The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-02 00:00:00

JUDOS EXCLUSION BILL.

!San you say 70111 hate political judges. (Cheers.)
But even if I was to admit that there is something in the
(auctions of the Master of the Rolls which makes it mew
hark important that he should take no part in politics,
should still vote against this bill, as inconsistent and times-
amoble. If it be true that the Master a the Rolls should
he absent from political aseemblics; why not 'sends him
from all political assemblies ? Yost do no such thing. You
slat him out of this house, but you leave him to enter the
House of Lords. Is not that • political assembly ? Is it
not the feet that for several ages the judges have had
their say, have enjoyed an ascendancy in that house ? Is it
sot notorious that L.rd Hardwicke ruled that house, and
that he bequeathed his power to another, an equally great
man, Lord Mansfield ? And when his power decayed did
it not devolve upon Lord Thurlow, and after his time,
upon Lord Eldon ? Had not Lord Eldon so much
power that he made and unmade ministers? He had
great favour with his sovereign; he was regarded with 're-
motion by one party, and with hatred and aversion by
another. When Lord Eldon's long domination ceased,
other lords arose, both whip and tory, who divided the as-
cendancy amongst them. Some here may remember, and
it was impossible for those who were present to forget,
those first ten days of October, 1831. It was the most
alarming and exciting political crisis that has ever occurred
in my life. At that time the debates took place in the
House of Lords which led to the rejection of the Reform
Bill in that house. Ood forbid that we should ever have
wee another crisis ! I shall 'ever hope to hew such • de-
bate again. It was undoubtedly a great and splen-
did display, and I dare say some of as here were
of those who waited on that night to a late
hour in the morning for the division, walking up
sad down the Court of Requests to catch a few words of
that wonderful conflict of oratory. There, on both sides
mega pitched judaes in the front rank—Lord Brougham on
one side, the Lord Chancellor ; Lord Lyndhurst on the
other, Ike Lord Chief Baron. Mow eagerly we hung on
their words! How eagerly they were read before noon on
that day by hundreds of thousands in the country ! What
fearful excitement they caused, followed, as they were, by
the disasters of Nottingham and the sack of Bristol ! And
this arena, the noble lord who hates political judges is not
unwilling the Master of the Rolls should enter. His ob-
jection is not to the union of the political and
judicial character—it is simply to the union of
the judicial character with the character of a
member of the house you an assembled in. A
Master of the Rolla may—the noble lord has not the least
objection to it—be the sole head, the leader of a great
party ; be may use al his powers of oratory and all his
powers of sophistry, to enlist the passions and to mislead
the understanding of the senate. But he must not do it
in this room. He must go a few hundred yards off. He
must m "my lords" and not" Mr. Speaker, and then
the nobly e lord will be perfectly willing that he should do
it. But 1 am understating the case and greatly under-
stating it, for the union of the judicial and political
character in the other house is not a mere accidental thing.
The fact is not only that a judge may be made a peer, bat
that all the peers are necessarily judges. Would any
foreigner, who had been admitted to the gallery of this
house, when the noble lord declared his hatred, his abhor-
rence of political judges, laying down that we ought to make
a change in the law, in order to avoid the junction of the
political and the judicial character, would any foreigner ima-
glee that the other house of parliament is the supreme:assem-
bly, the assembly to which go appeals from all the courts of
equity and law, from the courts of Scotland and of Ireland,
from this very Master of the Rolls himself ? Is it not per-
fectly clear that, if that principle of the law be sound,
we ought to begin, not with the Master of the Rolls, but
with the House of Lords ? The court above must be more
Important than the court below ; and, if the Master of the
Bails goes wroog, the House of Lords must correct him,
but ff the Home of Lords go wrong, who is to correct
them ? The noble lord is perfectly content that their lord-
eldps deny I the morning sit as judges on questions
while affect the liberty, the property, and the character of
mom um amongst us—should decide them in the last re-
sort, sad pronounce decisions which are absolutely binding
as all the realm; sad that in the afternoon these same lords
*odd meet as peliticions, and debate, and sometimes
pretty @lmply, sometimes in such a way that if you, sir,
were anossu them, you would call them to order. They ma
disease geoid's@ respecting clergy reserves in Canada, Irish
education, the government of India, to all these the noble
lord has no objection whatever. Here, then, you have a
judicial assembly, polities combined with judicature, and if
we pus this bill, it will probably be taken up to the House
of Lords by a person having judicial functions. It will be
taken out of his hands by a man who is a cabinet minister,
bed at the same time the highest judge in the realm. And
this bill, this mummery, for the purpose of purifying the
administration of justice, if justice requires purification, is
utterly ineffectual. It is effectual for one, and only for one
peep..., so well stated by my hon. friend, that of degrading
ad weakening the House of Commons. This is not the first
time that a similar attempt has been made. More than 150
years ago there wu a great outcry, and a just one,
spinet the notion of placemen in parliament. The evil
was great, and well-intentioned men, as doubtless the
noble lord is who proposed this bill,proposed•remedy which
would have produced an evil greater still. They proposed
that no person who held any ether under the crown should
sit in the House of Commons. That provision was not to
take effect till after the succession of the House of Hanover.
