oject to the noble lord at the head of the Government. me committee which sat in 181,3 on the same subject elt itself impeded from recommending any sites which it really considered to be the best from a delicacy with egar(l to the nature of the tenure of those sites. Now he did not wisl' ; trouble the noble lord to state speci- THE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1856' fically what instructions would be issued to the commis sion, but perhaps the noble lord would be so good as to say whether the commission would have full power to propose such a site as they miglat consider the best adapted to the purpose. Lord PALMERSTON—I cannot tell my hon. friend what the instructions will be, because the commission has not yet been appointed, but of course it will be open to them to make such suggestions as may appear to them to be the best to make with regard to the site. I can only repeat, however, what I stated in the discussion of this question, that there are places, such al the Royal Palaces at Sc. James's, and Kensington gore, and Marl borough House, which no Government would agree to have converted into the National Gallery, even though they should be recommended by the commission, and f this obvious reason, that such places are the private pro perty of the Crown. (Hear.) MILITIA MUTINY IN IRELAND. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to put a question to the hon. Under-Secretary for War, relative to a statement which had been published with regard to the disbanding of the Tipperary Militia. It was stated that the men had re fused to deliver up their arms on certain conditions, and that they had taken possession of the town of Nenagh, where they used their bayonets and fire-arms, arid the troops of the line had to be called in to quell them. By a telegraphic message since received, it was stated that the mutiny had been quelled, and the question he wished to put to the ;hon. Under-Secretary was, whether it really was the fact that the mutiny had been suppressed, but only with severe losses on both &des? Mr. F. PEEL—I have seen a telegraphic despatch from General Chatterton, which states that everything was quiet i❑ the quarters where the mutiny had taken place. It added that one man had been killed and some 10 or 12 wounded belonging to the line, but it does not allude to the losses on the side of the militia. Colonel DUNNE—Does the hon. gentleman intend to go on with the Militia Pay Bill to night I—because, if he does, I shall call attention to the important cause of this unfortunate occurrence. Mr. F. PEEL—I hope to pass it through committee to-night. was carried. (Hear.) That furnished a clue to show that the 1% - ?al intention of those who conceived the bill was to limit the prerogative of the Crown. Let him go to the antecedents of the measure. No doubt the Go vernment had thrintention of strengthening the appel late juri , dietion- of the House of Lords when they a d_ vised her Majesty to create his noble friend Lord Wens leydale a peer fur life. But 'as soon as the hare - w as started in the other Mouse, the ball was opened by a noble lord, to ',horn he would apply these lines of Gray, with only a isiight alteration . Full oft within the gilded halls, When he had seventy winters o'er him, The Lord. Chief Justice led the brawls, While Law and Justice danced before him. (Laughter.) The Government made a good fight, but they were defeated by a majority of 33. His right hon. friend (sir J. Graham) said the other night that there was no thing really new in the world—that the same thing was being acted ov,r and over again. He thought it was in Captain Alarrya,tt's " Peter Simple that a character was drawn who held that in the year 2222 they would be hammering nails in the same ship with the same people around as now ; and there was an illus tration of that in the third vo!urne of the " Lives of the Chancellors," page 398, where in the life of Lord Chan neer Nottingham the following scene was described : —" The Chancellor had the sagacity to see the trap laid fur the Government, but he had not the address to avoid it. He could not control the fervour of those friends of The Government who, mad on the question of privilege, disregarded all party predilections and stood up for their own notion of the rights of their older. During these debates the ex-chancellor and the reigning Lord Chancellor being pitted against each other, the latter suffered severely." His noble friend at the head of the Government said the other night, in answer to him, that whatever had been done in this matter bad been acted before the foot-lights. Adopting that image, and the curiosafe/icitas of the noble lord, he would consider the whol' of this affair in a theatrical point of view, and in an "Imaginary Conversation," not by W. S. Lander, but by an author whoca he would not name, he should thu- describe the scene (Scene, Venice. A Gothic library looking out on the Grand ' Canal. Two Senators seated at a table.) FIRST SENATOR--You're in a fix, and there's but one in Venice Can help you out of 't, and that I am he Full well thou know'st. When rogues on the Rialto Are growing seedy, they've an ancient custom : Each draws a little bill, and each accepts it, And then they spout their paper, and the house That takes it is done brown (a house we wot of). Nobles may learn from knaves, say dost thou twig me ? SEcoath SENATOR—AIas ! too well. FIRST SENATOR—Then mark me " Villegrande." I, too, have run my head against a wall Right at the Doge's power, of which I boasted To be the best, if not the sole, defender; Yet I will curb this enrst prerogative, • • But hide the hand that does so. " Campobello" (Bellow he's rizhtly named) cloth roar and bluster About his " Res decreta," but we know 'Tis worth the ink that writes it, and no more. I want a statute with all forms of law ; We'll wrap my 4lig at the prerogative In some sham semblance of a law reform, The very cry you've started,—and the Commons Will toss their noses to the wind, and open Full on the false scent and o'errun the true one. Old Campobello is the man to do it For well he knows so to embalm a rat, That none shall nose him. Ah ! you hesitate, But I have mare to offer ; and, besides, Will find some plaister for your broken pate; Two golden rings and twice six thou, and ducats To oil the legal wheels and set them whirring; And they shall whirr and whizz on this suggestion, Down there below, until the wretch who hears them Shall stop his ears, and, bothered by their pother, surrender at discretion. Here's a plan In which I think you trace a master's hand. SECOND SENATOR —But then the Doge, my lord ? FIRST SENATOR...-The Doge be d—d ! Sweet " Villegrande," if you sign this paper And do my high behests, I'll bear you harmless Out of this ugly scrape ; but if, by Heaven, You pause or falter—era the chimes of six Strike on St. Mark's —I open on the Senate And thunder o'er it till " the stones of Venice" Turn on their sides to mock thee with their grinning. Sign, then ! SECOND SENATOR (with great expression).