The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

IMr. Bidder, who had been appointed at the request of
Mr. Lewis, and whose duty was to decide the exact
limits of the claim of the crown. Thee xi -teu co of the
railway did not alter the rights of the Crown, which re-
mained the same, subject to the deci-iou of the arbitra-
tor. So far as Nr. Lewis was concerned he thought he
bad estal lished that there had been no hardship on him,
rind no unnecessary delay. He now came to the case of
the Lianelly Docks, and the noble sari said it was a
great hardship on them after 30, years possession to have
the claim made rgainst them. But surely it was the
duty of the dock company to take care that the land on
which they built was conveyed to Clem by a proper
title Row would the noble earl like to have the rights
which he had to the shore of the port of Liverpool, and
which were not his but those of the Crown—the lands
being granted to his family by th' Crown—encroached
upon ? How child the noble earl, if the Crown had no
right to the foreshore, estat•lish his right to a property
which brought him in 90,000/.1 He hoped that with
his view of the case the noble earl would be prepared to
abandon his rights to the foreshore in question. (A.
laugh.) With regal(' to the law of the case, he should
leave that to be defended by the noble and learned lords
who were concerned in considering and giving judgment
on the case, but he trusted that he had shown that, so
far as the Crown was concerned, no new rights had been
claimed, and the Government would have neglected its
duty if it had not preserved the rights to which the
Crown was entitled.

HOUSE. OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.)
CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA.

The Eirl of CARDIGAN, having referred to the seri-
ous disturbances that had taken place in India, and to the
circumstance of a large number of troops being about to
be sent there from this country, wished to know whether
the reports he had heard were true, that it was intended
to send out the troops in sailing vessels in preference
to screw steamers. _ _ _

Lord PANNIURE said the Government had given
great consideration to the best means of conveying
troops to India, and as much difficulty existed in ob-
taining steam vessels of sufficient size at the present
moment to accommodate the Expedition, it bad been de-
cided to employ first-rate sailing vessels for that purpose.
As the time occupied by steamen in coaling would be
saved, it was expected with favourable winds that those
sailing vessels would make a quicker passage than screw
steamers.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said his experience
was in accordance with the determination of the Govern-
ment in respect to the greaterspeed ofsailing vessels than
steamers t 3 India. The present period was most fa-
vourable for sailing vessels.
IMPORTATION OF FREE NEGROES.
Lord BROUGHAM again called the attention of
their lordships to the expedition fitting out at Marseilles
by the French Government for the importation of Free
Negroes into their colonies. He regretted that a sovereign
whose antecedents were so opposed to everything cal-
culated to give the slightest encouragement to the
slave trade should countenance an act which was so cal-
culated to lead to a revival of that horrid traffic.

Lord WYNFORD said that it might be recollected
that last session he warned certain Scotch proprietors not
to attempt to improve the docks and ports of Scotland
before they had satisfied themselves that no demand of
this kind could be made on them by the Crown. He
had then in his eye not only the subject-matter of these
petitions but a number of other cases in which the de-
partment of Woods and Forests had cruelly pressed on
proprietors, and there were numbers of instances in
which the proprietors of land on the sea shore and on
the banks of navigable rivers were not able tl deal with
their property in consequence of the course taken by the
Woods and Forests. He would not go further into the
matter, but would merely say that he was surprised to
hear the noble lord say that a verdict had been given for
the Crown in one case, when in point of fact the case
-was settled by a compromise. He was also surprised
to hear that Mr. Lewis had submitted his claim to arbi-
tration since Mc. Rendell's death ; for it was stated in
the petition presented that day that no other arbitrator
had been appointed. The property in question, to his
knowledge, lay far above high-water mark.

The Earl of SHAFrESBURY ex2lained the objects
of the deputation that a few days ago waited on Lord
Palmerston with reference to the subject.
The Earl of MALMESBURY did not believe that
the Emperor of the French would do anything that was
calculated to revive the slave trade. _

The Earl of CLARENDON said he was of opinion
that such an attempt could not be made without having
that effect.

