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

MILITIA COLONELS.

ing to the second rea ling of the bill, to pro,ide the only
practical remedy for an admitted evil which lay_in their

power.
Mr.-BOWYER then rose, pursuant to notice, to move
that the bill.be read a second time that,day three months,

and proceeded to comment at some length upon the unsa-
tisfactory character of the House of Lords as at present

constituted, as a court of appeal, adducing in support of his
argument the well-known fact that the Loid Chancellor
oltea sat alone to pronounce a judgment upon cases in
which the appeal lay against a decision which he himself
had previously pronoun7ed. The hone and learned gentle-

man then referred tq the provisions of thAbill, thdoperatiim
.4 which he contended would be to, create a great constitu
tional change in the,charaeter. of the Upper Hotise; by
dividing its members into two classes—hereditary peers
ind peers for life. That he conceived to be an alteration

so importan't that he did not think it Might to obtain the
sanction of the house under cover of a' measure which pro-
posed simply to deal with the appellate jurisdiction of
the °tiler branch of the Legislature.. Another objecti,,n
which he entertained to the bill wa', that whereas that
jurisdiction was regarded as being exercised by the
" Queen and her Parliament," it provided that the L'rd

Chancellor and the new deputy spiakers might hear ap-
peals out of session—thus interfering with a ..constitu-
tional principle which stated that Parliament could

not be divided in point of time. He might also ob
serve, that he looked with no inconiiderahle degree
of apprebinsion at the probable operation of the
-words at the end of the sth clause, to the effect that
the proposed tribunal might not only deal with appeals
and writs of err.J., but with " all matters connected
therewith," during a, period when Parliament might not
happen to be sitting. Those words opened the way to
encroachments upon the privileges of the House of Com-
•1001:13, which he did not think it stall desirable should
exist. (Hear.) While dealing with that point he might be
permitted to ask whether the new Tribunal would be en-
abled to sit during the period which must elapse between
the dissolution of one and the assembling of another Par-
lia,ment ? If such were not the case great inconvenience
might be the result—an inconvenionce for which he
thought some t emedy should, possible, be provided. The
learned gentleman then referred to the various function-
ariei whom it was proposed should be eligible to be selected
as deputy speakers, stating his objection to the inclusion
among the 'number of the judges of the Admiralty arid
.Pre-
rogative .Courts, upon the ground that the cases With
which the new tribunal would be called Upon to deal were
not such as usually came under the consideration of those
judge's, lie also, wsuining that one of the new function-.
aries was to be a Scotch and one a common law judge 7—
pointed out the absurdity which in his opinion would
result from sUbmitting appeals from the Lords Justices
to a tribunal upon which there would be only
1 equity judge ; from 10 common law judges, in cases of
writs of error, to a tribunal upon which only 1 common
lag judge would pre-ide ; and from the 15 judges of
goottand to a tribunal upon which there would be only
one person conv,rsant with Scotch la*. He would next
point out what he C.-msidered the great constitutional
defect in the bill. L would continue the existence of
two courts of appeal in this country—the House of Lords'
and the Judi ial Committee of the Privy Giuncil. 'He
believed. that any measure which would leave that state
of things undiaorbed 'would necessarilybe uniatisfactory.
The existence of two co-ordinate courts of appeal was
more objectionable iu this than in any other country, be•
cause we had no comprehensive code to guide our judges
in t.ieir decision's.. A. considerable portion of our law was

made up of decisions of theju(iges, and of late years they
had innined —and Lei ,ecl very properly, as
.he thought
—to the panties of looking more to subt.tantial justice
than to, technical forms. But that very practice had ren•
dered our jurisprudence less fixed than ever, and he
believed that peopre in general had no idea hlw arbi-
trary' the power of our judges had-become. Our law wa-
it', present-in a transitory state ; the boundaries between
law and equity were not so distinct as they had been ;
and the tealency of.our judges was to unite the two sys•
tens as much a i possible. In ti oh a state of things the
establishment of a' single appalls o tribunal, which would

Col. FRENCH moved for an address for a return of
the names of colonels of militia in Great Britain_and
Ireland, appointed since the 30th day of March, 1853,
who hadreceived pay during the time their regiment-5
had been embodied,--;Areeri to.
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERA.NNUATION FUND

The CHANCELLOR of the EXC a EQUER. brought
up the report of the select committee in reference to th••
Civil Service Superannuation Fowl, which was receive !
and ordered to be laid on the table.
THE TE RMAGANT.