Happily, before that succession took place, the provision
was repealed. It is easy to see what the effect would he.
It is easy to say it would have purified the parliamentary
atmosphere; that the influence of the crown, which was so
fatal to the liberty of the people, would be lessened. They
said that the servants of the nation should be the servants
of the nation alone ; they asked how it was possible that a
who was the servant of the crown should also be the
faithfulperson
guardian of the people? That argument was
I specious, but no more. The effect would have
been to depress that branch of the legislature which
sprung from the people, and to elevate the heredi-
tary aristocracy. All the ministers of the crown must ne-
cessarily have been peers. All the eminent members of the
House of Commons would have made ittheirobject to attain
the peerage. As soon as any man, by his eloquence or his
knowledge of business, brought himself into distinction, if
he was selected to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Secre-
tary of State, or First Lord of the Admiralty—no matter
what—would instantly have turned his back on what thus
would have been emphatically the lower nom*, and have
gone to that house in which alone he could display his abi-
lities. Walpole, the first Pitt, the second Pitt, Fox, Can-
ning, Peel—all the men whose names are inseparably asso-
ciated with the House of Commons—all those men whose
names are mentioned with pride, and of whom and whose
conquests we think when we pate through St. Stephen's
Chapel—all these men would have begun peen. The
whole conflict would have been transferred from the House
of Commons to the House of Lords. It would have been
impossible for the House of Commons, left without one
single statesman, to give, as it has always given, and I hope
always will give, a general direction to the policy of the
realm. All Biscay* would have been looking for declara-
tions of our policy from a Pitt or a Fox, not in the House of
Commons, but in the Hesse of Lords, and we, the Com-
mons, should have bees left to look after turnpike-roads
and canals. That is thespirit, the effect, in which we are
called on now to proceed. It may be said that the tenden-
cies of this bill are not se ostensive; but still they are very
serious. The Massey ef this bill, and of all similar bills,
' Is* make this low decidedly less efficient than it was
enee—duidedly less eldest than the House of Lords is
sew, for the Imo important purposes of a legis-
lative assembly. 1 bear tide question argued as if
the only thisg that a great judge could possibly
do is the Illoust of Commons should De to put
out ems en el nem and bring in another. It
is not so. Party struggles there always have been and
always will twin abandsses,but there are provinces in legis-
lation which are quite reeseved hem the speedos of party,
and in which a great *lse might weellee to his country
most admirable sonless, and some to himself im-
perishable fame, and if ever there was a time when a jurist
was needed, when • jurist was likely t. be appreciated in
this house, it la the present time. Re observant man can
fail to perceive that there is in the rails mind a penal,
and grown; an earnest and at the sees time a moat rea-
sonable and ;ober duke to extend law seform. I hope and
believe that some of the sessions ohs* use approaching will
to a great @swat be essopied by a sessideration of this gam-
tics of law reform, sad In the cossiandlea of such a=
Asa use mesa is so well Stied he bat on ossfel and d
Clipontosea sprightoodenlightenedjedge. And tin is
nt whom we are called opal to shut the dons dew
hesse.agaisse the lent greet judicial functionary whom the
butemj leskiation of SWIM parliaments has left tons
here. (Chem) Is the isseatine the other house is open.