SOUND DUES BILL.

This bill passed through committee.

SITE OF Wo'RKHOUSES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
THE LAND BETWEEN HIGH-WATER AND
LOW-WATER MARS.

The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions com-
plaining of the rights of the crown between high-water
and low-water mark. He slid he was afraid he should
but imperfectly do justice to the merits of the petitions,
seeing that they involved many serious and complicated
questions. At the same time he hoped he should be able
to show that the matter of the petitions was deserving
the attention of the house. The subject-matter was a
claim on the part of the crown to the land between high
and low water mark round the whole of the United
Kingdom, and not only the claim, but the manner of
enforcing it. The two petitions were from different
parties, and some of the alegations were different,
but as the subject matter was the same, and the
principal details were common to both, and related
to the same locality, he woad state the substance of
both at the same time. The first petition was from a gen-
tleman of property named Lewis, residing upon the coast
of Carmarthenshire, which county he at one time repre-
sented in Parliament. The other was from the Llanelly
Railway and D..ck Company, which waa e-tahlished in
the year 1828. The river in que:tion was of considerable
as WO, and at low water showed a large expanse of sand.
The banks outside the sand consisted of mud and land
occasionally flooded at high spring tides, but generally
partaking of the character of salt marshes. About two.
thirds tee way up the river was the property now in dis-
pute. Up to the year 1845 Mr. Lewis and his predeces-
sors had been in undisputed p ,ssessien of the property,
and had exercised over it all the rights of ownership,
and had leased a portion of it to a company, who had
sunk a shaft for the purpose Of procuring coal. So long
ago as 1807 and 1812 two acts were passed from which
these marshes were excluded as being the private proper y
of Mr. Lewis. In the year 1845 an information was field
by the Attorney-Gen2ral, which recited that all the sod,
so far as the tide flowed, belonged to her Maje•ty, and
claimed for the Crown up to the highest point reached by
spring tides, including that portion of the land where
the shaft had been sunk for coal. Mr. Lewis lost no time
in filing an answer to the information, and availed him-
self of the assistance of Mr. Bethel), and in 1851 the
Master of the Rolls decreed that the Crown should in
one case proceed to trial at law. Tile Rol of Ca aelcr,
it appeared, had auerted his right as lord of ;be manor,
but the matter was compromised between the Ci-onn and
the Earl of Cawdor, and the Crown then turned again,t
the owners of the adjoieing soil. In the case of the Earl
of Cawdor he believed some money was paid on account
of the compromise.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the doctrine
laid down that evening was rather startling, for the
noble earl set out on the assumption that the crown had
the right to the disputed shore, but that the question
was whether it had been properly asserted ; and he gave
as one reason why the right should not be asserted, Gat
the crown had the shore, not for its own benefit, but