e . .
-
give fility tea the 'law, was peculiarly desirable ; and
without it he-feared that it would be vain to attempt es e
make any comprehensive consolidation of our system o f..
jurisprudence. e He felt perstaaded.. that, without the
U ui t of °mistake.' in France, the bode Napoleon could
never .bave been successfully a ituiaistere.d. The hon: and
learned gentleinati (the Att aney-Gerieral) had asked
what churse they could adopt for improVing out appellate
system if they were to throw. out that measure. `Now, in
•reply to that queetion,•he-(Mr. Bewyer), had to state that
an obvious . remedy cou'd, its his . pinion; be devised
for the evil. which they then wished to remove. He
wotrA propose that a Supreme court of appeal should
be eppoietod, consisting of five' of tee best men to be
foun I on the. bench and at the bar, and that to that court
sh mld be transferred the appellate jurisdiction at present
exercise 1 by the, House of Levis, as well as that exer-
cised by the Judicial Commute : ef the Privy Council.
He could•CounAve only one objection t , thatscheme, and
that was, that it would le id to a coesiderabln outlay.
B it he dal not think the House of Commons. wool I
grudge any sum which mieEt be failay expended in esta-
blishing a therouglay efficient appellate system in this •
country. He would further suggest that the expendi-
ture to be time created should be partially met by re-
moving a judge from the Court of Exchequer and an
ether from the Court of Common Pleas. There could be
no doubt that the county c urts had of !we years con-
siderably lessened, and might be expected hereafter fur-
ther to lessen the amount of business transacted in the
I courts of Westminster Hall ; arid he bid not think that
any inconvenience could itylea from diminishing to
the extent he heel stated the jlalicial strength
of the el part ot Comm its P eas and of the Curt of Ex-
chequer. He Would further mike the proposed new
a mar: a, court of crinaiical appeal. At present a man
might appeal from a judgment in which a small sum of
money was involved. but he ha I no right of appeal to a
case in whica hie life Was at stake. The only remedy
left to him was a writ of error, and that could only be
applied in case the error was apparent on the record.
But there might be error apparent, and yet a roan might
be substantially guilty, and on tee other hand, there
:eight be no such error, and yet a man might be really
innocent. Appeals on the merits of a capital case c mld
only be addressed to the Herne Secretary, who had Vine
imposed upon him a meat invidious office, and one which
it was impossible that he could be the pereen heat quali-
fied to di-charge. It appeared to him (Ylr. 13,wyer)
that a great improveineet would be effected in our jula
cial system by the establishment of a court of appeal
which would have the power of granting a new trial on
cause shown in criminal casee. He trusted he had shown
that the bill would be ina 'equate for the purpose se hick
it was intended it should accornp'illi ; that It was replete,
with ab urdities on the face of it ; and that the working
of it would be scarcely, if at all, more satisfactory than
the working ot the system it was to supersede. He
might be asked whether the weasuze ought not to be
accepted as an experiment and as an instalment of right.
But to that question he should reply in the eegative. If
an abuse were left undisturbed it core titut-A at least a
good ground for working on with a view to obtain a
complete and comprehensive remedy. But if it were par-
tially (Seale witb at would only impede the further pre-
green of legi-lation. He bad to more, in conclusion,
that the bi!l he read a second time that day siorenniths..
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE seconded the amendment. He
did not think they could properly consider, at that period of
the session, a bill which, for novelty and importance, was
almost unprecedented in the history of our legislation. It
was universally admitted that the appellate jurisdiction of
the House of Lordi required amendment. His hon. and
learned friend the Attorney-General had asked wh a could
be worse than the present state of that jut isiliction, but he
(Ilia Phillimore) believed that it would b 3 still worse to
pass a hasty and ill-considered measure, which would ren-
der permanent evils of which overybo ly complained. Oae
of the objects of the bill was to sanction the appointment
of life peerages of a very peculate character, and limited to
one profession. The memberaof the House of Common.
ought not to conceal from themselves that the effect of the
measure as regarded life peerages would be practically to
lituitalie peerage in favour of the;existing House of Lords,
area he could not help looking upon such an innovation
with great jealousy. Many of them had perhaps read the
reinai kable debates of the year 1719, in the course of which
Sir H. Walpole had succeeded, after an admirable display
of eloquence and reasoning, in inducing the House of Com-
mons to throw out a bill which had passed the House Of
Lords, having for its object- to limit the number of mem-
bers Of thet heuse. It was true that the present measure
was of adifferent character, but he believed it would lead
- practically to the Beane result. He would ask the supporters
of the bill whether they thought it would be wise to rest
the right to the peerage upon the possession of. wealth
alone. For his part, he believe 1 that if the principle had
always been adopted the British House of Lords would not
be what it was--the oldest legislative body in the world.
In considering that measure they we se bean I to inquire.
' into the. feuudation of the appellate jurisdiction of the
House of Lords. ' His first objection to the bill was, that
itieft. untouched the great anomaly of the existence of
two supreme tribunals of appeal in this ceuntry. How
came it, he would ask, that one of those tribunals had gra-
dually won, while the other bed gradually lost, the respect'
and confidence of the public ? That was the first question
. they had to .answer. The next question to which they
ha f to direct their attention was, whether it would be
possible to amalgamate those two' jurisdictions, or whe-
ther they would be obliged to vote 10,0001. a-year for two
deputy speakere, in order that the House of Lords might
be able.-to centinue to exercise that jurialiction which
had been described in language so depreciatory by his
hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General? Let it be
remembered that the ,Ilence of Lords bad only obtained
theirjurisdiction
,in matters of equity in the year 1675,
after a long atraggto, and he would venture to add without
the shadow aright: He had further to Observe that up to
the year IMO that jurisdiction had been exercised with the
concurrence of the judges as assistants. It was true that
the judges had not voted, although it was the opinion of
no less an authority than Lord &mere, that Privy Coun-
Cinema had ,a right to vote with the Lords, and,that he con-
sidered the judges as ancillary to the House of (Peers, and
that,the t we subsisted together.. The bill, did not carry,
Out the-doctrine artlackstorie, that the members of the
ether house were entitled to voae by the-right of peerage.
It did not state in terms, it was true, that lay piers Were.
not to vote on ja. halal eases; bat it stated that in effect
end 'it therefore Itbaralohed altogether:'' theeprincipleof an'
hereditary jurisdiction in the House of Lords, while it Set
up another and. an inferior court insteed- of 'that-house
He found diet at as late a period asaahe year. 1786 the lay .
beers li al divided, on a judicial quAtion of the 'greatest
iinportareeeein which the late Bishop.of London had been
osiptiff, andin,waitch-Lord Thurlow had carried his opi.
akin by YB, votes .against Lord Mansfield, who had been .
itupparted by 17. ' His hon, and learned friend the Attor-
, aey-General had told thehe that lawyers did not at present
Malee'laratelditattea, and that they could not wish on ag•
fount- of their poverty, to receive , hereditary peerage&
N. 4 hie hot: and learned friend intact be will able to de-
cide whether lawyers did nor did not at present receive
very large incomes ; but he confessed • he had heard with
itewe surprise the steteenent of his hon. and.learned friend
teln that point. 'lt was perfectly: well 'known, at all
vebts, that Lord' Wensleydale, who had received the re-
cent appointment to a -life peerage- was a rich man, and
'that' he had no fiolat!eVut holtrii,Wd biiattutotiatitlinitto•,

In answer to a question from Adtniral WALCOTT,
Sir CHAS. WOOD said that the yellow fever had
broken out on board the Termagant, on the West Indian
Station, but not in a malignant form. The vessel ha
been sent to the north war I, which was considered a spe-
cific against the further spread of the fever.

THE RETURN. OF THE GUARDS,

In reply to a question from llijor BARING,

Lord PALMERSTON said the Guards, on_their en-
try on Wednesday into London on their return from tl- e
Crimea, would march from the railway station to Char-
ing-cross, along Pall-mall, in at the gate near the G.!,r-
man chapel, and inaugurate, as it were, the opening of
the road through the park to the public ; pass in front
of Buckingham Palace and up Constitution Hill .
Hyde Park. .He was unable to say at what hour the
Guards would enter London, but it would be early in
the day. The details were arranged by the Q larter-
master-General, but the Government was ans werable
for them.

TFIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, JULY 8 1856:

of the, Privy Council engrossed the confidence of the pub
lic ? Th,at tribunal was of modern growth ; for, although
the jurisdiction of the Privy Council itself was pf
great antiquity, the present tribunal had been remo-
delled at the suggestion of Lord Brougham, when be had
been filling the office-of Lord Chancellor. That noble,aed
learned lord. had laid the foundation of the court to wisely
—he-had- made it eo-flexitile,sand at the same time corn-
poted it of eminent judges, that it had since gone on gain-
ing more and more of the public confidence. How coul
the house expect that a similar success would crown the
adoption of fhe present miserable measure? That measure
would sanction the appointment of two deputy speakers,
with salaries of 5,000/. a year each—the amount of the
salaries 'Of *sire judges—who were- to assist the Lord
Chancellor in deciding appeals which might be made from
decisions of ten of the most eminent judges in Westmin
ster Hall sitting in oleo in Exchequer Chamber. He said
that the house ought not to be forced auto passing a bill of.
that kind 'at the end of the session. He had great coMpail
sion for the suitors, but thought that the Howie of Corm
mons ought not to pass a law affecting the liberties of the
subject and the constitution of the ultimate court of appeal
simply because certain unforsunate suitors would suffer a
year cr two longer than they would otherwise have done.'
He admitted it was doubtful what course ought to be
adopted by Parliament ; but there were certain- landmarks
by which they ought to be guided, such as the necessity of
having one supreme court, and the necessity of procuring
as muchealent, ability, and learning in that court as could
be obtained. With respect to the question of money, he
apprehended that neither the house nor the country would
grudge any sum that was. necessary to secure such a court
of final appeal as would obtain the confidence of the nation.
But if it was doubtful what course Perliament ought to
pursue, it was not at all doubtful what ought to be done
with this bill—a bill which did not remedy one-third of
the evils complained of, and did nothing more than skin
over the diseases undet which it was alleged they sriffered.
In his opinion, the proper course would be to send it to
a committee up stairs, for he had no, hesitation in affirm-
ing that the inquiry which took place in the House of
Lords did not exhaust the subject, for many eminent
persons existed who could throw light upon it who were
not examined at all. The house must consider the position
in which it was for the first time placed. The Peers had
presented a bill to supply certain detects 'which they 'ac
knowledgee existed in that house as an appellate court ;
they desired the assistance of the House of Conimons in
framing a measure which would enable theta-to discharge
the most solemn trust confided to them by the constitu-
.tion. How were they to answer to their constituents or to
posterity if they did not take the advantage of an opportu-
nity which might never occur egain ; if they neglected to
confer the greatest boon which an enlightened country
could receive, viz., a court of final appeal based upon the
soundest principles of justice to which none would raise an
objection, and which would be received with gratitude and
joy by the whole country ? How would they excuse them-
selves hereafter if, in consequence of a party combination
in the House of Lords, they consented to perpetuate a de-
fective system, or, because some suitors would suffer in-
convenience a year or two longer, they inflicted upon the
country that greatest of curses—a court of j odic-turd in
the last resort which would be ellen to the sympathies and
feelings of the people, and would neither inspire- colifi -
deuce nor create respect ?
Me. WHITESIDE-a:Sir, the two hon, and learned
gentlemen. wile spoke last have: contented themselves with
urging all manner of objectious to the bill from the first
word in the preamble to the last in the clauses. Surely, if
the subject is full of difficulty, a gentleinan so eminent for
his legal ability as the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. R.
Phillitnore) might have suggested some mode of.reMoving
those difficulties ; and if it is the duty of the House of
Commons to strike out some practical mode 'of redressing
the grievances adniitted, who
.inorefit to Flo so than the
hon. and leaetied member for Dundalk ? •
Mi. BOWYER-4 did so:
Mr. WHITESEDE--The hon. and leerned member
amused,' and perhaps instructed, the house by a reference
to the French laws, and the practice of thnFrench courts;
but with all-respect to him, I should not wish to see either
those laws or that practice introduced into- this country.
What the hon. and learned gentleman did was to 'suggcist
a number of difficulties and objections to the bill, but he
sat down without hiving applied his abilities to solve in
any way the difficulties which he raised. Now, rem not
here to discuss the question of criminal law, or appeals
from criminal law—l am not here to ,offer. au ,opinion us
to whether the Attorney-General tot Ireland ought to be
empowered to grant a writ of error-or not, but with an en-
tirely different question—a question which is quite enough
to engross the whole attention of this house, and one
to which' the hon. and learned gentleman.woun hey() done
well to hal-reapplied his mind. The lion. and learned gen-
tleman' among other things, spoke of the low scale of sala-
rses to be given under this bill, but that seemed to me no
argument aestiust the principle of the measure. if the bon
and learned gentleman was, snz ,d with a fit Of Liberality he
might have proposed to increase those salaries in com-
mittee ; and perhaps he would have prevailed upon the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so, if he could persuade
him that by so doing he could- procure a greater amount of
ability in the persons to be appointed. But the salaries pro-
posed in the House of Lords had been already reduced, be-
cause it was thought they would not meet the views of
some of the political economists in. the House of Com•
mons, so there was little chence of success in that direc
Hun. The honourable and learned gent!eman also spoke
in high terms of the eligibility of the Judicel Committee
of Privy Council as an appellate court. I fully.ad mit that
this is an excellent court, that it has discharged its duties
faithfully, and is worthy of the • coifidence whish the
• public place in it ; while at the same time its members
are cautious enough to suppress any difference of
opinion whielr- may arise between them, so that. its
decisiOns appearee2 have the stamp of unanimity when
that is. net always the case. But the hon. and learned
gentleman who so highly eulogised that court di I not
condescend to einforrn. the house that the judges of the
Committee of Privy Council are entirely dependent
upon the pleasure of the Sovereign ; he did not
tell us that evet-y sae of those juices might be struck out
of the list tie-morrow. If such a court as that is to be made