The other pent jolielal Miser, the Judge of the Admiralty,
who is excluded frost eittisa Is this house by the inure-
mentality of the noble lord, may sit is that house. The
1.-ird Chancellor, the Chief Justice*, the Chief Baron, the
Lords Justices, the Master of the Rolls, sad the Vice-Chan-
cellors, may sit in that house, and here you are driving out
the very last man who gives judicial dignity to this house.
I rem very far from saticipating any conflict with the House
of Lords,but I ask you to give us consequence in our rivalry
with them. I was much struck the other day—l do not
know whether the hon. member for Montrose is in
his place—but when I came down the other day
to vote against this bill, it did not come on
in consequence of a bill respecting the combination of
workmen being before the house. I believe the hon. mem-1
bee for Montrose is decidedly favourable to this bill ; but I
was amused to hear the hon. gentleman press the house to
pass the bill then under discussion, alleging as a reason that
we knew nothing about it. " Send it," he said, " to the
House of Lords, them are judges there, and they will on
whether it is right or wrong.' (Cheers.) Dud anybody
ever hear that a great legislative assembly was ever before
salted upon to abdicate its functions in such a way as that ?
nog is it not an extraordinary thing that a gentleman so
nealuus far the popular part of the constitution should in a
matter so deeply concerning the interests of a great
body of our constituents, say that we should be content by
disply registering whatever the judges of the Home of Lords
may please to do? And is it not a strings thing that
OM deficiency of this house in one most important respect
should be increased by a propos fur shutting out learning
and ability ? But then it is mid that the blaster of the
Rolls has duties which are hardly compatible with a seat in
this house ? It is said we ought strictly to maintain the
principle of division of labour, and that we ought not to let
him spend his time here. lf this be an argument of any
weight it is an argument for keeping him out of the House
of Lords as well as out of the House of Commons. But I
deny that it is of any weight whatever. I say the princi-
ple of the division of labour is no doubt of great value and
importance, hut it is one which can most easily be abused.
You can hardly carry it tno far in mere mechanics, but you
can easily carry it too fax in the higher operations uf labour,
and in matters of intellect. In pin making, I do
not doubt, as Aaron Smith mid, that a pin
will be better made if con man cuts the wire, ano-
ther nabs the Issatlouother rolls it up sad another shapeas

On the order of the dy fartk•third reading of this bill,
Mr. DRUMMOND said this was a reform bill brought
forwardon the other side of the house, and with every fault
that every reform bill bad hitherto bad in it. On
that (the government) side of the home, they had
got motions to exclude from the ►ow all property,
and on the other to exclude all brains. (Laughter.)
Tneir notions of forming the house was to make it •
mass of pauperism and ignorance. (Laughter.) That was
socialism. When they had made that house a place for
pawns without property and without intellect, the moan
they fell into the hands of a military despot the better. lie
moved that this bill be read a second time that day six
months.

—Mr. T. B. MACAULAY—I shall vote, with all
heart, for the amendment moved by my hon. friend.my
never gave a vote ismy life with more entire confides*
that I was right, and I must say, I think it hardly credi-
table to the house that a bill of such a character should
have bee. allowed to reach this stage before it was opposed.
On what ground is this bill brought forward ? la it brought
forward on the ground—which is the only ground on
which I could conceive conservatives could ever support it—
is it brought forward on the ground that the present state
of the law has produced any practical inconvenience ?
That Is utterly disclaimed by all who support
the bill, and I will go further sad sey that ae single rause
daring the experience of egos has news fee our emlading
the Master of the Rolls from having a mat in this lease.
The cam of Master of the Rolls and this hew emu meaced
their mistime at the same thm—eartaialietba tie same
century. Poe WO years the Mester el the has beset
eligible for a mat is this house. Te ge
_leek se farther
than the em Masters we have lid in litec them
amoagst as, I S.d the names of Jolty% Memo, Kenyon,
Pepper, Harden, Sir William Great, ete Saba Lee" Sir
John Copley, sad the present Mast* ed dos Bonk Sir
Julia Homily. (Hear, hear.) And M has name been
said, in reference to any one the Melliigniilmed power
ageuthat their parliamentary datlesmode them lees elleient
la the performance of their judieudidadon Is it, above all,
fur emeervative politicians to preps, to alter • system
which has elided for sin centuriesr sad opiate whitb it
use never alleged that it ever in any l. esM gillikeed
any single isometry/lasses, solely beams t fees art hoops
to square with as extract c4ottiong.What is thiseheisest
principle ? This abstract p is, that it feat*** in
ieparate political from judicial " MAW, le the
weed," eays the noble lord sepasies who brae& la this
(Lord ), " is se WNW se • pliant jedp."