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY remarked that be
had never heard of any money being paid.
The Earl of DERBY resumed—The Crown renewed
its proceeding against Mr. Lewie, and two other creuin-
stances occurred which made the matter of still greater
importance. One of them was that Mr. Bethel]. became
Solicitor-General, and teen Sir R. Betbell's services were
claimed on behalf of the Crown, he havirg previowdy be-
come acquainted with all the fact.; oa the ether side. In
1847 an act was obtained by which the South Wales
Railway was authorised to be made, and its construc-
tion', as it ran along the shore, materially improved the
condition of the salt marshes, and these were the lands
which the Crown now claimed as being between high
and low water mark. In 1854 the Lord Chanced
made a decree that the landward boundary was the
medium line of high water of all tides occurring in the
ordinary course of nature. The question had ben
raised whether the right, did not extend to the wry
highest point reached by the highest tides. Mr. Recde:l
was entrusted with the task of laying down a line to de-
flee the right, but he bad sines died, and the matter
was still pending, and the petitioner seas debarred for
an indefinite period from the management of what he ,
considered his property. Another question arose of
very serious moment—was it in the power of the Crown
to lay down certain marks which should form a line
between the rights of the Crown and the rights of other
parties ? Because if the Crown had the right claimed, it
might interpose another proprietor between the posses-
sor of properly and the sea. The petitioner complained
that while the proceedings had been going on, a tenant
of his had been served with a notice horn tee Woods and
Forests, requiring him to take a lease from the Crown.
He &so complained of the delay which had taken place,
and that, whilet he had prescription in his favour, he was
eompeled to light on the part of the public the question
of tile extent of the Crown rights. The case of the Rail-
way and Dock Company was still stronger ti an that of
Mr. Lewis. That company having obtained an act in
1328, formed a railway and dock, and, having been in
texistence for nearly 30 years, they had been served with
a notice stating that a portion of the land taken by them
was the property of the Crown, and that they must come
to an agreement with the Crown and take a is..se from
the Crown. Now, if a period of 60 years was required
as security to the Crewn, then there was no harbour ( r
dock which Lad been wale at private expense within the
last 60 years under the sanction of an act of P.wiiarnent
which was not liable to be proceeded against by ti:e
Crown. This was a questi we therefore, whice affected the
whole country. Ile believed the claim to be one un-
known to the law of England No person would dispute
that within certain limits the crown had ci,ouinion over
the soil between low and high water. But it was mater
for grave consideration whether the cr ,ven had tee right
to %ell or make a profitable transaction by way of com-
promise or lase, or whether the_property was vested in
the crown for the pubde interest, for the protection of
the public, for the prevention id encroachment on the
sea coast by individual proprietors so a-; to cut off the
pain from its uwe It was laid down by some of the rid
authorities that the right of the crown in these re-poets
"is net for the crown itself, but for eecurMg to the public
certain privileges between high and low water mark;" and
"if the King were to make the seashore a source of 'pri-
vate ssle and profit, he would be acting contrary to the
trusts vested in the crown by the cowmen law." Now
what was the crown doing in this case ? It was in-
terfering to compel persons, under the risk of legal
proceedings, to come t 4 a compromise, or to accept
a lease under the crown, and making a profit of the
pioperty of the crown, contrary, to the common law
of England. (dear.) There were two cases illus-
trating the restriction imposed on the exercise of this
power by the Crown. In the Gosport case it was declared
that the land between low and high water mark might
be granted to the corporation, subject to the public
right of passage ; and at Portsmouth, when certain
public buildings badibeen erected by the corporation,
between high and low water mark, under a grant from
the Crown, they were abated by a decree, inasmuch as
they interfered with the flex and reflux of the tide into
the harbour, Now, according to the common law,
although the Crown had a dominion over those portions-
of the soil, it was for the benefit of the public, and the
Crown bad no right to lease it to any private individual
whatever without the authority of Parliament. There
were two important questions involved in the matter
Bow before their lordships : first, the nature and ex-
tent of the rights of the Crown ; whether the Crown
was an absolute possessor or exercised a trust for the
protection of the public ; and, secondly, the manner
in which the claims of the Crown were now enforced,
setting aside every title short of 60 years, awee,o,
founded on express conditions and powers laid down
by act of Parliament assented to by the Crown itself. If
such a principle as that were to be admitted no dock or
harbour company would be safe within a period of 60
years, even under the security of an act of Parliament.
The petitioners prayed for the appointment of a select
committee, but he would not press that point on their
lordships at present. Ile trusted, however, that the
Government would take steps to quiet the apprehensions
which prevailed throughout the country, and would set
matters at rest,
by passing a declaratory law, stating
what are the rights of the Crown between high and low
water mark. (Hear.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the attention
of the Crown was celled to many encroachments on the
coast of Carmarthenshire several years ago, and that,
'iter the subject had been under discussion for a con-
siderable time, Sir William Folett, the Attorney-Ge-
neral of the Government of which the noble earl was
a diAinguiallecl member, filed an information against
these parties in the year 1845. In the case tf the
Earl of Cawdor a verdict was found for the Crown,
and no pecuniary payment was made with regard to
the case of Mr. Lewis. It was in 1855 referred to the
arbitration of Mr. Pendell, who was directed to define the
nicaning of high and low water mark, according to the
terms of the decision of the Lord Chancelio_r,
as
Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice MaelewVhseteadrbbiY-
tration proceeded until Mr. Rendell's deatb, and he held
in his hand a communication which showed that he had
been succeeded by Mr. Bidder.

