The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-23 00:00:00

rtrni.ic BUSINESS.

BRCOVE.TLY iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii IN CER-

TAN CASES BILL.

S., It. INULIS, is moving the second reading of this
called emeriti= to the various Misdeocripti4n, of it
se set hid occurred in the hundred., and perhaps thou-
Minds, of petitoos which bad been presented, and in the
roans utipetehes which hail been made, against it. It had
been styled a bill for " the visitation of nunneries," for
inspecti.in ef nunneries," and, as the hon. member
far Dr•whAla had termed it, the di secretion of nunneries.
(Cassis) Now it really was, at its title imported, a bill
s• fir the recovery of persona! liberty in certain taws."
(Hear, hear.) No religious question whatever was rem:ly
frivolired, sad there was not a single word in the bill that
ought t. be regarded as offensive to any person what-
ewe. The sterawit opposer of the measure would admit
that it was possibe fur %bume to exist in the system which
be corset ntionsly upheld, and he (Sir R. Inglis) asked for
▪ aCier cineitosion ; WWI', if abuses wac possible it was
the duty of parliament to provide a remedy. The Council of
Trent. the latest which had 'wen held by the church of It.urne,
anatht itised those wh t should force persons into convents
suraiist* rrhaps their own will, but certainly against the
wishes of their parents and friends. It wss, therefore.
• t sident that abases were possible; and there was no
• co in•ry in Europe, whetner Rrman catholic or pro-
• :It re the a:ate did not interfere.
Mr I'll INN then mond the following amendment :
s• r it In referred to a select committee to consider whe-
ther y aid what regulatiuns are necessary fur the better
prot e ,11 of the inmates of establishments of a conventual
nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue in-
fluence in procuring fil2 alienation of their property." Ile
(tho hum eon learned gentleman) lelt bound to say that the
b.l:, upon Iron all questions of religious difference, and
ham all those difficult and deli ate considerations which it

!aerobic'', was as unconstitutional • measure, and as sub-
1161traiT! of the liberty of the subject, as any that had
over b ten submitted to this house. (Cheers.) He
fel: humliated as a lawyer that any membar of the pro-
fession s'inuld have stabmitted a bill to that house which
bed in vreh n false recital and terminated with a prowidion
which he (Mr. Men) must consider as altogether destruc-
tive of that great principle of English law—that every
swan's holm was his castle. (Loud cheers.) It was op-
likewise to every principle of fair legislation, that •
C 1 for the purpose of procuring a particular remedyt should
be brought in under a general designation ; or that a bill
levelled t personal liberty should he brought in to amend
that act which we rejoiced to consider as the very founds-
of our freedom. (Cheers.) It was rather too late in
the day to say that the Habeas Carpus Act, upon which
our I.sertiei were founded, was ineffectual to preserve those
of :h" on sanest subject of the realm, and hat, if they were
to bol eve the hon. baronet, it was perfectly necks'. (Hear.)
M. 1. DU TT said he rose to second the amendment. In
mach that had fallen from the last speaker he agreed ; but
he. Lai tired that the bill was an outrageous violation of the
prin.:;ll- sof civil liberty. (Year, hear.) From the time
he fin tread it he entertained insuperable objections to it,
not fr m shy regard for conventual institutions, for he had
no wit a to give the slightest countenance to religious livid-
title( s which he thought very objectionable. His objection
was tat the bill, while professing to attain a general ob-
ject, t Imes at a particular one ; and this he held to be an
mum my and coward.y mode of legislation. (Cheers.) If
they wished to regulate nunneries, let them deal with them
ores y, but de.' fairly at all events. Let them not, he-
eau., they wished to suppress Roman eithoiie nunneries,
es' %%lab • protestant inquisition. (Cheers.) The bill
saws to a particular person appointed by the crown the
pother of eateung any man's holm, dragging forth it. la.
ma'es. quietionicg them as to who had slept inrhe house
du ong the last week, and subjecting every inmate to heavy
ba as and penalties. (Hear. hear.) Oa the prineiplts of
• std reason he never cost! agree to such a measure as
t sat.