an ultimite court of appeal, it would indeed be the most
ueconstitutional tribunal that could well be imagined. It,
dues not follow that because a number of gentlemen, orni-
ne.nt indeed for their great abilities anti extensive learning,
are acquainted with Dutch law, with Sesnish law, with
lerliten law—if there be any such—they should be called
upon to discuss and decide questions of criminal law—
cases-great cases of equity. The hon. and learned
gentleman assumed, but he did not prove, that the two
courts of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council were co-ordinate tribunals. When was
that fact discovered? It is true that they both take cog-
. alsaeca of cases in which personal property is the subject
of dispute, but iris a strong assumption that, because they
both decide a Certain class of cases, their jurisdiction is
co-or lieate. Nor is it the fact that there is any danger of
the Committee of Privy Council conflicting in opinion with
the House of Lords, for that veryquestion was inquired into
in the House of Lords, and I find it stated by a very eminent
authority that when there was the least danger or the least
chance of their corning into conflict in consequence of simi-
lar cases being before the House of Lords and the Judicial
C imuittee of Privy Council, the latter court stayed all
proceedings until the House of Lords had pronounced an
opinion on the case, and they thee took the law as affirmed
by that tribunal. It is therefore entirely an assumption
that the committee owe a great deal to the circumstance of
some of its members being judges of other courts, because
I have shown that they decide in conformity with the opi-
nion of the House of Lords. I now*come to the practical
question, and I give the House of Commons credit for not
indulging in abstractions, but at all times attempting to
solve difficulties in a practical manner—what are we to do
in the present instance? Now, I must say, it seems to me
that there has ba6n a want of generosity in the way in
which my hon. and learned ft lends have spoken of the House
of Lords. They have represented the jurisdiction of that
house as failing for many years. What is the fact? All the
17 witnesses examined before the Lords' committee, and
among them were the foremost men in this country, de-
clared that never was there a tribunal which commanded
more perfectly the respect of the bar and the confidence of
the country. It has given laws to half the civilised word: ;
Amelia ei lawyers and writers have passed the highest
eulogiums upon it, and it was proved by all the witnesses
that at the time when Lord Cottenhain, Lord Brougham,
Lord Campbell, and Lord Lyndhu'st sat together under
the Chancellorah!p of the last named noble and learned
lord, no tribunal was more distinguished for despatch of
business, for ability, or for learning. They discharged
their duty to the country ern a grasp of intellect, a power
of language, arid a display of legal acumen, which it was
wondrous to behold. (Hear.) Is it just, then, that because
one of these learned •men can no longer attend, and an-
other is obliged to absent himielf in coesequenceof
you are to say "this tri Aural is no longer weat it was; it
is unworthy therefore to exist?" Every gentleman who
was examined before the committee has stated that until
the lest two or three years that tribunal. was one of un-
equalled excellence. An inconvenience has arisen. How
has it been met? A question arose respecting the confer-
ring of a life peerage, put that is a question with which we
cannot deal, however eminent may be the person, d an we
all admit his ability, whoit was intended should have been
theieeipiept but. with what justice ,can the hon. and
learned gentleman say that it is proposed to two
miserable persons to preside in a, miserable court, and dis-
pose of c :use's in a miserable manner, at a miserable rate
of reinuneration. If I held that ()Onion I certainly would
vote, not.efor referring this measure to a select comittee,
but for relinquishing it altogether. , Th me
.Piencipal argu-
ment Made use of by the hon. and learned gentlemen who
have opposed. this Measure is, that the' cases will be de-
cided by three persons. But what
.becomes of that argil-
Mont when we find that during the period of which all the
Witnesses spoke as being a period when the House of
Lords was considered a tribunal of unexampled excellence
seldom more than three attended; and no one will .deny
that when Lord Campbell attended, trefoce he was Chief
Justice, Scotch appeals were admirably disposed of. Still
bUt three persons attended. Well, an Act of Parlia-
ment passed to regulate the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council. What did that act do? Made three judges a
quorum. If then the cases in the popular court of the Ju-
dicial Committee of Privy Council were decided ley three
judges, and if the cases_in the House of Lords, when that
tribunal was one of acknowledged excellence, wore decided
by three judges, where is the objection to the cases
brought before the new court contemplated by this bill.
being decided by three judges? (Heir.) 'Seine of the wit-
nesses have pronounced an opinion in favour of five in-
stead of three being the quorum. I have no objection to
that. The greet point shstild he to have an unequal num-
ber, tee that there shall ha a casting vote ;" and if such a
gentlernan as Mr. Pemberton Leigh could be induced to
enter 'the other house for that pdrpose, he would doubtleas
be a greate addition to the learning and ability of that tri-
bunal. But the bill, which is one of the strictest Modera-
tion, has only propdied two, and to the principle of that
bill I see no objection. Indeed, I can speak from my own
eXperienae, with reference to case which haee come from
Ireland-, as to the feeling in that cparter in favour of the
House of Lords being the court Of final appeal. ' Those
cases have been political, equitable, and crirriinal—they
have involved the higheit Interests and questions of the
deepest importance, but the fruit Of my experience is ehat
nothing should induce me to give up the right of appeal
to that home. It would ill become me to speak of
-O'Connell's case, because in that I was cOunselebut I
isepeet to the great case of the Preebyterian ministers,
which affectel the interests or the feelings of thousands of
parsons, and I ask whether in that and eimilar cases the
greatest confidence was not felt by theipublicin the House
of Lords as le court of eppellateejerisdiction? (Hear.) The
House of Lords has always had a right to call in the as-.
eistance Of the judges °fettle land, andehe bill 'does not'dg
peiee them of that' right, -The' assumption of hon: and
leeened members is that the risible lord at the bead of the
Gevetnenetit, instead of searching foe „trim of the first
.bility 'end' gestiteet'neeiiienceetti place in high offices
erected bythis bill"; will look -00 for, roetk. of inferior
-ability, and be infliiirecedbe.dtliter "Contidefeticinse T do
not believe -in idiot 'essiumpliee. (Heer.') I would also
-mention that thsT6ttet'etlililefdli jiultioei really con:

lists of three; because although only two justices are ap-
pointed, in case of difference of opinion the Lord Chan-
•oellor is called in and a-sists them. Now on this point I
will just refer to the evidence given by the hon. member
fur Wallingford before the Lords' committee. He says
" An appeal. to the Lord Chancellor sitting alone is not ,
satisfactory ; an appeal to the Lords Justices is not quite •
satisfactory. It is not because I think the decision is not
_;orrect, but because I study the way in which the public
look at the matter. I think there ought to be four or five
judges; five would be a convenient number' but four would
; ' and in another place my hon. and learned friend
stated his opinion that three would. be satisfactory. The
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Dundalk ex-
pressed an opinion that there ought to be, at least, one
Scotch judge among the number, but I confess I was sur-
prised at the le indour of the Scotch witnesses whdexpressed
an opinion that the decisions on Scotch questions were very
,ouch better without them, and gentlemen.of such eminence
Mr. Hope and Mr. Bellenden Ker expressed an opinion
in favour of leaving the appellate jurisdiction with the
House of Lords. The writers to the signet have themselves
acknow'ss igei that very great advantages to Scotch law have
lessen by the intervention of distinguished English lawyers
in the House of Loa's. In f tct, not to multiply oases, al-
uostall the witnesses examined on the subject were maxi-
ms to retain that jurisdiction. I also am anxious to re.
tain it in the House of Lords for the very best possible
reason, because it possesses it, and that is a good Conser-
vative argu,.ient. The House of Lords has had an appal- ,
la ju,i diction for a long period of time, and if there are
.ny defects it' is our duty to improve but not to destroy it.
If at any time, in consequence of infirmity or length of
veers, three judges are not able to attend in the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, it will be our duty to re-
place them. The hon. and learned member says that his
objection to the House of Lords being a permanent tribu-
nal of appeal in the last resort is, because it depends en-
irely on the volition of individual _lords whether they.
will attend or not. That is to be cured.
•by the appoint-
went of two learned persons as assistants to the Lord
Chancellor to attend constantly to hear and determine
cases. But it is alleged that in public opinion, such a
ribunal will not carry the weight and authority of the
House of Lords. I believe it will, for I believe that the
members composing the House of Peers will always have
such an influence over the judges constituting that court
as to impart to their decisions the dignity of the whole
house, while they will always be able to check any ap-
proach to irregularity. It is of the greatest consequence
thio the appellate jurisdiction of the house should be vested
in, and discharge by, the whole body, which it will be in
the persons of thesejudges. Surely the hon. gentleman
lid notWfiect t o get more perfect, more brilliant, more
usiainous judgments than had been delivered in that house
during the last half century, when Lord Redesdale and
Lord Eliot sat there. Is the house of opinion it will