for the use of the public. It seemed strange to say that
the crown, which held the land for the use of the public,
should not assert its right, for the more strenuously it
asserted it the more it would seek to preserve the land
for the use of the public. If the crown allowed pro-
perty of this kind to be encroached on year after year,
and did not claim it for the use of the public, the crown
deserted its duty, and, in fact, gave up what belonged
to the public to the neighbouring proprietors. The noble
earl said that the assertion of those rights was in-
consistent with the making of docks, and of those in
this case especially ; but if the dock company had a
title which was good against the crown, why was
it not set up in answer to the information ! When
he (the Lord Chancellor) was one of the law
officers of the crown, he, in conjunction with his noble
friend the Lord Chief Justice, was consulted with regard
to the rights of the crown with respect to this question, '
and they gave an opinion, which, however, was not acted
on until the government of Sir R. Peel, when Sir Wm.
Follett gave direc ions to have iniormatiene filed. What
the cause of the delay was he did not know, but the trial
did not coma on for several yeere afterwards ; but at
length it was decided that the crown was only asserting
its light to the " littus marl." The matter came before
him (the Lord Chancellor) by way of appeal, to de-
cide what the " littus marl" was. The civil law car-
ried the doctrine very much farther than was ever re-
cognised by the law of England; and the matter be-
ieg one involving a question of common law, he ob-
tained the assistance of Mr. Justice Mauls and Mr.
Baron Alderson, who heard the case with him. It was
most elaborately argued, and they came to the cenclu-
sion that the rights of the crown were bounded by the
middle line between the highest and lo ;vest point to
which the spring tides reached. Then came the
point, ho ,v wag that line to be drawn ? That matter
came before hint by petition, and it was arranged, with
the consent of both parties, that an engineer should be
named, who, with the decision of the court in his hand,
should draw the rtquired line; and Mr. hooded was
selected. If Mr. Bendel( had been guilty of any delay,
it was Mr. Lev.is'e fault for not forcing him on ; but no
complaint was made of his proceedings, When Mr.
Infidel died it was necessary to appoint another arbitra-
tor, and Mr. Bidder wag appointed. With regard to Mr.
Bidder's basing been appointed with Mr. Lewis's appro-
bation, he had in his hand a letter from Mr. Lowis's
solicitor, in which he stated that he was wiling to ac-
cept Dr. Bidt'er's arbitration. What had been the
cause of the delay he (the Lord Chancellor) did not
know ; but the matter stood thus—that the crown on
its own part, or rather on the part of the public, bad as-
serted certain rights, in which it had been successful.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCII said that as regarded
the proceedings of the Woods and Fire-ts, there were
many complaints of the vexatious manner in which this

pan of the busines of the department was conducted.
He knew of a case in which a disputed right of this kind
had been suspended over a proprietor and his father for
years and years, and no decisi n had been come to. It
would be a desirable thing for the public if the Woods
and F,;rests were compelled to bring these matters to a
speedy trial.
Lord CA.MPBELL was tin lerstood to protest against
the drctrine which had been laid down, and which was
calcu!ated to produce uncertainty where none existed
with regard to the rights of the Crhwn, which was un-
questionably entitled to the soil of the sea shore between
high and low water mark.