The union ef peßtias aadjedimlnie is se emlneey so per
ciple, thee eeeeetbsa it sseastbe head thee that pip has
produced any gemidenseffeet. Yet, yea not be bus to that
theory *erased plaelple. well, now, Imp that I me.
triunes UP bill IMPest wreathed. the mesa pitiable that
ever wd==s4-411m mist beeaspethic fees that ever
was a (Cbstea.) If the motile teed considers
the canine:the political cad Pahl institutions of this
country, be will find the political and judicial character so
condaimed, oe interwoven from the top to the bottom, that
the NB= iehiii be proposes to make will be a mere iniiai-
tasked drew It has bees asked, and with jars-
tics, if the Master of the Rolls should be ex- I
eluded, why net the Recorder of the City of London?
I should be eniespely sorry to see the Iteeorder of London
excluded from fhb house; but I must say, the reasons for
excluding Lim nee ten times as potent as those for exclud•
ing the Master *the Rolls. Bat why exclude the Re-
corder for lambs alone ? Why not exclude all recorders—
why let the deineen of Quarter Sessions sit in this house ?
I w anemia's%) say there are much more stringent rea-
sons for escheats( the chairman of Quarter Sessions then
,r escludiai tits Miner of the Rolls. I have
attended Quarter iferriona I have seen a man presiding
over Quarter fieesioas, a man of very eminent ability,
ea able and upright judge, but • member of parliament, a
keen politician, • decided part, mas, a man who made a
motion to upset • ministry. He rose to • seat in the
cabinet. Thu distinguished member of parliament, who
was tae head of the "Blue" party (as it was called, I think,
in r:,,it country), would have had to try, if an election riot
had occurred, say of the Orange voters. He took a
coons part at the time of the Queen's trial, for n=
was hooted by a mob in London, sad I am not sure whether
he was not pelted ; and then he went down to him Misty to
try persons for breaking the windows of penes, who
fat not lighted them up in honour tf the acquittal.
noble lord would leave him to be a member of this
house, and yet would exclude the Master of the Rolls.
Whenever there has been national dneonteet, whenever
there has been a great disposition to outrage and turbu-
lence, you have had the whole democratic press crying out
at the chairmen of quarter sesai,..ns ; the unpaid magis•
trate, were not to he truqed in administering the law. So
loud were the outcries at one time that Mr. Canning said
the worst sign of the time was the growing distrust of ma-
gistrates. And yet you propose to leave 40 or SO gentle-
men clothed with these functions in this assembly, and say
that a judge, neither against whom, nor against any of his
predetamom, was ever raised the voice of calumny, that
thelused their judicial power with a political aim,
net ed * this how; you szslivis his be.

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 2. 11153.

the point—but I do not believe that hLchael Angelo woukl
have bees a greater painter if he had not been a sculptor—
! do not believe that Sir lout Newton would have been a
Stealer esperimental philosopher if be had not been a ma-
thematician and a logician— I do not believe that a man
would he a WO,lll legislator because he is a great judge.
On the contrary, I believe there is as close and intimate a
coanution between the luislator and the judge as between
'the anatomist and the surgeon, and that it would be as ab-
surd to exclude the judge from legislation as to exclude the
surgeon from anatomy. lam happy to say I have autho•
rity for this, an authority to which the hon. gentleman the
member for Montrose perhaps will pay more respect
than I do—l mean that of Mr. Bentham. Of
Bentham as a metaphysician I have no high opinion,
but I look on him as a judicial writer as of great author-
ity. I find in his work on Judicial Organisation a chapter
in which he speaks of the pluralities of judges. lie
strongly object* to • judge being anything but ajudge, with
one single exception. " Ajudge," he says, "ought to be
permitted to sit in the representative assembly, for the best
school for a legislator is the judicial bench; and legislative
ability is so rarely found that it would be madness in any
society to throw them away when they ore accessible." It
is said that in order to get a seat in this house a man must
resort to meant which are unworthy of the dignity of a
judge. The noble lord spoke formerly of unseemly jtllifi-
cations at elections. I wish from the bottom of my heart
that unseemly jollifications were the worst means to which
hon. gentlemen resort in order to get a seat in this house. I
should be sorry that a Muter of the Rolle, in order to procure
a seat, should appear at the tavern table. I should be still
more sorry if any Muter of the Rills should resort to
other means of corruption. I think the Master of the Rolls
ought to be most scrupulous. I can answer, and long friend-
ship and intimate acquaintance entitles me to speak with
confidence, that if ever the present Master of the Rolls
enters this house again he will be brought in by different
means from those by which he was turned out. (Cheers.)