—l sign FIRST SENATOR —Why there's a clever fellow. [Exit FIRST SENATOR with the paper in his pocket, whistling " the Ratcatcher's Daughter."' (Laughter.) SECOND SENATOR—The Doge I the Doge ! I fear I have betrayed him. [Opens the window, gazes on the Grand Canal, shuts the window, and rushes fran tically out of the apartment.] (Laughter.) Now, that was a curious fragment, and be should be happy t-) furni.h any gentleman with the references to it in private. He thought that, in courtesy to the house, the assent of the Crown to the introduction of the bili should be notified to it That was done in the House of Lords, but only on the third reading, and after some observations made by Rid Grey. Although the power of the Crown in respect to life peerages had been dormant, it was one which nobody should wish to repeal. They were accustomed to look on their ancestors as benighted brings in many respects, and their descendants might entertain the sqrne opinion in respect to`the present generation. The time was when the possession of many acres, and being descended from an ancient family, were put forward as grounds of recommendetion for the .office of Speaker, which showed bor. , much public opinion bad change4i since that time. A noble lord who had been well known to many of them, used to say that there were two great objects of ambition to the peerage of this country, a garter or a lord-lieutenantcy, and that because they were never given to merit. It was quite natural that such should be the case. The low-born or the outcast might possess them. But those distinctions were the test of po litical power, rank, and position. Submission to wealth and rank was the besetting sin of this uountr• It would ' perpetual influx of lawyers into the house. Nor was this all. In the debates on the Peerage Bill, life peers were decried, wore called "second-chop peers;" and yet now it was proposed to place the appellate jurisdiction in the power of life peers. If a life peer deserved the derogatory desig nation which had been applied to him, even when created by the Crown, what would be thought of him when called into existence with the aid of the rude bands of the Com mons. These inconsistencies showed that passion rather than discretion had provoked the contest with the Crown. The question of prerogative had been abundantly discussed. and the power of the Crown to create life peers amply established. Indeed the position taken by the House of Lords had hardly been defended in that house. Now what did the measure propose ? To create two life peers from the body of the puisne judges. The salary was to be the same, and no great inducement was held out in point of honour, seeing that the language held out in the House of Peers was derogatory to the dignity of life Peers. Men of spirit, in the vigour of health, would hardly accept such peer ages, and these two new life peers would have the power of reversing j udgreenta agreed to by the entire bench of judge., now in the flower of their health and the full force of their mental vigour. (Hear.) Would that be a satisfactory system of appellate jurisdiction? (Hear.) The Government were now coming to the close of the session. He hoped his noble friend at the head of the Government would not allow this miserable bill to come between him and his great body of supporters. Had he considered the division upon this question, when 140 of his supportors voted o .against him? (Hear, hear.) They could not without great regret enter into a contest with him at the end of a session in which their conduct must have been satisfactory to him. (A laugh.) He would not speak of what they might be driven to in extremity ; but when no one would venture to say a word publicly in favour of the bill—(hear, hear) — although members spoke of it privately without reserve— (hear)—some of them charaiitmising it as the worst bill that had been brought into the house for 20 years—(hear) o r ter s wishedeve even inquiry t upon b e able —let his noble fri en d a tt emp t t o f orce i t upon t h e house without i return ear.) A t o their hom es with thathissup p with satisfaction and contentment—(a laugh)—and he en treated the noble lord not further to force the bill upon them. (Hear, hear.) • Mr. MALINS said this was a measure of most vital im portance as affecting the administration of justice. (Hear.) He had already in that house drawn attention to the un satisfactory state of our appellate jurisdiction. (Hear.) And his views had been adopted and confirmed even by the House of Lords. (Hear.) The delay and expense amounted almost to a denial of justice. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the nature of the tribunal, although the country had tolerated the long period in which the appel late jurisdiction was really exercised by the Lord Chan cellor, at the present time such a system, even under an Eldon, would not be endured. (Hear, bear.) Since 1835 there had been for some years a body of ex-chancellors of singular ability, and the jurisdiction was tolerated by the country. But lately these noble lords, from age and other reasons had thought fit to withhold their assistance, and consequently during last session there were only two peers in attendance. And now the court of appeal really con sisted of a single peer—the Lord. Chancellor—a state of things certainly intolerable. (Hear hear.) The question was, what was to be done ? He should have rejoiced if the House of Lords would have relinquished their juris diction. Still that house had declared that they wore de termined to retain it. If the House of Lords, however, as a house, did not really exercise it, and it was exercised only by the law lords, what necessary connection had it with the house? (Hear.) Something must he done; and although that was .not the best reason for legislation, it was at least an unanswerable one. It was necessary to do something. The Lord Chancellor was virtually the court of appeal. Could anything be more ridiculous than to call that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords ? (Hear.) The 450 peers were actually excluded, and the decision of a single peer was termed that of the house. (Hear, hear.) Something, he repeated, must be done. He declared again that he wished the House of Lords had consented to give up their jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.) That would have afforded the opportunity for c mstituting an appellate jurisdiction analogous to that of the .lu.licial Committee of the Privy Council. And if he could have seen his way by rejecting the bill to secure that object, he would have voted for its rejection. But he had with great pain and regret and doubt arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing else to be done but to support the bill. (Laughter.) The evil was so pressing that it would not admit of delay. If the bill were sent to a select committee that would shelve the bill for the year. Next year the evil would exist; and what would be the consequence:? Was there any reason able prospect that the. House of Lords would part with their appellate jurisdiction ? Why very distinguished peers had declared that if they gave it up they would lose their legislative power in ten years. There was no chance then of their giving up their appellate jurisdiction. That being so—true wisdom required that Parliament should do the best that could be done for remedying the evil. The pre sent bill provided at all events a partial remedy. It pro vided for the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction during the recess.' It also provided that there should be three judges at least instead of one. It was said, indeed, that it was a blow to the prerogative. But that was a delusion. It was admitted that the Crown could create life peers; but though the Government had acted very unwisely in mooting the question, the House of Lords was the proper tribunal to determine their own privileges, anti had determined that a life peer was not a lord of Parliament. (Hear.) The pre sent bill only provided that a certain number of life peers should be peers of Parliament; and wherein did that in terfere with the prerogative? This bill did not limit the prerogative of the Crown ; but the Crown could not create peers to sit in Parliament. The Crown could still create 200 peers if it thought fit, and it was a delusion, therefore, to say that the measure interfered with the prerogative. The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, and the noble lord the member for Lon on contended thatthepeers created ought,to be peers with inheritance ; bat he (Hr. Malins) maintained that if this bill passed, there would be no greater difference between the new peers and the peers by inheritance than between Scottish and It ish represen tative peers and those sitting in their own right. If the appellate jurisdiction was to be maintained, it was for the ' interest of the public and the profession that the new peer ages should to some extent be for life, and not an inherit ance, inasmuch as in the progressoflasw reform professional incomes had been much lowered, and there were but few persons eligible to undertake the responsibility of the peer age. But he certainly should regard it as a public calamity if the legal tribunal of the House of Lords, which sat upon legal and constitutional questions, should be reduced to only one or two noble and learned lords. Admitting that there might be too meny lawyers in the House of Commons —(" hear" from LOrd