I hitviq-ead repeatedly, and to the uninitiated it seems to
concede to the Crown the absolute power of creating
peerages for life. It commences by granting the ~
power to appoint for life two deputy speakers, but
than it gods further to provide that there shalluot- be -
more than four persons holding peerages for life at the
same time. The plain meaning is that the Crown would
have power.to create two deputy speaker; and keep up
two life peerages, chosen either from the Lords or elsewhere. .1
But I believe the true_e_oudtruction.ia that it is limited to
two deputy speakers. in the .first instance, and that the
gross number shall not exceed four Then what is the po-
sition-of Lord Wensfeydale ? (Hear.) Either he must be de-
signatkid as one of the. deputy speakers, remaining a peer
fur life; or his position will be most anomalous. (Hear.)
He has_ presentedn -
materially affect a right which be claims ; and his position
is one which has a claim upon our consideration. (Hear.)
It is a ,strange inconsistency that the thampions of the
peerage by iuheritance should now propose peerages for
life.; (Hear.) This is so ; if it is contrary to the duty of the
advisers of the Crown that any peers for life i.hould 'se
created without consent of Parliament, and if it be nut-
mited, then it is open to abuse for party purposes, and dap,
geroui to the-goTse Of Lords. (Hear.) The bill has thkre.

ties of Lc

ard Lox
ent peril
present a;
would be
mbureed j
and it wi
Lord No
deed by t
&ion was
two thins
proprio v
es, failinj
ably, and
Whioh th
It has be
quite c,
intervent
I believe
common '1
Council ;
each sessi
Ileation o
to comrnc
eillors.
Within tb

imakable characteristic, that there ought to be a general
conentrence of these who are in favour of peerages for life
and, those who are opposed to them in rejecting it, for it
leaves in uncertainty that great question of prerogative.
(Hear.) T have the gravest doubts as to the policy of peer-
ages for life. (Hear.) Look to colonial assemblies, and see
there the effect of nominees of the Crown holding in an
rimier chamber what aro analogous to peerages for life.
Nothing cart be--more injurious. Now, an hereditary or -
independent peerage' (I lase the terms as synonymous) are
characteristic of our mixed form of government. There is
nothing else in principle but that second elective chamber,
which is characteristic of republicanism. (Hear.) It isalleged •
as an evil that there is too much of the law element in the
House of Lo ds ; that the sons of great lawyers inheriting
peerages, perhaps, may be without adequate means of sup-
porting the dignity. The case suggested is extraordinary.
It is to introduce the law peers themselves into the house
before they have earned in their profession sufficient to
sustain • the dignity and independence of their position.
(Hear.) Poverty is, for the first time, avowed as_ one of
the ingredients of qualification for the peerage. (Hear, and a
•laugh.) What will be the effect of it? It will brand the

slution,
don thei

things ca
the profs,
is as a

get better men ? I think not. Nor will they be miser-
able judges because they are moderately remunerated•
for devoting their talents to their country. Sod
far from objecting to the bill I think that the hon. and
learned gentleman should vote for its second reading and
s 4• v us in commi,tse how it can be improved. (Hear.)
It ,is said that life. peerages would be created. That is
true ; but you hear the opinion of eminent authorities,
that if limited in number the adoption of that principle
may be beneficial ; there is no likelihood that the House
of Lords will be deluged with life peerages. You must
give ivaY to the exigencies of tlie ;line. You have reformed
the Court of Ch tncelN —you have created the
.Judicial

expect t
to debat
keenness
rooming
had happ
Leonards
that to th
ea the lav
and learn
fends his
bees. (I]
the Rai(
O'Connel.
Enniskill,
common-1
tioo, and
the law lt
Suffolk w
have his
nary ton
the other

life peers with the mark of dependence and inferiority. It
will engender the constant hope in the peer for life, who
feels•himself thus degraded, to work out his independence,
and obtain from the Minister of the Crown the more ho-
nourable station of the hereditary peerage. (Hear.) It will
have also another effect. The very title of peer implies
equality. But here will be a degraded class, unequal in
their position, and looked upon by the hereditary peers As
not their equals, on the ground of their poverty as well as.
their inequality. And what have the law lords done to
deserve this indignity ? I cannot conceive any position to
be worse than one in which " favour' isto follow fawning,"
and when they will have to hang upon the skirts of the
minister- of the day t 6 obtain a more homagrable situ-ation,
and to be made equal in dignity to their companions in the
peerege. No Lord Chancellor, if this bill passes, will ever
obtain that hereditary peerage which was won by Claren-
don, by Hardwicke, and by. Camden, whose descendants
are among the moat revered members of the House of Peers.
The, only chance the Lord Chancellor will have of obtain-