Lord BROUGHAM thought there ought to be a me-
dium bet een the rigorous and the capricious exercise of
these rights of the Crown. Tins was not, however, a
subject for leeilation, as the rights of the Grow❑ were
undeniable ; but the Crow❑ could only deal with them
so as to betofit the public. At. the t-ame time there ap-
peared to have been unusual delay in these proceedings.
Lord WENSLEYDALE agreed with his noble friend
on the woolsack, and his noble and Learned frieLd, that
it would be entir.-ly useless to legislate on this subject,
as the law I% a 3 perfectly clear. The seashore beleted
to the Crown for the benefit of the public; but there
was a dlfficulty in interpreting what was the foreshore,
and the question came before the Lord Chan-
cellor, who, with the aesietance of two of the com-
mon law judges, had laid down the proper line. Tiers
could be no doubt that the seashore was hel I by the
crown for the benefit of its miljects, and the crown had
a right to gr,rit the Lind t, any one it plasce.l, pro-
vi ed that the grant was not inconWtent with he rights.
The saject then dropped.

The Dulwich College Bill, the 11iiiiLia (Treland) Act
Amendment Bill, and the Oxford Tjaivenity Bill were
severally read a third time and passel.
The house adi.mrned at 5 minutes past 7 o'cloc's.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTnRDAy.)

STATUE OF RICHARD CCOUR DE LION.

Mr. HANKE a:Ilk-2d whether any decision bad yet
been made tB to the spot where the statue of Richard
Cccur de Lion, by Baron Marochetti, purchmod by sub•
ecrii:tioo,-a,cl presented to the nation in 185 G, was to
be erected ?

Sir B, HALL said the site hal not yet been decided
on. It was under the consideration of the proper de-
partment.

REFORMATORY SC [TOOLS BILL.
On the inotton of Sir G. GREY, the order of the day
for the home going into committee on the Reformatory
Schools 1311 was fixel for Titu..sday, at 12 o'clock.

The Fail of DERBY inquired the date.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—May, 1857. The
arbitration was now proceeding under the auspieui •f

IHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 7_ 1857

and that he woull not be able to try any contideralda
number of issues. Still, whenever it cauld be conve•
niently done, it would be open for him to take cases in•
stead of sending them before the ordinary common law
tribunal 4. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER, after the statement of the hon. and
learned gentleman, and especially after the communica-
tion from the Lord Chief Justice to which be had refer-
red, would not preys his amendments; but as it was now
determined that there must be a Court of Probate, hp
would devote bis attention to making that court as per-
fect as possible. (Hear.)
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
was agreed to.
On clause 5,
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL proposed to strike out
the proviso contained in the last three lines, because that
would seem to make it imperative on the distinguished
and eminent judge of the Prerogative Court to be the
first judge of the Court of Probate.
Sir F. KELLY concurred in this amendment.