Palmerston)—it was better to have too many than too few. (Hear.) He should regard it us a great misfortune if the mercantile and banking interest were unrepresented, and if the retention of the legal ele ment in this house were essential, it was much more so in the other. (Hear.) Considering the great age of the noble and learned lords who now consituted the appellate j uris diction, he thought it right that Parliament should con cede the power to the Crown to create a limited number of peers for life, who should be competent, by their learn ing and experience, to aid the House of Lords in the busi ness of legislation. Although, therefore, he did not fancy the present measure, and could have wished one of a diffe rent complexion, he should, in the absence of a better one, give'it his support. He admitted That by this bill the appel late jurisdiction of the House of Lords would substantially, although not nominally, be taken away—(ironical cries of " hear, hear")—and that when the public found the court of appeal sitting in November and December, they would not recognise in it the present ordinary appellate jurisdic tion. But he thought that in the course Of years the House of Lords, feeling that the jurisdiction had gone substan tially, might be induced to part with it in reality. (Hear.) If the bill passed, he felt sure that the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown would only consider the efficiency of the administration of justice, and not lend himself to anything in the shape of jobbery. To that part of the bill which limited the appointments to those who had filled judicial offices he objected—(hear)—and in committee it was his intention to change that part of the measure. He objected to the present provision in this respect, as it li mited the ' choice of the Crown. This measure vets not what he should prefer ; but, seeing that it was the best that could be framed under the circumstances, he should object to its being referred to a select committee. Reject the bill, and the appellate jurisdiction would be left in the wildest state of confusion. Mr. CARDWELL had hoped that the moderate request that, before they committed themselves to irrevocable legis lation on this great and important subject, inquiry should be had, would have been conceded. The usual course, when an evil was admitted, and the remedy proposed doubtful, was to refer the matter to a committee. This bill cause before the House of Commons concurrently with the Ap propriation Bill, and was a measure which dealt with the constitution of the Rouse of Lords, with the prerogative of the Crown, and with the dearest rights and most important interests of the community. If, according to the last speaker, the substance of the jurisdiction was gone and yet the Lords thought they retained it, what could furnish a stronger case for inquiry than the doubt here suggested ? The hon. and learned gentleman (Air. Atalins) declared himself opposed to one of the most important pro visions of the bill—namely, that which regulates all the appointments of the persons that were to constitute the new tribunal, and ho went so far as to announce his inten tion of moving the rejection of the clause when the bill was in committee. But besides that there were other portions of the bill, although ho did not specifically name them, to which he should object in committee. Well, that being so the advocates of the bill bad much reason to say, "Save us from our friends." It was but natural, therefore, that those who looked upon the bill with less favour should call upon the house to take due time for consideration before passing such a bill. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, he should put a question which must be palpable to every one, and that was, how had the bill been actually received in debate ? On the opposite side of the house they had but little more than silent votes in favour of the bill, while on that of the ministerial side they had had the most earnest observations and the most strenuous votes against the second reading. Neither as yet had the guardians of the Queen's prerogative taken any part iu the discussion, though perhaps that might be considered a fortunate eft cun3stance, inasmuch as it might facilitate their yielding to the demand for a more careful inquiry. What member that had spoken in favour of the bill had failed to speak of it in terms of condemnation ? The Attorney-General presented it to them as a modeof getting outof adifliculty. The hon. and learned member for. Plymouth considered thodetails of the bill as weak and unsatisfactory. The other learned member for Plymouth admitted the bill was capable of improvement. While the Solicitor• General wished that its phases had been larger, and would reserve the bill forameniment in committee. (Hear, hear.) Well, ought not such speeches, made 'ostensibly in favour of the bill, seriously warn them to pause before acceptinc , it ? Law reform had been ju st ly ter med the great demand of the day, and though they did not obtain it as rapidly as was desired, still a good deal of consideration was devoted to the subject. Now, what ought to be the keys:one an d column of law reform ? Why, the amelioration of that appellate tribunal before which, as a last resort, legal questions were brought, and whose decisions constituted the model of written law. How stood matters at present with regard to the appellate jurisdiction of the country? There were two courts of appeal—the Committee of Privy Council and the House of Lords. In the first place, then, was it wise to continue the two courts of appeal, and might it not be well for the House of Commons to inquire whether a single court of appeal might not be formed that would comprehend all the wisdom of the law ? But how did they propose to deal with the existing courts ? Why, they were going to ignore the one that gave universal sa. tisfaction, it being intended ultimately to absorb and an nihilate it ; while with respect to the other they were going to pass a measune admitted to be imperfect. What ought to be the general principle of a tribunal of first in stance ? Ought it not to be that the fullest responsibility should rest with the presiding judges? while in the case of the court of final appeal, the regulating principle ought to be that the appeal should be to the collective wisdom of the judicial bench. Now, just consider the state of the legal tribunals as they would be should this bill pass. What could now happen in a court of equity ? 'A matter 'night be decided in chambers, and there might then be an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. MALINS—I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. There is no such thing as an appeal from chambers to the Vice-Chancellor. Matters are simply adjourned from chain hers to before the judge in court. Mr. CARDWELL--Well, then, adjournment 'might be he proper technical term for him to have used. From the Vice-Chancellor there was an appeal to the Lords Justices sitting with the Lord Chancellor. And then there was the appeal to the House of Lords. So that a cause might have to pass through four stages before its final determination ; and behold what a mass of vexation and expense to suitors ! And how was it in matters relating to the common law? First, there was the decision of a single judge—then au ap peal to the full court, thence to the Exchequer clamber, end lastly, in this case, also, to the House of Lords. Now, was it not worthy of the fullest deliberation on the part of the House of Commons to determine whether such a vast multiplication of tribunals was necessary for the true dis tribution of justice? And observe the constitution of the new court of final appeal. The appeal wss to be from the Lord Chancellor, sitting with the Lords Justices, to the Lord Chancellor sitting with two deputy speakers. Now, was that a satisfactory arraugemeut? Again, in common law appeals. The Court of Queen's Bench might have bean unanimous—the Exchequer Chamber, where ten judges might sit to hear the case, might have confirmed the de cision ; and from them—that is to say, the whole body of the common law judges of the land, the appeal lay to the Lord Chancellor and two deputy speakers, not one of whom might be versed in the