But let me ask, do we pretend to say this, that no person
can come into the House of Commons except by means
which ate inconsistent with the dignity of the judicial cha-
racter? If so, it becomes us to put our house in order.
How is it possible that any country can long
prosper if the assembly on which all its dear-
est interline depend, the assembly which can by a
single vote give direction to our every policy, colonial, com-
mercial, or financial, can be entered only by means which
lower the character. (Cheers.) In what manner did Sir
William Scott lower his character by entering the house as
member for the University of Oxford. or Sir John Copley
by becoming member for the University of Cambridge ?
But it is not necessary to speak of universities. It would
be most unjust, and indeed of all members in this house
it would be most unfaithful, in me not to say that a de-
lioacy and liberality of sentiment which would do honour
to any university may be found among the 101. house-
holders of great cities. Need we go further into the sub-
ject than to look to our own chair. It was of as much im-
portance, sir, that you at the lasteleetion should maintain the
gravity and dignity of your character as it could be for the
Master of the Rolls. It would have been impossible for you
on that occasion to have permitted the slightest indecorum
without doing grievous injury to your public utility and
character. If the great county which does you the honour
to send you as their representative could do so without im-
proper conduct being resorted to—if you can look back
without shame to your election, what reason have we to
doubt that other great constituencies would be as just to
any judge as to you? I have notsthe slightest doubt that
constituencies might and would send a judge to the Home
of Commons without requiring anything on his part incon-
sistent with the decorum which belongs to his station. It',
is said that the law is inconsistent. My advice is, we have
entered on a bad course; let us stop it and re-
trace it. The time is not far distant when we must
reconsider the constitution of this house. I think on that
occasion it will be the duty of the government most care-
fully to consider the grounds on which it is determined
who is to be excluded front this house, and who is to be
admitted. The law is in •• singularly unsatisfactory state.
The law is that no person can sit in this house who holds
an office created sines a particular day—l think the 25th of
October, 1705. The effect is most incounnieet. For
example, there can be only two Secretaries of State and
only two Under-Secretaries of State in this house. If there
were two Secretaries of State in this house, and a vacancy
took place in the foreign secretaryship, although a member
of this house might be the best man to hold
that office, he could not have it. You must
give him the Admiralty, or something of that sort,
and give the office of foreign secretary to a member of the
House of Lords who may be more fit for the Admiralty.
Again, the Postmaster-General cannot sit in this house.
He is generally in the cabinet, and, with the single excep-
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no public
functionary whom it would be so convenient to have in this
house. I hope and trust that wh he constitution of
this house is reconsidered, these things will be taken into
consideration. But to speak of the judges, my principle is
simple. I would admit any judge whom the people would
select, unless there were some plain reasons why you
should not admit him. There is a plain reason for
excluding the fifteen judges of the common law
courts. They sit in the House of Lords, though
they do not vote, and if you continue the House of Lords
as the supreme court of error, the assistance of judges is
necessary. That assistance is furnished by those fifteen
judges. There we will leave them, but it would be utterly
inconsistent with our convenience and with our dignity to
have any member here who was at the beck and call of the
other house. The same principle applies to the Scotch and
to the Irish judges, for the obvious reason that they can not
possibly perform their duties in those countries and be
members of this house. I would certainly leave the door
open to the Master of the Rolls, and I would open the door
to the Judge of the Admiralty, who has been so absurdly
excluded. I would suffer those eminent judges who
are kept out of this house, not by any peculiar act
but by the operation of the act of Anne—l mean the Lords
Justices sad the Vies-Chancellors—to sit in this house, if
they could find constituencies who would send them here.