Mr. FAOAN referred to the petition he had 'resented,
ed rail taat both the prop, JJ i J loos before the house were
fresa.ve to the seven millions of Reiman catholics, who
serer oar fellow subjects. Ile mobd only account for such
prop *limos Irom the belief on the part of protestants that
she la.t's of catholic* was a mere political my-tens He oh-
trete I as strongly to the antendeneut as to the second read-
hog of this bill, believing that it was equally off footsie ts the
• jogs of Roman catholies. It conveyed an imputation
spinet Ronan catholic families that they had not the spirit
tad the esurage to resist coercion. The demand for inquiry
also impose' that tb,re was cause fur inquiet. It was an
amnat, in on the inmates of nunneries, who belonged to
wawa the highest families in the land, and, while devoted
b. eharitabiii and religious exercises, were also highly meted
members of the community.
Mr. NAPIEIt said he was anxious to state the grounds
31 tithes.' he should support the proposition of the hon. and
leeratil member fir Bath. Before doing so, however, he
wrist remark that he did not agree with the boo. and
learned member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), that the course
p usuei by the hon. mover of the bill was cowardly and
stuntaisly. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Napier), thought the hon.
member (Mr. Chambers) stated hip case with fairness and
caosione; but be objected to the bill because he believed it
to be inadequate to meet the evils complained of ; because
R did Not touch the very importont question of the free
oispos:tion of pmperty,end because the system of inspection
pr pared would not. in his opinion, be any safeguard for
personal liberty. At the same time, he thought the provi-
times of the Habeas Corpus Act did not meet the existing
evils. (clear, hear.) By that act it was required that the
sophist, .11 to the court should be made by or on behalf of
the person concerned ; it must be shown that the party was
letained against her will: and, though a r er-
ion% night have • strong moral conviction that
emus one was in that position, it would not be enough to
pees int that conviction in the shape of aa affidavit. (Hese,
bear) He thought the best introduction to legislation was
in tuiry, and he for one was prepared for • fair, candid,
sad imparttal investigation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. 1. BUTT ezplauted that when be used the words
" cowardly and unmauly legislation," he meant nothing
piranha] to the boo. gentleman (Mr. Chambers), but he
tassel thou teems as describing the objectionable character of
the bill, sod the unworthiness of the arguments with which
it was supported.
Lori J. RUSSELL regretted that the question did not
coma bef re the house in the simple form in which the
bon. gentlemen who moved the bill had first placed it.
The bill itself appeared to him to be so drawn as to admit
of hon. members easily making up their minds with regard
to the c nine they ought to take. For his own part he
must confess he concurred generally in the statements made
by the boo. and learned member who moved the amend-
ment and repeated by the hon. gentleman who seconded it,
both of whom adduced most powerful arguments against
the provisions of the measure. (Hear, hear.) In the first
place he must be allowed to say he was surprised to find his
boo. friend the member fur the University of Oxford (Sir
H. Inglis), endeavouring to prove that the Habeas Corpus
An*, which had been the security of the personal liberty
of the subject ia this country for upwards of 170 years,
gave no aid in securing the liberty of the subject—that it
was totally inefficient in its provisions for the object for
which it was passed, and that without the bill now before
the house there would be no security for personal liberty.
In the neat plate he considered that a bill of this nature
ahoitld state in its preamble some real ease upon which
to found the enactments that followed, but in the preamble
of this bat he confessed be could see nothing but allegations
which appeared to him to be totally destitute of truth.
Then when he came to look at the remedy proposed he
loans, the en setenents of soch an extraordinary character that
he should indeed be much astonished if the house ever con-
sented to the passing of such a measure. (Hear, bear.) It
did no:, as he supposed it would do—taking his understand-
ing of its provisions (rim the statement of the hon. mem-
ber who introduced it.(Mr.Chanthers)—it did not empower
that Secretaiy of State to name the person who was to obit
these convents, or to make the necessary regulations for
visiting them ; but it empowered the Chancellor, who
was not only a great judge hut an influential member of the
executive government, to name certain commissioners, any
em• of whom, if be saw what he might conceive to be res.
sonthle grounds for supposing that any female was de-
tained in any house or building against her will, was
empowered and required, with the assistance of a justice
of the peace, to make forcible entry into such house
or building and examine. Where was the safety
of our houses under such • provision as that ?
What an amount of vexation and oppression might not be
exercised by commissioners armed with such a power as
Via I Tney knew not who might be the Lord Chancellor
who appoiwed these commissioners, or who might be the
commi-sioner who was to he empowered to make forcible
entry into any house in which he bad (not upon allegation
made upon oath, but upon what, is his own mind, he might
ei.nteire to be) reasonable ground for supposing that •
hmtle was detained against her will. He had no doubt
there wire cases, setting aside altogether this questien of
convents—he had no doubt there were at all times in this
country some bowel, private houses,wherein there might be
pertain whoothers might say were detained against their
win—but at no time tad the legislature therefore thought
at to sot aside that general rule of law—that sacred part of
the eonstitution which protected the private houses of
viduslr, sad which was known by the common phrase that
every Roglishinahs house is his castle, to provide against
mere chance tad accidental eases—(hear, hear)—and under
Me pl. a of pretesting the liberty of the subject set up a
sweat of tyranny. (Cheers.) With these views he could
blots no hesitatio• in voting against the second reading of
the bill. (Hear, hear ) He believed that during his time
there had bees cases, and other cases had occurred before,
teottah he could not tax his memory with the recollection
of any ease to which • person was detained against his or
her will, and the proved cause of such detention was the
iitefficiency of the Habeas Corpus Act. (Hear, hear.) Ile
woe satisfied, therefore, notwithstanding these proffered
provisions for our further security—he was satisfied with
the Habeas. Corpus Aet, framed as it bed been by the wis-
dom and skill of one of the ekrewdett heeds that ever took