study of the common law. Surely it was obvious that this was not a wise or practical arrangement. And there were several other considerations indirectly connected with the bill which deserved the most careful inquiry. There was the question of Scotland. They had the Dean of Faculty and the Lord Justice General, the chief judge of Scotland, representing to the select commit tee that provision ought to be made for Scotland in matters of final appeal. Yet no such provision was made. Again, take the case of India and the colonies. He would submit it was a very great question whether something might not be done to alter the law regulating appeals, with advantage to them. Then there had been a petition presented to the house—a petition of the greatest wisdom and authority— he meant the petition of Lord Wensleydale. It was the habit of the House of Commons not to deal lightly with the interests of private individuals. When affected by legisla tion, Lord Wensleydale prayed that his petition might be taken into consideration. Well, they were going to reject that petition ; for what tribunal could so easily determine the case as a select committee? But the hon. and learned gentleman opposite told the house that it was the House of Lords that had to determine as to this bill, for it affected their constitution. Now, he contended that the question was one for the House of Commons to decide, for it affected the property and well-being of all her Majesty's subjects. (Hear.) And when be was told by the same hon. gentleman that they ought to pass the bill because the House of Lords would not consent to pass any other, he would say at once that he did not believe the House of Lords would offer any impregnable resistance to a wise and well-considered mea sere of reform. (Hear.) But he would ask, was the exigency such that the House of Commons was called upon to accept a mere stop-gap measure ?If they did then they would furnish a pretext for the accusation that, by their own act, they had brought about all the mischief which the hon. and learned gentleman had predicted. It would be remem bered that a strong demand had been made upon the House of Commons for deliberation and inquiry, but that, through the voice of a majority, the demand had been re jected, and the result was the precipitate adoption of a crude and ill-considered measure. (Hear.) Mr. L. WIGRAM would observe that two impressions had been brought home to his mind during the progress of the debate. The first was that he did not believe in the ne cessity of referring the bill to a select committee, and for the reason that ha could not rernembar a subject to have been discussed in that house upon which gentlemen on both sides possessed so much information. Almost every one that had spoken upon the subject seemed intimately ac qu dnted with the details of his subject, sad quite compe teat to ad visa the house respectingit. Hissecond impression was suggested by some remarks of the right hon. gentleman the member fur Oxford (Hr. Cardwell) which tended to the conclusion that they ought not to legislate for the im provement of the House of Lords until they had surveyed the whole field of the jurisdiction of the country, and adapted it to the ultimate court of appeal. His • ight hon. friend had referred to the relative positions of the House of Lords and the Court of Chancery. Now if they were to embark upon so many collateral questions before they came to support and continue the House of Lords as a court of final appeal, he must say be looked forward with the greatest apprehension to the jurisdiction of the final appeal remain ing unsettled for years to come, and to the subject of sp pellete jurisdiction reform getting into the same position as that most unfortunate question of the improvement of the ecclesiastical courts. As to the question of life peer ages. That was not a principle of the bill. They might create two deputy speakers in the House of Lor s, and her Majesty might confer upon them, and she would be wise if she did so, hereditary peerages; but whether the bill should or should not contain a clause giving power to con ferlife peerages, was, after all, only a matter of detail, to be considered in committee. He was not in favour of the House of Lords sitting to hear appeals during the proroga tion • and in this re s p ec t th e clauses of the hill might no doubt be modified, by giving their lordships power to ap point a committee for the purpose, and so avoid the objec tion urged against the measure in its present shape. So far as his vote went, then, he s soul I give it decidedly in sup port of maintaining the appellate jurisdiction in the House of Lords. In conclusion, the hon. and learned ,entlemau said that ho was prepared to go into committee at once, and there to deal with the details of the measure. On the hon. and learned gentleman resuming his seat there were vociferous calls for a division. For some mo ments it appeared doubtful if the debate were not brought to a premature close, when Lord Palmerston rose with evi dent reluctance to address the house. A err of "G 1 el stone," however, proceeded from the bench immediately behind the noble lord, who instantly with surprising ala crity resumed his hat and his seat, on finding that the right hon and versatile member for the University was " on his legs." Mr. GLADSTONE.—I hope the house will excuse me if I attempt to detain them for a very few moments on a question of an interest and importance so extraordinary as that now before us. I have to regret—although this may be a pledge to the house that I shall not long occupy their attention—that, owing to indisposition, I have been pre vented from hearing many of the most effective speeches which have been delivered by persons intending to ob ject by their votes to the bill now under consideration I have, however, been fortunate in hearing ' several speeches delivered by men of great eminence in favour of the bill ; and as an opponent of the bill, I am bound to say that I have every reason to be satisfied with those speeches, and that if any doubt had remained on my mind with respect to the inexpediency of proceeding with a mea sure of this character under present circumstances and at this time, the speeches which I have heard from eminent members of the legal profession, who thought they were speaking on behalf of the bill and who intend to support it with their votes, would have sufficed to remove the very shadow of such a doubt. (Hear, and laughter.) I take the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He ran over the scale from top to bottom, reciting all the ob jections which might be urged against the bill. He did not attempt to extenuate the force of one of them ; he did not enter into any reasoning or statement of facts to show that any one of them was unfounded or ex aggerated ; but to one and all he replied by declaring that the present evil was vast, intolerable, and insuffer able ; that he had nothing else to offer but this bill, and that the house had no option but to pass it. I am bound to say that I do not think the House of Commons is reduced to such a pass as that when a question of this kind is presented to it, touching most nearly the very foundations of one House of Parliament— touching most delicate matters with respect to the prero gative of the Crown, and also involving most important topics with respect to the administration of justice—l say, when such a question is presented to the House at a time when the Appropriation Bill has begun to run its rapid course, I do not think the House is reduced to such a pass that every reason is to be confuted, every tongue to be silenced, every argument to be set aside, and every objec tion to be met by a statement that the present condition of things is intolerable, and that the House has no choice but to pass this bill. (Hear, hear.) This, indeed, is paying but a very bad compliment to the House of Lords. (" Hear," and a laugh.) What says the honourable and learned member for Wallingford ? I hope every gentleman in this house has beard his speech, which was worthy of the eminent position which that hon. gentleman held in his profession. The hon. and learned gentleman thought it beneath him to mike an uncandid statement of his views, and I thank him for his candour, but at the same time I hope he will not think it unfair on the part of those who are friendly to further inquiry to take what they consider a just advantage of his statement of the grounds on which he intends to vote for the bill. In the first place, the hon. and learned gentleman said that he never had so much difficulty in Making up his mind, and Veifescribeatheoi pression on his breast with respect to the vote he should give. (Laughter.) Really, that part of his speech sounded like an appeal to our sympathy and compassion ; and I assure him that if he will simply alter his intention with respect to his vote—as he may in perfect consistency, with all the substantial arguments he urged in favour of the bill—(laughter) —he will find all those disagreeable feel ings he has referred to immediately disappear, and he will pass at once from a state of trouble to a condition of ease and tranquillity, with the' perfect consciousness th st he has done a real service to the country. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) 'The hon, and learned gentleman says he entirely objects to the retention of the appellate jurisdic tion by the Hawse of Lords, and be thinks that there is not the slightest doubt that, when three gentleman are found sitting in some corner of the House of Lords dur ing the prorogation, the public will begin to perceive that the appellate jurisdiction is reduced to a fiction. (Hear, hear.) Therefore he says, as a practical man, that, inas much as he perceives that his bill destroys the substance of the appellate jurisdiction, though it does not profess. edly go the whole length of his opinion, which is in favour of destroying the shadow as well as the substance—yet, because it leaves only the shadow, he accepts .-sthe bill. After that it was with some surprise that I heard the hon. and learned member for Cambridge University get up and say that he entertained some suspicions that the opponents of this bill—that is to say, those who are against proceeding with it at present•— harboured ideas unfavourable to the retention of the ap pellate jurisdiction by the House of Lords. (Hear.) I know not whether there is any great disloyalty to the pre rogative of the House of Lords with respect to the appellate jurisdiction on the part of those who recommended further time for consideration ; but lam quite sure that no one can entertain more dangerous views in reference to that matter than the hon. and learned member for Wallingford. (Hear, and laughter.) Now I know not in what sense the noble lord at the head of the Government was about to address the house on this question when he rose ; but I never was more strongly convinced of the reasonableness and moderation of any proposition than I am of the rea sonableness and moderation of the reqiiest contained in the amendment before the house. (Hear, hear.) It is not pretended that this is anything else but an amendment, which, if carried, must for the present session put an end to the bill—(hear, hear)—and I seriously ask whether, in the present period of the session, we are fit to open all the great questions which this bill involves ? (Hear, hear.) Does not even decency require—l will not say duty to our constituents—but does not even that decorum whieh our constituents have a right to demand that we should observe, require that for some short weeks we should delibe rate on a question of this kind before finally committing ourselves to an arrangement over which our control ceases CONSOLIDATION OF THE LAW. Mr. L KING, seeing the hon. and learned member for Suff•iik, he wished to ask him wh4her he intended this se- , sion to bring in the Consolidation of the Criminal Law Bill, which he obtained leave to introduce on the 14th of February last ? Sir F. KELLY—After what has passed in this house on the subject to which this que.•tiou refers, I think the queBtion should rather have been addressed to the Go- vernment. Still, I have no hesitation in answering the question, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that some of the most eminent members of the Statute Law C .m- mission have been incessantly engaged in the prepara tion not only of the bills of which I have given notice, but also of bills relating to other branches of the law. I have therefore great ;:atislaction in announcing that the whole of these bills are at this moment ready to be laid on the table, and they will to-morrow or Monday be proposed to the House of Lords by the Lord Chan cellor. (Hear.) It was thought to be only right ?hat these important bills should he brought in by some mem ber of the Government. (Hear, hear.) COUNTY COURTS BILL. Mr. GLADSTONE gave notice that on the motion for the seco“d reading of this bill he should move a re _ solution to the effect, that, in the present state of the national exchequer, it was inexpedient to add 170,0001 to the expenditure of the country in connection with the maintenance of county courts. STATE OF ITALY. Mr. ]ISRAELI— Seeing the noble lord the member for the City of London in his place, I wish to ask him whether he intends to-morrow to bring forward that motiun of which he hp.s given notice with respect to the aff of the Italian States ? Lord J. RUSSELL—I am in the hands of the Go verniueut on that question. I had proposed to bring the subject forward on Friday, and if my noble friend at the head of the Government will allow my motion to take precedence of the orders of the day, I shah bring it on. Mr. DISRIELI—I shall be glad to hear what the noble lord wishes t > say on the subject, and as it is an important question, way I ask the noble lord the First Minister whether he is disposed to assent to the propo- sal which has ju-t been made to him ? Loral PALNIERSTON—I thought my noble friend intended to move his ra3ulution on the motion for 'ad journrueut. There are several bills on the paper which it is important to get thriugh a stage to-morrow, and if my noble friend means to bring the question forward in the shape of a substantive mo'cion, it would be more con venient if my noble friend would take Monday instead of Friday. Lord J. RUSSELL—I could not bring the subject for ward on the motion for adjournment, as I do not myself approve of the practice of speaking on the motion for ad. journment. Therefore if my noble friend has no objection to the question being taken on Monday, I will definitively postpone the motion till then, when of course it will be allowed to take precedence of the orders of the day. The subject then dropped: WILLS AND ADMINISTRATION BILL. In answer to Mr. MALINs, The SOLICITOR•OENERAL said he must resign this bill to its inevitable fate, and submit to " see it quietly inurnad." (Laughter.) When they arrived at the order of the clay for going into committee he should move that the order be discharged. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. After a short discussion this bill passed through com• mittee. an not,d they however, r)igh be t wasAPPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. merit, the w ir onido, On the motion for going into committee on this bill, intellectualtotooke alwayswf ' I )r e ;oa t r h d e qualities, i t ' The) o w w n t o h e o u e er l d l d o d f b a e y Ln oowrrdhesevnal advancing, tuheedi Mr. R.,CURRIE, in moving that the bill be referred The daymight to a select committee, said that the noble lord a'a the find the acquisition of such qualities important to head of the Government, in defending the bill, observed them. He knew what w ou ld be thought if Mac that compromises were sometimes expedient, necessary, aulay, whose pages would live for ever, or the gallant and justifiable. As a general proposition, he did not be- hero whom he had the honour of meeting at dinner last night, were to be made hereditary peers. The lieve any cue would deny that ; hut, on the other hand, creation of life peeraves was a valuable though dor every compromise must be judged on its own peculiar mant privilege, of which the Crown ought not to be de merits. Agreement was no d o ubsa good thing, but where prived. Her Majesty was younger than many of them, and might live t o see grea t cause for refreshing the principle and honour were concerned he believed con- House of Lords in this wa y, b u t