In that way I am perfectly certain that we should add to
the credit of this great representative assembly, with the
credit of which the credit of all representative assemblies in
the whole world is wound up, and we shall render ourselves
more efficient for the din/tame of all our duties. But
whether the more extensive change that I wish should or
should not be adopted, I can see no reason whatever for
entertaining the bill of the noble lord. I would ask the

conservatives on that side of the house whether they
are prepared to make a change in a system
which has lasted for generations, and from which
they do not themselves pretend that the smallest
inconvenience has arisen. I would address myself to
the liberal members, and I ask them whether they
think it right to lower the character and diminish the effi-
ciency of that branch of the legislature which springs from
the people. As to myself, I wish to unite the character of
liberal and conservative, and in both characters I shall give
my vote most cordially for the motion of my hon. friend.
(Loud cheers from all parts of the house.)
Lord HOTHAM briefly replied.
Mr. HUMS said that he would support the bill on the
ground that it was incompatible with a proper discharge of
the duties of the Master of the Rolls that he should have •
seat in that kouse. (Hear.) They had appointed judge
after judge in order to relieve the Court of Chancery of the
amount of business which it had to perform ; and it was
quite inconsistent now to add to the functions of those
judges the duties of members of parliament. (Hear.)
The house then divided :

For the third reading
Against
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
On the motion for renewing the adjourned debate on this
bill,
Lord PALMERSTON said that he, on the part of the go-
vernment, would not object to the principle of the bill,
which lamed the freedom of all parties to, combine for
peaceable and legal pus poxes. His only objection to the bill
Iss it stood was, that it might legalise that system of quiet
sad peaceable intimidation by which poor men who were
in plait distress might be prevented from working, and
driven into combinations which otherwise they bad no vish
to join. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, what he proposed was
that the bill should be read a third time now, but that it
should he then postponed for • fortnight, for the purpose
of considering whether the bill could be amended so as to
free it from that objection. (Hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND having assented to the arrangement
the bill was reeks third time, and the next stage postponed
for a fortnight.
ABSCONDING DEBTORS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was discherged.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (4,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read • second time.
HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
This bill was read • third time.

Mr. HINDLEY said he had a new clause to move for the
purpose of providing a better clue of carriages for ladies,
but he was informed that he could not move such a clause
on the grimed of its being an addition to the taxes.
On the motion of Lord 1). STUART, the following amend-
ments were agreed to: In elaue 2, page 2, line 14, after
the word "notice," insert "in writing." At the end of
line 14 add " which notice shall be personally served on
such proprietor, or deli dat his usual place of resi-
dence." In clause 3, page 2, line 33. after the word
" him," insert " as bereinbefore required."
Mr. PIGOTT moved the following amendment as an addi-
tion to clause 2: "Provided, however, that in ease of the
refusal or suspension of any such license as aforesaid, it
shall be lawful for the proprietor of any such stage or hack-
ney carriage, or other persons applying for such license, or
subjected to such suspension, to appeal from the decision of
the commissioners of police to the metropolitan police ma-
gistrate for the time being sitting at the police office at Bow-
Street."
Sir R. INOLIS seconded the motion. He thought that
there ought to be some appeal in a case where so megh pro-
perty was concerned.
Mr. WHALLEI supported the motion.
Mr. FITZROY said that this matter had been discussed
before, and he had only to repeat that the amendment, if
carried, would reader the bill nugatory.
Lord D. STUART supported the amendment.
I The house divided :
Fur the amendment
Against 79-37
Lord A. VANE moved an ernendirent to substitute 4d.
' for 61. where cabmen were detained.
Mr. FITZROY thought that M. was little enough where
a cab was detained 15 minutes. (Hear.)
The amendment was withdrawn.
There were a few other amendments, which there was
not time to decide upon, six o'clock having arrived.

PAIRS ON MR. MOORes MOTION ON IRISH CHURCH.
REV EN CE.—Mr. Vincent Scully, for, with Colonel Tynte,
against; Mr. Chaplin, for, with Mr. Kirk, against; Mr.
Ansley Pellatt, for, K. J. B. Smith, for, with Mr. J. E.
'Vivian, spinet.