part in the law and legislation ot this country, awl seented
to by the parliament of Charles 11, as an effectual mote!,
tion for the liberty of the !teepee (Hear, hear.) No
doubt in subsequent times, so some small particulan,
amendments had bee,/ mode in that net, but
the great and main provolone of it remained,
and posterity. and every writer on the suer c:, '
bad done justice both to the skill of the person who framed
aril the wisdom of the parliament that posed the net.'
(Hear, hear.) But he must now turn to another question,
which, he was very sorry bad been forced into this discus-
sion by the amendment which bad been moved by the hen.
' and leotard member for Bath. That hon. and learned
gentleman bad argued ably:and conclusively against the bill;
and if he had moved that it be read a second time that day
six months, he (Lord J. Russell) would gladly, without
taking part in the debate, have gone with him into the
same lobby to endeavour to throw Put the measure. But
the hon. snit learned gentleman hail raised another issue,
and, as he thought, without showing by any means reasons
so cenclueive as he did with respect to the bill, had moved
that • select committee should be appointed. That select
committee is to have two objects—the first is to consider
whether any and what regulations are necessary for the better
protection of the inmates of establishments of a conventual
character. Now that appeared to him to raise again the
whole question of this bill. (Hear, bear.) Ile could not
say that be thought, without some proof of abuse, or acme
circumstance shown to the house to justify their interfe-
rence, that they ought to enter into an inquiry before a
select committee as to the necessity of protecting the inmates
of thew conventual establishments. (Hear, hear.) Tne
bon. gentleman hail said that these estabeshments were not
made lawful by the Emancipation Act ; but it could not be '
denied that they were dist:lndy recognised by law as exist-
ing institutions. The clause by which that recognition was'
' made was • short one, and he would read It to the house.
After making provisions against Jesuits and monastic
orders, it proceeded thus—" And be it further enacted, that'.
nothing herein contained shall extend in any manner
te religious orders and societies of females bound
by religion.; or monastic vows." (Hear, hear.)
Ile admitted that the law took no notice of the nature of
those monastic vows, or to the rules and regulations of the
establishments themselves, but it could not be denied that
they were existing under the reteernition, and with the
sanction of the law, and they ought to have good grounds
shown—they ought to have something like proof—that per-
sons were really detained in them egainet their will, before
they instituted any inquiry into them (Hear.) One of the ob-
jections against the proposed bill, the alarm which it would
excite in the minds of the inmates of these conventual i s-
tablishments, would apply, at least, as strongly against the
proposal for an inquiry. (Wear.) Let the house consider
what must be the alarm and apprehension excited in the
minds of such persons when informed that they were to be
brought before a !mint committee of the House of
Commons. (Ilear, hear.) Ho raid, therefore, that
without some very strong case, such • case is
he had not yet heard even attempted to he proved
with respect to the restriction of personal liberty in
these convents, he could not agree to the appoint-
ment of the select committee for this first object. (Cheers.)
Now, only observe how vague were the allegations on the
subject. One gentleman, • most reverend friend of his, for
whom he had the greatest respect, was (as stated in the
former discussion on this bill) supposed to have acid some-
thing in the other house of parliament rather confirming
the prevalent rumours that persons were confined in these
lemma against their will. Now he (Lord John) saw the
other day in a newspaper • statement—not exactly under
his own hand, but that it was his own statement there was,
he believed, no doubt—that when he was out walking in
Ireland one thy a female accosted him, and said she was the
mother of a female who was confined in one of the con-
vents, and asked him bow she could concert her release,
stating that she had applied to Archbishop Murray on the
subject, and that she then left hits. Itempeared her name
was not known, and it was afterwards stated that she mis-
took him for another person, and did not mean to apply to
him. The whole statement might have been • mistake, or
it might be the woman was not right in her mind, and had
no ground for the statement ; but it was quite evident that
this was one of thaw cases which existed merely in appre
hension, and which could form no ground whatever fir
taking any active steps in reference to it, and much lees for
a g I inquiry such as was proposed by the hon. and
teemed member. And the other cases which he nad heard
of as justifying such a measure hail but little better founda-
tion. But then the hon. and 1 d gentleman said these
vows are used against civil liberty, and this argument went
Ice effect—though the hon. and learned gentleman did not
come to that conclusion himself—that a provision by
law should be made to esters, that which was
mainteiniel by the Roman Cathelie Relief Act—a provision
against these conventual establishments and the taking of
vows in them. Ile (leird John) believed the him. gentle-
man was not correct in the view he took as to the state of
the law in respect to the power of an individual to bind
himself, not that he wished the hon. and learned gentleman
to take his authority against whin he had histralf stated;
but he remembered a great authority with whom he had
frequently con rersed on this subject, whose opinion dif-
fered much from that of the hon. and learned gentleman.
He understood the hon. and learned gentleman to say that
no person in this country, according to law, could bind his
own liberty. Now, it had been frequently a question with
respect to the West India colonies, whether or not Africans
introduced into those colonies had the power to bind them
selves for two, three, five, or ten years. The learned
person with whom he conversed on this point
' was the late Lord Chancellor Cottenham, and he
asked him what in hie opinion was the low of
tnis country on the subject, and that noble and learned lord
always held that when • person was of full age, there was
no
law which could prevent his binding himself to give his
labour to another for five, ten, or even thirty or forty
years. If, then, Lord Cottenham was not wrong in that
opinion, there was a power possessed by persons of full see
to control and bind their own liberty. (Hear, hear) He
did not say that that state of the law was right, but it was
• state of the law which, if it existed, would apply to the
Inmates of these conventual establishments. (Hear, hear.)
The law, as he conceived it to be, im far as it affected these
conventual establishments, was that which the hon. and
learned gentleman had stated, and to which he (Lord John
Russell) had frequently referred, viz., that the restriction
was binding on the minds and the consciences of the inmates,
and nothing more. (Hear, hear.) He believed there was
no case in which one of these nuns might not leave the con-
vent which she inhabited, and might not at any time go
back into the world, and there would be no power in the
convent, or in any other authority in the country, to re-
quire that Ike should leave the world, or he spin bound by
any of the vows and obligatirats she bad taken. (Hear,
hear.) if that was the case, they came nest to the consi-
deration of another subject, which ha was very sorry had
been mixed up with the present question. The question
before the house, as introduced by the hon. and learned
gentlemen, was one of personal liberty—a most important
question in itself—and it was quite sufficient to occupy
their attention; first, whether they thought it necessary
to have any bill on the subject or not; and, secondly, if
they did, whether this was the bill they aught to adopt.
That question was quite sufficient to occupy the attention
of the house. But the hon. and learned gentleman, the
member fee Bath, had introduced in the emend part of his
proposition a question for the select committee to consider
—whether any regulations were necessary " for the pre-
vention of the exercise of undue influence in procuring the
alienation of their property." Now, he took it that this
was a totally different question—it was • question compli-
cated and mixed up with various other questions with re-
gard to the general policy of our laws, with re-
gard to the disposition of property, with regard to the
liberty that was legitimately in every person to dispose of
his property, with regard to the law of mom-
main, and with regard to the various other questions
affecting the disposition of property. These were no doubt
very fit questions to consider, either for the government or
for any individual member of the house to propose ; and if
they thought the existing law insufficient, say amendment
of that law, and in such amendment this nee of the conven-
tual establishments might be included, with all ether de-
scriptions of property, (Hear, hear.) He did not see that
the property of convents ought to be differently provided for
from that of other establishments. (Hear, hear.) If un-
due influence was used as to the disposition of the property
of the inmates, let the matter be disposed of by law; as in
all other cases. With regard to some of the instances which
the hon. and learned gentleman had adduced, the hon. and
learned gentleman had himself shown that the law as it
stood was sufficient to meet them. In the case brought be-
fore the courts of law in Ireland, and quoted by the
hon. and learned gentleman, as showing that undue in-
fluence was exercised—the conveyance of the property was
held to be bad, and a re-conveyance decreed. (Hear, hear.)
If then the present law was sufficient, the matter might
safely be left to the operation of that law, or if further
restrictions were necessary let those be drawn up in the
shape of a bill, let that Lill be introduced, and let the house
consider whether those provisions wire fitted to meet the
exigencies of the case. (Hear, hear.) Ile quite admitted
to the honourable and learned gentleman that there
! was a public inconvenience in persons who entered
these religious establishments at an early age, finding when
they arrived at or 30 years old that they were bound as
to the disposition of their property by • religious row made
when they were perhaps le. (Hear.) He could well con-
ceive, without any interference with these conventual es-
tablishments, that the law should provide for cases of thi .
deseription. (Hear, hear.) But conveyances obtained by
undue influence, could, as the law stood, be set aside by the
courts of this country and of Ireland, and were set aide
when brought before elem. A friend of his found that his
agent had, by undue influence, obtained the conveyance of ,
a large amount of property into his own bands,
but when the case was brought before the Court,
of Chancery in Ireland, that conveyance was set aside and
the property was restored to its proper owner. But these
are (said the noble lord), questions altogether diderert in
themselves, and deserving separate consideration from that
before the house. Do not let us mix them up with this 1011,
sod above all do not let us take them as questions that
solely affect the deposition of property by nuns in convents,
but in connection with the whole question of property
of this kind, and when undue influence is used, let the low,
if it is not already sufficient, be made sufficient
fur the purpose of meeting such cases. (Hear, hear.) In
the first place, then, without eaterine farther into the
merits of the amendment, I shall vote for taking tho deci-
sion as the words now stand (or the second reading of the
ha I think it the fairer, and beyond that the wiser
tour,* for the house to take that question by itself—(hear,
bear)—and when we come to the division, should the ques-
tion be proposed in that plain manner to the house—whe•
thcr the bill should be read a second time or not—l shall
cheerfully vote that the second reading be post-
poned for six months—(hear, hear)—considering that
it is a bill which, intending and pretending to
suit the particular c see of the nuns in Roman catholic
convents, is not founded on any proved circumstances—
that it begins with a preamble which is not justified by