ingly in the arrangements for securing to the surrogates
their full amount of remunerative employment ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not undertake
to say that the orders that would be framed would give
to the surrogates, who were an exception to the general
rule, duties quite as cxteesive or as remunerative as those
they now enjoyed. The proctors of both provinces
would be placed on the same footing ; but with regard
to the surrogates of York, probably a special clause had
better be drawn up to meet their case. The object of
the hon. member (Mr. Steel) was, he thought, suffici-
ently provided for by the bill as it stood.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 25 was also agreed to. •
In clause 26,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL introduced several
verbal amendments, for the pnrpose of enacting that if
any case should arise not provided for by the new rule
established under the bill, the mode of procedure should
be in accordance with the present practice. As altered
the clause would read, " The practice of the Court of
Probates shall, except where otherwise provided by this
act, or by the rules and orders made under it, be, so far
as the circumstances will admit, according to the present
practice in the Prerogative Court."
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY, expressing an
opinion that the practice under the bill would, as the
Attorney-General anticipated, be precise and simple, as
well as expeditious,
Mr. BOWYER proposed an amendment, to leave out
the words, " as far as the circumstances cf the case will
admit," on the ground that they would give to the judge
an undue power to alter the practice of the court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that some
such power as he proposed was necessary, especially as
the bill would bring into the court many cases of a cha-
racter different from those which came before the Pre-
rogative Court.
Mr. BOWYER thought the words would apply to all
matters to be brought before the court. It would be
easy to introduce words restricting the dispensing power
to the new cases. He begged leave to withdraw his
amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 27 was withdrawn, the A TTORNEY-GENERAL
stating that he proposed to substitute a new clause in
lieu of clause 27.
Clauses 28 to 31 were agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 were postponed.
On clause 34,
Mr. MALINS objected to the transferring of the ap-
peal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
to the House of Lords, which was a most dilatory
and expensive tribunal. He therefore proposed to sub-
stitute the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for
the House of Lords.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he adinitted
the great value of the Judicial Committee ; but, if the
amendment of his hon. and learned friend were carried,
there would, be two co-ordinate courts of appeal, which
would be a great inconvenience. With regard to the
House of Lords, he hoped that before long there would
be an improved and general court of appeal for the
whole kingdom. (Hear.) He was afraid, too, that
if the amendment were carried, it would bring the house
into collision with the House of Lords, and might
therefore endanger the succes , of the bill.
Mr. CAIRNS said it was very much to be regretted
that there were two courts of appeal, but why should
they, when they had a choice, take the worst of the two
tribunals as the court ofappeal ? If the House of Lords
was improved as a court of appeal, the appeal in these
cases might be transferred to it.
The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL said that as the bill
was framed, the proper court of appeal was the House of
Lords. The bill proposed to affect real estate, and
issues as to the title were about to be tried before the
common law courts. In this respect the House of
Lords had an advantage over the Judicial Committee as
a court of appeal, because the House of Lords Lad the
power of summoning the judges, which the Judicial
Committee had not. The procedure of the new court
was assimilated to the common law procedure, and
therefore the appeal should be to the House of Lords,
who could summon to their aid the 15 judges.
Mr. COLLIER said that the bill, in fact, appointed a
16th common law judge, and theref ,re the appeal
ought to be to a court of which the 15 common law
judges might torn a part.
Mr. BOWYER, said it seemed to be forgotten that all
the chief judges of the c mmon law courts, and some of
tee other judges, were not only assistants but actually
judges of the Judicial Committee. In that court there
were always judges sitting who were versed in ecclesias-
tical law, but there were none in the House of Lords.
In appeals from the ecclesiastical courts, the Judicial
Committee had always given the greatest satisfaction.
A report of the House of Lords themselves had ad-
mitted that the appellate jurisdiction of that house was
in an unsatisfactory state, and nothing had since been
dune to improve it. Yet it was now proposed to send a
new class of appeals to that tribunal. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council to which appeals now
went from the testamentary courts, sat at all times of
the year ; and some of the most important cases came
on in November and December. If the House of Lords
were made the court of appeal, it would be shut up for
six months, and there would thus be a denial of justice
for half the year. They could not reckon on the atten-
-1
sf
dWa
poseenr anc sse; eoy
butf dT many
a dcl wasar, rwuel cdleonnt lords
et; r beenoeLenk roadup createdpoenaChancellor,sth tepo e
regular
erhgeual forl lan