whether good or bad, viction was better. The liberal supporters of the noble the prerogative should not be god rid of by a side-wind. lord advocated vote by ballot, an extension of the suf- Some contended that the bill had not this defect, but the frage, and the entire abolition of Church rates. But the existence of the doubt was a reason for referring it to a noblelord held none of these opinions, an d he manfully select committee. He next came to the plunder of the public purse, for such he wou ld ca ll it. He had received and consistently maintained his own. They supported the a letter from a most learned judge , who stated that they foreign policy of the noble lord when it was vigorously could not have a good court of appeal if the judges were and continuously assailed. They also fought with the noble to sit as judges of appeal only—(hear)—it was absolutely lord the battle of free trade. The noble lord, at a time necessary that a judge should be daily conversant witti d he ten c d ou t r o ts oor . Antoathilerthoe puisne bjectio judges. n to th energy into the councils of the Que en, and there by re. the i w n h a e u n t t u h m e n , reputationnailed hiso f s e t a o t i e j s u m r s en t o fell th sc e a t m t e a r s e t d ; l i h k e e l t e h a r v e e w s the nil p w r a a n c t i i c t e w n o u f i t (Hear, hear.) It held out precisely the golden bait a* which those learned persons wet.- likely to bite. In ad stored peace with Europe. For these things he was vanced years easy w or k w i t h h i g h position, like that of thankful to the noble lord, and was happy to call him the deputy speakers, was an object to all men, The bill his leader ; b u t th e d ut i es o f a ll eg iance and leadership would demoralise the bench. (Hear, hear.) The legis were correlative. The noble lord could not have a Liberal lature was bound to elevate the tone of public opinion a — monstrous sham as this bill. If the court ever sat, —to set an example of truth, and not to perpetuate such those e ri who one w ere night bound and a t o T t o h r e y they ought to inscribe in Go hic letters over the door a Derbyable a associations B o o n e i t a h t e i o o n p s p o u f s i monosyllable to which be iie uld not allude. (Laughter.) ' b h e y e ui the t l o e agree-s Noble f lt was a sham t 3 call it a House of Lords ; it was an quarter-dayt opposite na (Hear.) n t d he t n l e e x lv t band the field of battle, accompanied by his hon. friend the attempt to impose en the liublic rather than to face the lord, after the last division on this subject, walked over member for Wells as his aide-decamp, to exemine the great question whether the appellate jurisdiction should number and bodies of the slain, be must have exclaimed „ remain. The Solicit or -G enera l to ld th em, i n d ee d , i t with Pyrrhus, " On e suc h v i c t or y more will be my ruin , wou ld be the House of Lords, and laid it down with an (Laughter.) He hoped the noble lord was not going to assu mption and assertion which made him (Mr. R. Cur repeat th e s ame thi ng that night. (Hear( bear.) The tie) understand the fate Dr. Arnold saying "that he noble lord had ability and dexterity for almost any- would rather see his son starve than educate him for the thing ; but he did not think he could serve two masters profession of the law," (Laughter.) He (Mr. R. Currie) at once. (Hear.) He must cleave to one or the other did nos mean to libel the noble and generous profession. He must not receiv e th e edicts of the House of Lords —(loud laughter)—but they had seen the very particular and Lord Derby and ask his supporters ie the House of effect it had produced on a certain mind. They had Commons to ratify them. He spoke thus frankly and re- plenty of assumption and assertion that it was the House sreedullY, because he was a sincere friend and admirer of Lords—it would be the House of Lords—and it of the noble lord. He had been described by an hon. gen- shell' Ibe the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) It re tleman opposite as a desultory and independent member minded him of Lord Peter's answer to the men of the house. But he could sincerely say that he yielded w h o had the audacity to deny that the joint was a teg of to no man in the wish that the house should hold a high mutton. ".My ,food sir, and all I can say is, that to high place in the estimation of the public, because he e yes, touch, taste, it is nothing but a crust of bread." thought the greatest d anger to f ree government consisted Tile second says, " I never saw a leg of mutton so like in the popular branch of the Legislature losing tl e confi- a crust." "Confound you both," says Lord Peter, " for deuce of the people. And how could the House of Com° a pair of blundering, ignorant, positive fools ; by jingo, mons retain , uch confidence if they refused a select coin- it is as good a lee ' of mutton as ever I saw, and God con mittee on such a subject as t hi s, and contente d themselves found you both eternally if you do not believe it." with registering the edicts of the House of Loris ? He (Laughter.) The new court would no more be the House hoped the house would support his motion which he had of Lords than the three clerks at the table would be the placed on the paper without consulting a human being. It House of Commons if they were to empower them to sit so happened that be had studied the question of life peer- there during the recess for certain purposes. He called en ages and appellate jurisdiction, and since he had given the house not to sanction by act of Parliament this daring notice of this motion, he wag astonished at the cow- limitation of the prerogative, not to lend their assistance mimic ations made to him respeciing it. If a committee to a downright falsehood and a barefaced robbery, not werea ?Pointed, hecould pro n a set h as i t wou ld beattended to organise this machinery for the corruption of the by men. of the highest etnieence—judges of the cornmonlaw judges, which must throw distrust on the bench ; and judges of the equity courts, who would show that the not deliberately to inaugurate a solemn sham. Let bill on the table contained as much mischief and as little them refer the bill to a select committee, and good at; could ho put into the same space of paper. after that bury in oblivion this miserable measure, (Cheer , m.) Would the House of Commons refuse to inquire and at the commencement of another session the House of into this important question, which infringed on a right Commons would apply itself with dignity and calmness to which 'he believed to be inherent in the Crown, that of the gravest question which could occupy the great council creatin g life peerages, with the right to sit in the House of the people. viz , which was the best court of appeal, of Lori is. He was of opinion that her Majesty had the final and in the last resort, to determine on the rights, right te i call upon any human being who was a subject to properties, and liberties of each isdividual. He should assist la er, and this bill he considered to be a limitation reject with scorn this claim to a prescriptive jurisdiction. of her - I irerogative. (Hear) Th e subj ec t was-large and i The appellate.] utiediction of the House of Lords was no i mpoe ta et enough not only for a select committee, but ancient right, but a fungus of yesterday, an ephemeral f or a protracted discussion in that house. What, then usurpation. He begged to move that the bill be referred cons's-x.110,10n of a final court of appeal which would have I to a select commit.ee. . to decide in the last re sort on the fortunes and repute- Mr. E. DENISON, in seconding the amendment, said tion cif men and women should be was surely a - I „ compromise, and a reasona bl e adjust que-ti )n which deserved the m a t urest cons id erat i on. (Hear, bear) He might have a monoman i a on this '"l3 was no enemy to ' , ment of a greatq - aestion would be no objection to him; but . subject, but upon his honour he could not understand he found no compromise in the present measure. He found the coin se which had been taken. The neble lord, like rather confusion of ideas.' The question of appellate juris the koii ‘ht in the old ballad, seemed to have entered diction was quite distinct