facts, and goes on to provide enactments which I believe,
so far from being llsvourable to the Roman iatho'ic religious
are hostile to civil liberty—(cheers)—soil that the measure,
while it is hostile to the civil liberty et all creeds, pro-
. testant as well as Roman catholic, would ia its effect be
most offensive to the whole Rennin catholic community;
and that, white it would give you no malt:lent remedy for
any evil if evil exists—would exasperate the feelings of
those innates of these religiose convents who have devoted
themselves to a religious life from motives of piety and de-
votion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. If. MOORE took exception to the sincerity of
there who proposed the bill, for its title was a prevarica-
tion, while its first reading was carried by • pettifog-
s ging matneuvre. A clamour had been got up out of doors
in favour of the bill, but ne faith could be placed in the
religious press, nor could any weight be attached to any-
thing which tell from Englishmen spinet the Roman ca-
tholic church, because they were ever ready to say mu--
thing and everything against that chutch without inquir-
ing tutu the truth of what they asserted. This feeling did
not confine itself to any one class, but extended through all
society. They had seen hon. members while acting under
a species of protestant madness give vent to assertions
which were as devoid of truth as they
.were recklessly
made ; and they bad known instances of juries returning
verdicts at variance with the evidence for the sake of up-
holding the supremacy of protestiustism. The black-
est spots in our history were attributable to these
periodical outbursts of protestant infatuation and
intolerance, and he regretted ti find in this,
the nineteenth ci otury, they were called upon to legis-
. Ice towards the Roman Catholics, in a spirit which would
I have done no discredit to the age in which Queen Mary
' fell. (Hear, bear.) So objectionable and tyrannical were
the provisions of this bid, that lie did nit believe that any
I man could be found who would be willing to carry them
out; certainly none would be found in Ireland, not even
amongst the most rampant Orangemen, for even an Orange-
man was not so great a coward as to be ever found robing
his hand against defenceless women. (Hear, hear.) The
bill, in fact, might be characterised as the Jack Ketch of
bigotry, and the house would best consult its own dignity
and the interest of the country by throwing it out. As for
the assertion that ladies were confined in nunneries against
their will, he believed that ladies in convents were much
freer than many hon. members, who were subject to the
whims of whips and angry constituents ; and it would be
better to pass a bill for their relief than that of the nuns,
who did not want it. (Hear.)
Mr. %VARNER, who spoke amid loud cries of "Divide,"
said the great feature of the bill was that it recognised the
great principle that priestly influence was encroaching on
the temporal power. (Hear, bear.) lie would much
rather vote for the suppression of all conventual establish-
ments than • bill of inspection, but there was thie great
merit in the bill, that it discountenanced priestly inter-
, hereon in the temporal matters of domestic lite, and on
that account he should support it as • step in the right
direction. He should give his vote for the bill, as it was
introduced ; and if it was lost, he would divide heartily in
favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Bath.