iog the hereditary peer ge will be that he is rich or child..
less—not that he is Ore-eminent in his profession. Lord
Soirieri has been mentioned ; ho was a poor nso.n when he
had become a in at eminent one ; and such was his noble
spirit that he sat as Chancellor, deciding cases by his learn-
ing, influence, and virtue, while he was content not to have
a voiceabecause he had not then acquired that independ-
enOe which would entitle; him to an hereditary peerage.' ~
But he never dreamt of a peerage for life. He afterwards ,
earned that independence, and was raised to the peerage,
which his descendant still adorns. (Hear.) It is said that
this measure, though it may not be the. best that can be
formed, is yet at least efficient. But it is, said, YOn limit
the power of creating peers for Unto four:peerages. From '!
the very nature of tbe.choice, the deputy speakers must be
aged men, whoshave long occupied a prominent station. ,
Age and infirmity will rapidly come upon them • 'and. it is
possible that they may 'ceese to be' able td perform their
--judicial functions and yet remain peers for life. There
your difficulty will occur, and you must legislate again; or ,
else _what becOme's of your remedy? You cannot stop ,
here. You will ,find it necessary, if this precedent is esta-
blished, to.go on, and extend the creation-of peers for life ,
td the army and navy. '' Poverty is not confined to the
law; .on the contrary, .1 belieie the law to be a frir more
hicrative profession than, that of arms, for, aamirals or ,
generals de not make their ten thoussanal .a year. The
lenders of the bar never made larger incomes than they do
now. I need only glance round the bowie -to show that .
they never were more distinguished. Posseisiug as much „:
talent, and as large incomes as they ever did, they are not
in need of this paltry measure, limitingthe enjoyment of,,
fame to the abort' period- of a life. But if the measure is as
.
nOceisary for the law, then, a fortiori, it is necessary for 1
the army or, the navy; and you establish the precedent 7)
ypu cannot stop here. But then sou will touch the noble,ai
mainspring of, human action. All the highest aspirationem
of noble naturei—everything that really is part of genittil• ,2
—is connected with the longing for immortality, the desire'',,
, ,os
t 4 make and to perpetuate a name. ' 4
i " Ergo ipsas quamvis angusti terminus awl ' ~,.4
Excipiat (neque enim phis septims, ducitur antis)
At genus immortal.° menet, multosqUe per annos
Slat fortune domus, et avi oumarantair avornms" . -
14hat is the principle which actuates the noblest spirits In
all professions. (Hear, hear.) Then its to politicians, the
' Rouse- of Lords, though it may be regarded as a refuge
from -the storm, is a miserable arena to men who have
. occupied prominent stations in the House of Commons. ,
(Hear.) History has taught us this by examples. History
has taught it to us in that very period to which I have
been referring—the age of Walpole and Pulteney. We •
know that Pulteney had the opportunity (having over-
thrown Sir B. Walpole) of forming an administration, but
shrank from the responsibility and asked for an earldom.
The King was unwilling to grant it, and Sir R. Walpole,
whom lie had displaced, used his influence out of office to -
obtain the earldom "for him, and having succeeded, Horace ,
Walpole records that when he went home he used the ex-
. i pression " I have turned the key of the closet upon him."
(A laugh.) Lord Chesterfield, commenting updn the trans-
action, says that Pulteney " shrank into insignificance and
an earldom." And Walpole himself, having, after 20 years
of triumphal power, been raised to the peerage by the title ''
of Orford, we aro told that. Lord Orford went up to the
E irl of Bath and said, " Now, here we are, the two most
insignificant fellows in England." (Laughter.) Yet those
were hereditary peerages.. Think of the effect of this re-
treat for decrepid statesmen when it becomes a peerage for
life. How miserable, how degrading will be their posi-
tion ! I tell you that if you pass this bill many years will
not elapse before you must extend it to politicians; and
the days will come when your statesmen—peers for life—
will stand like thesialsourere in the parable, saying " No
man huh hired us." (Laughter.) Their political deges '
neration will be extreme, At present the peerage is ra-
picity-diesinis.hing; butt if you gratt_peerages for life to any -
considerable extent the independeuce of the House of Lords
will be swamped in the easiest way. Since the year 1841
29 peerages have become extinct, and only 16 have been
created, showing that the number of new peerages have
been less than those which have elpired. Thus the inde-
pendence of the body will be sustained (unless you tam- '
per with it by such amendments as this), both by the
course of nature and by the constitutional forbearance of
the*Mieisters Of the Crown to augment unduly the num- •
hers of new creations. But if you break ground in this
direction. you will, fora paltry object (so far as the object
is avowed), inflict the greatest injury, and cause the
greatest evil to the co-or mate branch of the Legislature.
(Hear.) , I UOW turn to the appellate jurisdiction of the
House of Lords. There is a fiction and a reality. The
fiction is, the appellate jurisdiction of the house. The
reality is, the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellorchosen '
amid the fluctuations . f party chiefly. for his activity as a
politician ; and he constitutes the appellate tribunal, with
three or four ex-Chancellors chosen in a similar way. The :
Attorney-General says the rest of the lords qe- "mutes and '
ciphers." The fiction is, that these mutes and ciphers exere
cise the appellate jurisdiction ; and at the present moment ;
the tribunal which has thus avowed its incompetence con-',
sists of the Lord Chancellor alone. There have been times ,
when "there were giants," and tini house might have been
the best tribunal. Bat we have passed from an age of giants i
to an age of pigmies. Now, I cannot say that one judge
sitting atone to reverse decisions of the highest tribunal in
the realm is-satisfactory. (Rear.) A great complaint of the
present system is the uncertainty. The client:neyerknows
how th I tribunal will be constituted. But what is the ree
medy ? Two deputy speakers are to be appointed ; but the ;
bill contains no ouster of the jurisdiction of the ex-Chan-
cellors, tit, ee or four of whom are always floating about the
house. (A laugh.) Then there is the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, and there was Lord Devon, who, having been clerk
of the house, was reckoned a law lord. There is no ous-
ter of the, jurisdiction of these: law lords ; and .the fiction
which confines the appellatejurisdiction to the house is so
transparent- that it escapes . through all disguise even in
this very measure, for it provides that the appellate juris-
diction sha 1 continuo during prorogation ; and it was
almost carried that it should continue after a dissolution.
(Rear.) Again, pay is said to have hecome necessary to
exercise the due discharge of the judicial functions of the '
house. While the house maintained its jurisdiction with* '
out salary, that jurisdiction might strengthen its position;
but when the law lords are to be hired like journeymen to
do their work, there is neither dignity nor honour in it,
and the strength of the position of the house will not be
the same as it was when they discharged their ancient here-
ditary duties in the ancient hereditary way, with superior
ability, and to the satisfaction of the country, without
salary. There is the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, who it is agreed by all parties, perform their
functions most satisfactorily ; and they are unpaid judges.
(Rear, hear.) Let me remark -that the second clause limits
the selection'of the life peers, so that in 18,0 it would hive
excluded Lord Camphell, Lord St'. Leonards; Lord Rather.
furd, and Dr. Lushington ; and it would now excludebir.
Pemberton Leigh, Vice-Chancellor Sir P. Wood, and one '
of the Lords Jristices. Added to which it would exclude ,
the Attorney=Genesal and Solicitor-General, as well as the '
law officers-of -Lord Derby's Government—mea equal in
learning, independence, and character to any who ever
fillidllgiiiiffiheri.7(Hear, hear.) Again, consider the num-
ber of the life peers. It is to be three ; although all the
leading witnesses—Sir F Ke'ly, Mr. Malin, the Solicitor-
General,
&o.—agreed that three was the worst possible
: number,- and that -the -number should be at least five. .
(gear.) If yita desire to Secure that the three judges shall -
be men of high standing, you must give adequate induce-
noetnht
tthoeabtetnraccht
and
dcht
hmen b
a;
r.
t isofv
ewrhyi crha,r
only to be 50001., that of a puisne judge. (Hear, hear.) I
must touch upon another topic, which may he painful to -
the legal profession, but my love of truth compels me .to
mention it. (A, laugh.) This bill will, if it passes, debauch • •
puisne judges are promoted to the chief Judgeships.- But '
now the Crown will have the power of selecting from the ,
bench two judges to be deputy epeakere and peers for life, .
with the. prospect of hereditary peerages in reversion.
(Rear, hear.) Quantdin bore se gesserint will -be well
construed at the Treasury—(a laugh)—and complaisant
.'
peers for life who always vote with Ministers will obtain'
the hereditary peerage. (Herr, hear.) 'The effect of such
patronage will be to debauch the bench, and though the -
effect upon the bar will be less direct, it will knot be the
less powerful, and the result will be unduly to trench ,
rarely
ye
tshalaatryt
the
, -
on the . honour and independence-of the bar. I *slue
pighly that honour and independence, believing the -bar '
to be the champions 'of freedom; rind I should be sorry
to hold out temptations tending to.destroy their independ-
ewe. , 'With regard, to. the appellatesbusiness of the House ;
of Lords, there are only 70 cases, on- an•average in a year,
which, cannot occupy 'more than four months of legal ;
lasaai ; and, before yeti re-ceristitute the tribUnal, you -
must coosidei whether additional bu mess should 'not he :
sent to it,,eitherfroni the Judicial Committee or the Lords
!Justices. All these are questions not to be decided, hastily -
In the middle:ofJuly, under pressure If a threat that if we ,
do not pass this particular measure the House of Lords
'Will -agree to none. If there is the least spirst in this
reuse they will reject' the measure and secure time,and
ppportnnity'tO consider the subject. (Hear, hear.) Hal;:•
the, apPellateabusinees.of, the_ liouse of- Lords been satiss.° ,
tictiP
faetorily cojiducted of late years? Webtvre-theintt .