from that of the prerogative of into aft ightful compact with somebody, and in such the Crown. Ann this bill really extingui s h e d th e prero cases th ev knew who had the worst of the bargain. ga,tive of the Crown to create life peers, The House of (Latrghta r.) A great many weeds had been used the , Lords had chosen to enter into a quarrel with the other nig ht on this subject, but the noble lord the mete- ' Crown upon that question. And yet the House of Lords, her for L ondon and the right hon. gentleman (Sir Jas. • • after giving judgment upon Graham)' alone cam© to close quarters. But the lawyers who By° ko tried to lead the house away from the ques- favour, sought by this measure to make the House of Com tio n. They acted like the condottieri of the middle ages, mons the means of effecting an arbitrament of the quarrel. f( who aug ht all day and left no killed or wound e d. Th e y There were ex traOrdinary inconsisten c i es an d con t ra di c - reinite ded him of the hon partridges which he lately saw Lions which had been exhibited upon the subject. On the in the country, flatted ig their wings to lead persons subject of life peers it had be? n n a dzlii i ip that the appellate tt away from their nests. (Laughter.) He hoped they were juriedictio t u of t o lrigi n ers en w r a n s however, g 1 3 ; a s t i n s o facth sooner r y s b a een . that ;night going to take the buttons front the foils, that iettla l t i liln io it ) was found that the appellate jurisdiction and hi we a stand-up fight. He heard it publicly state 1 ' was in the most rotten state—(hear)—insomuch that the in one. of the rooms attached to the house that Lord power of Parliament must be invoked to infuse into it new Derby declared the bill might go where it liked vigour. Then , again, at one time it was objected that the if the , clause of his bon. friend the member fur , life peerage would flood the House of Lords with lawyers; Mahlon, ` which saved the prerogative of the Crown, I an d y e t thi s measur e was for the purpose of providing a when once we adopt it? (Hear.) What questions are in volved in it ? If we wore to consider only the private rights of Lord Wensleydale, I must confess it is not too much to say that we ought well to scrutinise our proceedings before we venture to damage those rights which, ho contends, have been created by a solemn act of the Queen, and which it may be in his power to submit to a court of law. (Hear.) Is it not desirable that time should be taken to reconcile the serious discrepancies among the supporters of this bill? The bill has been objected to as a compromise, and the an swer made is, that many great measures of legislation are founded on the basis of compromise. That is most true ; but are those compromises on which great measures are founded of a character analogous to the compromise in re spect to this bill ? (Hear.) Of the former kind of compro mises, it may be said that they are always arrived at sifter great deliberation, and when, by repeated discussions, you have well tested the state of the public mind and judgment, and the strength, not only of parties, but of arguments, Be that you are enabled, on the whole, to come to a conclusion most agreeable to the general interests. Isthat the case here? On the contrary, this compromise is of a totally different cha racter, and one which those who support it support with out approval, either in consequence of the imaginary horrors conjured up by the Attorney-General, or with the declara tion of an intention of altering the bill in committee, as intimated by the hen. and learned member for Wallingford a declaration creditable to his acumen and candour, but which, if acted upon successfully, would obviously be fatal to the character of tee bill as a compromise. (Hear, hear.) Compromise it leay be, but it is entirely different from those respectable compromises which represent the tem scientious conclusions of men after full investigation and deliberation. It i s a comprom i se h u ddl e d up fur the convenience of parties in some committee-room in another piece—(hear, hear.)—then brought down to the House of Coeumons, and presented to us for our acceptance in such a shape and under such circumstances that it is not tool much to say that if we pass the bill, in the wretched fag. end which remains of the present session, we shall be doing nothing short of abdicating our functions as legislators. (Cheers.) Most of the points which concern this matter have been already treated with so much ability that I need not trouble the House by going over them again; but there is one point in particular to which I venture to call the at tention of the house, because it affords such a very strong ground of objection to proceeding with the bill during the present session. It is said that this bill may be amended in its details. It is, however, sometimes difficult to judge what are details, If this bill is a compromise, it is emi nently desirable to know what are the essential parts of the compromise. If you take the lax and latitudinarian doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down. it appears that there are no essential parts in the compromise except the creation of two great learned judges, and any thing else may either be excluded or inserted. If, again, you were to adopt all the alterations suggested by the hon. and learned member for Wallingford, I know not NUhat security he gives that, after we have passed the bill on the footing of a compromise, it would not then be rejected in another place as being something different from what wee intended--as not representing the compromise. (Hear, hear.) This I may assume, that if there is any one part of the bill which is the essence of the compro mise, it must be that portion which bears on the preroga tive of the Crown. I take it for granted that the whole aim and object of the compromise were to save the consis• teucy and to reconcile the opieions of those who were placed in conflict with respect to au important prerogative of the Crown, asserted by a minority and denied by a ma jority in the Howe of Lords. I therefore assume that the bill represents the sense and spirit of that compromise with respect to the prerogative of the Crown. Well, what does the bill say and do with respect to that prerogative ? Is there any man who will answer me that question? I wish I hell heard the noble lord at the head of the Govvrn went deliver his authoritative judgment as to the effect. of this bill on the prerogative of the Crown. I did not hoar the Attorney-General express his opinion, nor do I believe that the Solicitor-General—though I did not hear Lis speech—declared his upinioa upon this point. This ques tion is touched mainly in the fourth clause. Ido not pre - sumo to give any opinion with respect to the important inquiry whether the Crown is entitled to create life peers of Parliament or not. Ido not dispute the doctrine of my hon. friend the member for Wallingford, that the House of Lords was acting within its competency when it thought fit to take a proceeding weieh bait the effect of negativing the exero:se of that prerogative. But, en the other hand, I think it is perfectly plain that, when we are called upon to legislate upon the matter of life peerages, the douse of etetninons is entitled, nay bouad, to have an opinion with respect to that prerogative. (Hear, hear.) The claim I make is this—and I think it is a resistless argu ment in support of the motion of my hon. friend—that we shall be permitted to deal with this question of prerogative in the daylight and not in the dark. (Hear, heer.) If we are about to limit the prerogative, let us know it ; or if we are about to save it, let us koo w that it is saved. (Hear. It is quite plain that it would be unworthy of the framers of a bill to p, opose to this house a measure couched in terms of studied a nbiguity iu reference to that point, and, if there could be a man who would frame a bill for the purpose of deluding th house, it would be unworthy not only of our dignity, but of our intelligence, to allow ourselves to be taken in by such a delusion. (Hear.) This bill says, in the fourth clause, that if her Majesty shall have granted a peer age for life to any person who shall be appointed