Mr. O'CONNOR lIENCIIY, in protesting against the
bill, would not follow the example of the hon. member for
Mayo, by raking an onslaught on protestant' ; for Roman
catholic, ought not to forget that it was to protestant, they
owed catholic emancipation.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER was particularly anxious
not to give a silent vote on this occasion, as he intended to
act in conformity with the course he took with regard to
a similar measure in a former parliament, when he said that
it was right that measures simul I be taken for the super-
vision of conventual establishments, if such supervision
was wanted. He should carry out that opinion, not by
voting for the present bill, which he believed it to be utterly
impossible to put into operation, but by voting for the
amendment of the hon. member for Bath, which appeare •
to him to be conceived in a fair spirit, and to express a
I principle which those who were the most ready
to resist every encroachment on religious li-
berty, but who were not drawn by ally amount
of clamour to confound civil with reli:dous liberty, could
not but think consistent with every principle of religious
liberty.
Mr. CONOLLY then addressed the house, but amidst
such continued interruption and cries for a division, that
little could be heard of his observations. He was under-
stood to express himself gratified to find from the speech
of the hon. gentleman who had just sit down, that the
feeling of the house was opposed to the bill, as odious and
tyrannical. As to the amendment, if the bill was odious,
the amendment was as bad, or worse. It was merely a
half measure to satisfy clamour, and would please neither
one side nor the other, and was unworthy of the considera-
tion of the house.