Committee of the Privy Council—you have established the
Court of the Lords Justices ; and I think there is no ground
either for surprise or alarm in this proposition. By
adopting it yen will get eminent men, who wilt not only
increase the judicial strength of the House of Lords, but
who will suggest good laws, and more, correct those laws,
sent up to them by this house.. Considering that almost
all the amendments of the law which we have had of late
years originated in the House, of Lordeil am the more con-
firmed in my opinion that I am right in giving my support
to this measure. (Herr, hear.)

Sir J. GRAHAM--Sir; I have listened,to gentlemen of-
the long robe with great respect, but; inasmuch as you
h sve.been addressed by fear legal gentlemed iu succession;
conscious as I am of my own incompetency to deal with
questions of so much gravity and importance, I still up-
hold that the Houk) of Commons will .always allow gentle-
men not learned, in the law to give their opinion upon a
question of. great gravity, and I would add of, the , highest
constitutional importance. The hon. and learned gentle-
man who has just sat down has passed a swelling eulogium
. upon the House of Lords. - Ilinagine that that eulogium
is meant to apply to its jurisdiction as an :ultimate court
of appeal. He has referred to great names, and has car-
ried his eulogium back to the time when there were giants
in the law. I shall not differ from him with respect to
the earlier times, but I ask him if, indeed, the House of
Lords be so strong in its legal power and legal efficiency,
will he tell me whence at iseS this bill itself? Is the House
of Lords of the same opinion as the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, that its present constitution is satisfactory or such
as to inspire the public with confidence ? What said the
Attorney-General when he proposed the second reading of
the bill? He said the defects in that tribunal were glaring,
and that it was in consequence of those defects that her
Majesty's Government proposed this bill. Certainly lam
bound to add that several of the observations 'made' by
the Attorney-General filled me with amazement and fear.
He said, if I mistook not, that although these defects
were glaring, a bettor course might-have been 'possibly
pursued, and he added es a reason for passing this mea-
sure that the House of Lords would not surrender its ap-
pellet° jurisdiction. I said some of the hon. anti learned
gentleman's observations tilled me with fear and amaze-
ment. Rave we arrived at a period; when the Commons
of England, not' being satisfied with the inefficient exercise
of the judicial functions of the House of Lords, is callee ou
to apply a remedy ? Have we arrived at a period when•
the house, a co-ordinate portion .of the Legislature, is not
to exercise an independent judgment, bat is to be coerced
by the assertion of her Majesty's Attorney"-General that
because the Hons. of Lords will not surrender its appel-
latejurisdiction the representatives of the people must
consent that a new tribunal shall be erected which, it is
admitted, is not one that will fulfil all the requirements
of such a court? Have we, indeed, arrived at that period?
(Cheers.) What is the meaning of the assertion that this
is not the best measure that can be brought before us ? It
brings to my mind the observation of the late Lord Mel-
bourne, who said be could very well understand a great
change proposed, but there was one thing which Lille
him with apprehension, which was, that it was said,
"Something must be done," an indefinite change, a
change not supported by reason, but pressed as cogent
from necessity, without a distinct idea of what it
should be. Yet I have heard from the lips of the At-
torney-General this evening that the defects are glaring
—that the best remedy is not the prop ,sed remedy—that
the House of Lords will not surrender its jurisdiction—
and yet that something .must be done. The hoe. and
learned gentleman says it is our duly, if we reject this bill,
to propose a better measure. It may be possible for us to
do so ; but before we do so, as the House of Lords has in-
quired, is it too unreasonable that the House of Connhous
should ask toiuquire also? But I turn from what has been
said by hon. gentlemen ahout the me wire to the measure
itself, and will state the view I am disposed to take of this
matter. The bill presents itself to our consideration in a
double aspect. It seeks to dispose of the controversy as to
peers for life, and it seeks to uphold the fiction of thejuris.
diction of the-House of Lords. A compromise on this sub-
ject has been a matter of necessity, and her Majesty's Go-
vernment found themselves unexpectedly in a difficulty
with respect to the creation of peerages for life, which they
sought to effect, while their opponents in the House of
Lords u!so found themselves in a great difficulty, inasmuch
as having come to a vote against peerages for life, they
were involved in and embarrassed by a struggle with the
Crown on a question of prerogative. Compromise iu sucb
circumstances, between the two contending parties, was
both natural and inevitable, and the compromise which was
euterel into in this case is, as has been admitted by the noble
lord at the heat of the Government, in the nature of a com-
promise to relieve the Government of thetedifficulty in re-
spect to the creation of life peerages, and to release the Op-
position from their difficulty in relation to their struggle
with the Crown on the question of prerogative. Is there any.
thing extraordinary in this stew of :affairs? The unanimity
with which, in the House of Lords, this bill was sent doh n
to us, in my opinion ought to excite the jealousy of the
HOll3B of Cum mons. It is no common-place exp:ession that
iusidiouiallia.nees are oftentimes more dangerous than
the array of hostile parties. I think that the House of
Commons ought to view with jealousy a compromise based
upon mutual difficulties. But there is nothing new in this
matter. The hon. gentleman behind me referred to the last
ooeasion upon which the question of peerages was discussed
in this house. Then also is bill came down from the House
'of Lordsin the year 1719 to the Commons. It received u
very general support, in the house in which it was moved,
from the government and many of their opponents. It was
met by Sir R Walpole in the House of Commons with
signal success ; and not only in this house, but out of it.
Upon that occasion he published a memorable pamphlet,
which is remarkable as illustrative of the present state of
affsirs. He found himself, he says, united with the oldest
of,his opponents, and opposed t) the warmest of his par-
tisans—(laughter)-anal. he thus expresses himself ; -"I am
free to own that there is one thing in it which has deserved
commendation, for it has produced the most convenient
unanimity atnoug our great nien that r have ever known.
It has yoked the lion with the lamb." I don't know whe-
ther the learned Attorney-General and the hon. aed
learned gentleman opposite (Mr. ,Whiteside) will recognise
the parallel :---4.! It has associated men in power with these
they have turned out." The-hon.- and learned Attorney.
General will still see how the past resembles the present :
' —(renewed laughter) : " Ministers .of state are -beconee
patriots, and professed friends of, the prerogative the
strongest friends for lessening it." lam almost ashamed
toread a passage from another pamphlet,. written about.
the same tune, by Sir Richard Steele, .who also took part
in. that political struggle. He says, "It was suspected
that there was great influence afloat to carry in the Coin-
Moss a bill which had come down as a compromise. from:
the House of Lords." He describes some member under
the name 'of Eels% and he says, " He is thegreatest traitor
to civil society that ever yet appeared who will contend
for such a bill in. the House. of Commons, with the assur-
sums inhis pocket of being a peer as soon as the bill passes."
(Laughter arid cheers.) Ido not know whether that is ap-
plicable to the present state of circumstances, but it is cer-
takaly suspicious to see such unnatural unanimity. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) I only put it as an instance of there
being nothing neiv-eunder the sun. (Renewed laugh-
ter.) Every line of the bill which we are now dis-
cussing is marked by the feebleness, obscurity, and impo-
tent indecision which is inherent in middle measures.
The principle upom which the bill is framed is clear. Lord
Derby 0ve.114 the clue to it when he,said, "Can we frame
h bill in such a manner as not to call upon the Government
to pronounce a condemnation of the. policy they have up-
held, and.,on the other hand not tocommit the booty of the
peers to any proceeding inconsistent with the stand made
by them in defence of the hereditary ch erecter of the peer-
age ?" . (Rear, hear.) Now, that is a frauk .avowal of the
principle on which the bill is framed, and leaves no doubt
hf, the .compromise it effects. The prerogative of the
Crown is either limited' by it, or, if there be no such limi-
tation, the precedent of a peerage not of inheritance is us.
tablished by it. (Hear, hear.) And what is most remaik-
able is, that such
,teke Ambiguity and obscurity that on
Its third reading it-was received in opposite senses by two
classes of its supPerters. The Lord 'Chancellor declared
, iwith the Lord President that he never would have given
his consent to it if it limited the prerogative, and the Lord
hief Justice and Lord St. Leonards avowed that they
agar would have consented to it if it recognised the pie-
ogativesto create peers, for life. (Hear, hear.) Either the
ajority of the lords were deceived with respect, to the
measure, or her Majesty's Ministers havelootrayed the pre-
togative7 (Hear, hear.) It is adilemma from which there -
sno ese ,pe—(bear, hear) •except thii—to reject the bill—
hear, hear)—and thus to give time for the framing of a
measure, not doubtful and ambiguous, but clear, 'patent,
Sind- intelligible. (dear) Tne bill is studiously obscure.:
&et the house leek ier ientsincetat-the, Oh olauseiwhiehJ,

opinion o
the ileum

cllctiOnsl
tilde thei
tanjority (
the case

ever

num-
11l the
icitor--
)esible

five.
6 Shall
tduce-

ary is
ir.)
ful to
LOU to
Bauch
it the
But
n the
T life,

Hal
eatie•
tb47li!