Deputy- Speaker, such person shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons as a peer of Parliament. I do not now animadvert —because it is a point of secondary importance-e-upon the somewhat indecorous if not unconstitutional course of providing by act or Parliament for the compulsory ex ercise of the Queen's prerogative with regard ye the issu ing of a writ of summons. (Hear.) I do not enter into that question now, because it is possible that it may he aineuded as a verbal question in committee; but I find here a clear enunciation in an act of Parliament, that when her Majesty shall have granted a peerage for life to a Deputy-Speaker such person shall receive a writ of sum mons as a peer of Parliament as a matter of right. Is not the maxin inclusto onus exclusio alias, I ask, most clearly applicable in this case ? (Hear, hear.) If you say that a pneou receiving an appointment as Deputy-Speaker with a peerage for life shall be entitled to sit in Par liament, - do not you thereby inevitably and irrevocably declare that no other person appointed a peer for life shall sit in Parliament? (Hear, hear.) If there be any doubt on the matter, turn to the 6th clause, which says that no thi ng s h a ll i n any w i se abridge Or affect the right of her Majesty to appoint other Deputy Speakers than life peers. If you mean to preserve the right of appointing the peers of Parliament, why do you not say, in like manner, that nothing shall in anywise abridge or affect the right of her Majesty to appoint life peers ? (Hear, hear.) Do you mean to preserve the right or not ? If you do not mean to preserve it, let us know that we are proreeding oe that basis. Y have granted the right of appointing other Deputy Speakers besides the two to be appointed under this bill ; you have also granted the right of appointing four life peers of Parliament under this bill, and 1 wan: to know why, while preserving the right to make other Deputy Speakers, you do not preserve the right to make otber life peers ? Taking this fourth clause in connection with the rest, of the bill, I say that if you meant to enact an absolute extinction of any claim on the part of the Crown to exercise such a prerogative, you have done it most effectuaily here. (He a r, he ar .) Look at the first proviso in the fourth clause, " Provided always (and I beg the attention of the Government to this point) " that not more than four persons shall have seats in the House of Lords at one time as peers for life only." Are there any words in the English language which could snore clearly express a Parliamentary declaration that the tim ber of four peers for life was to be the absolute maximum fixed by law ? It may be right that that should be so; I do not enter upon that point; but, if we are to deal with a compromise on this-question, I think we have a fair claim to know what is the meaning of that compromise. If you say that we must not inquire —that all we have got to do is to vote, it is not too much that before we vote we should ask you to explain to us what it is that we are going to vote. But even if we had before us an explicit and satisfactory declaration as to the question of life peerages itself, I should still be precluded from giving my vote in favour of this bill without further inquiry by the simple consideration of the manner in which it deals with that great question. I think it is impossible that there could arise in this country a graver question than that involved in the creation of peers for life. It may be that that question has been inconsiderately raised. (Cheers.) That, 1. confess, is my own opinion, but the fact that it has been inconsiderately raised does not justify us in inconsiderately fixing and fastening it down by legislation. (Hear, hear.) I can see great force in the argument for peerages for life ; your peerage, meant to be transmitted to remote descendants, is so much con nected with the possession of large property in all cases, except those where the personal distinction is so great as to render it nugatory to inquire what property the person raised to the peerage possesses, that it is a matter of great importance to consider whether, in the professions from which you nowadays mainly feed the peerage there is a fair chance of the acquisition of such a property by the persons distinguished in those professions as will make it desirable, either for their own sakes or for the sake of the country, that they shall have peerages transmissible to their descendants. That is a matter on which this house has a right to ask for some time to deliberate. On the other hand, there are the considerations so ably stated bylmy right hon. friend the member for Carlisle the other night. This is an opinion which we must all entertain—that it is better not to open this question of life peerages until we are pre pared to deal with it in a manner which shall probably both open and close it. (Hear.) Ido not mean close it in such a manner that it cannot be opened again, for of such doctrines we are not accustomed to hear much here, nor do I think their reasonableness is very generally admitted; but it will be allowed that the subject of life peerages is one which, if it be made the basis of a legisla tive measure, ought so to be dealt with that it shall both give satisfaction to the public mind at the time, and shall bur upon itself such marks of deliberation and adaptation to the wants of the period in which we live, that at any rate, we shall have the chance afforded to it of a fair consideration without a perpetual recurrence of agitation. (Hear.) Does this bill, I ask, fulfil this reasonable condition ? It is quite plain that this measure opens the questio a of life peerages, but it deals with that question in entire and exclusive due- . servience to the constitution of a court of appeal. Surely that is not the scope to which the question of life peerages is confined? Is there anything in the question of life peer ages which has any inevitable relation with a court of ap peal ? On the contrary, will any man tell me th at you cannot constitute a court of appeal without touc hing the question of life peerages 9 . These two grea t subjectsin no such relation to each other as that one of them ought stand in d to be made the accessory and the victim, so to speak, of the other. (Hear.) If the house will recall the precedents which have generally guided its conduct on great constitu tional questions, I am confident it will never co nsen t t o pass, without due inquiry,. a measure on the subject of life peerages, which fixes us with responsibility of understand ing the full importance of the sueject, and of all the possi ble consequences which may flow from it, and which raises the question, too, for a purpose so small and narrow, and to which it stands in no immediate connection. (Hear.) I know nut whether it is undue prudery which influences m y mind, but I am sorry to see the House of Lords be coming what I may call a pensioner on the public purse in order to discharge duties which it claims to perform in • virtue of its rights as a legislative body. (Hear.) The doc trine of our constitution is that legislative services are unpaid services, and lain bound to say that in my convic tion there is no maxim which lies nearer the very root and roundation of the institutions of our country. If we are to be told of what is radical and revolutionary, there is no change which I should be inclined to view' - I will not say with such suspicion—but with such aversion and detestation as the substitution of paid services in the Legislature, for the gratuitous services which we now freely and efficiently render here. (Hear.) Ido not mean to say that this is the same thing as if we were to pro ceed to vote salaries to ourselves and the House of Lords, but an enemy to the House of Li rds could hardly wish them to take a step more unwise than that of making a draught on the public purse. I think that the dignity of the House of Lords will suffer from the adoption of such a principle. (Loud cries of " Hear.") And I believe that the independence of the House of Peers will be most Beeline so long as all the functions which that house has to dischi t rge are discharged gratuitously, as they have been from i Ante t, , lay. on s. don".