Mr. T. CHAMBERS, amidst impatience and cries of
"Divide," said he accepted with the liveliest satisfaction
every single issue that had been raised on the bill, and he
was glad that at length some issue had been raised ; for it
was impossible so avoid remarking that, alter the most
anlious scrutiny of all the eager and impassioned orations
which had been made against it both in Ireland and this
country, not one single single argument on which he had
grounded the necessity of the measures hod been over-
thrown, and much more than that, not one of them had
even been assailed, (" Oh," and cheeri.) The ho-
nourable gentleman was about to proceed, but the
impatience of the hou:c was so manifest and the cries
of " divide "so continuous, that he c•'nctuded abruptly by
saying that he was willing to accept the amendment of the
hon, member for Bath.

Sir 0. GREY, in order to prevent the vote he was about
to give being cc, isunderstocsd, wished to s..y that he should
vote both against tbesecond reacting and the amendment,
but he should vote now for the words that the second
reading stand part of the question in order that he might
vote again against the amendment.
Sir J. PAK INGTON said, that as the hon. member fur
Hertford accepted the amendment, he intended to vote
against the ball in order that he might vote for the amend-
ment.

The house then divided on the proposition, " that the
words proposed to be left out stand part :of the question."
Ayes
Noes
The effect of which is, that the second reeding is lost.
It being sic o'clock, the house immediately adjourned.

tit Orivrll.4-.).