rtdoh uae t pet Lodeunor'
dance of Lord St. Leonards and Lord Lyndhurst. In
the Judicial Committee there were five judges regularly
attending. besides Sir John Dodson.
Mr. ROLT considered the House of Lords as able and
exotPent a tribunal for the final hearing of causes as
ever sat in any country. The most eminent men in the
country sat there to decide causes, and nothing had oc-
curred to cast discredit on it except some cases which had
been tortured into an accusation against it. The Privy
Council was not without its difficulties as to the time and
mode of hearing cases. There might be four members
present one day, and four others the next. Hence cases
were sometimes adjourned for weeks or months to secure
the attendance of the same judges. They must either
have such a tribune!, or such an one as the House of
Lords, which only sat during half the year. As to ex-
pense, he did not thick there was any difference between
the two tribunals ; the papers were printed in both. The
Court of Probate being now constituted a court of re-
cord, the appeal was properly to the House of Lords ;
the cases taken before the Judicial Committee included
those arising in the colonies and in courts which were not
courts of records. The matter had been fully considered
by the commission, and he hoped the house would ad-
here to the bill as it stood. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said that as landed property was now
' subjected to the probate duty, it was most proper that
questions involving that property should go, as they had
been accustomed to do, to that tribunal which had al
ways dealt with them. The opinion of the commission
on this point was unanimous ; he should therefore sup-
port the bid as it stood.
Mr. MALINS did not think there was any great force
in the argument about reel property, as the only ques-
tion which the Court of Probate had to decide was whe-
ther there was a will or no will ; and the forms to be
complied wi,ll were the same whether real or personal
' property was concerned. He denied that the House of
Lords was a satisfactory court of appeal ; this great court
of ultimate appeal was attended by two learned lords
' only—the Lord Chanced a. and Lord Wensleydale.
Such a court never could be satisfactory. If it was to
be maintained, why had not the Government taken
steps to put it on a more efficient footing ? They could
not mistake the opinion of that house last year. Even
appeals from th% decision of the Lord Chancellor were
heard by himself, and one other, or at the most two
other judges. (Hear, hear ) Nothing of the kind could
happen in the Judicial Committee, where there were
always five judges in attendance. He denied that the
judge of the now Court of Probate was a common law
Judge ; therefore that argument entirely fell to the
ground.
The ATTORNEY-GENERA L thought n .thing could
be more unconstitutional or more opposed to existing
rules than to confer this jurisdiction on the Judicial
Committee ; nor could anything be more impossible in
practice. The Judicial Committee was only created at
the expense of the ordinary tribunals of the country,
some of which had to be shut up while it was exercising
its funcions as a court of appesl. The Court of Chan-
cery, for example, had then to be closed, and they were
also obliged to draw away one or two common law
judges from their other duties. The Judicial Committee
as at present constituted was inadequate to the discharge
of more than it now accomplished. It had not the power
of entertaining a single appeal from any common law or
equity court in Westminster-hall ; and therefore when
they were about to create a court with a jurisdiction
partaking both of common law and equity it would be
an anomalous proceeding to send its ju,igmenti to an
appellate tribunal different from that to which the other
courts were subject. They should adhere, then, to the
existing rule, and not establish one that would lead to
conflicting decisions. If the appellate jurisdiction
of the House of Lords required amendment let them
amend it whea they saw the prespect of their coming to
anything like a unanimous conclusion on the subjec .
But, at all events, the committee ought not to counte-
nance the present proposal, which would utterly destroy
this bill, and would impose on the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council a jurisdiction over a large cf cases
which it could not possibly discharge.
Mr. NAPIER said that only last week the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord
St. Leonard's, assisted by the common law judges, eat
to hear appeals in the House of Lords, than which no
more efficient or dignified tribunal cowl I be found in any
country in the world. It was said that the house last
session almost unanimously Condemned the appellate
jurisdiction of the Upper Chamber. That was entirely
contrary to his own impression of the feeling evinced by
the house. Uniformity of decision on questions affect-
ing the property of the country was indispensable, and
to secure that object the House of Lords should be their
tribunal of last resort.
Mr. MALINS begged leave to withdraw his amend-
ment.

Mr. MA LINS thought that instead of omitting the
proviso it would be better to insert the words, "if ho
shall be willing to accept such office."
Mr. AYRTON regarded the two offices as virtually
the same, and thought they ought to make the accept.
ance of the new judgeship imperative on Sir J. Dodson.
The proviso was, however, struck out without any
further observation.
Oa clause 6, _ _

Mr. HODGSON asked the Attorney-General to fur-
nish the house, on some future occasion, with an esti-
mate of the probable yearly expense of the new court.
Mr. ADAMS repeated his suggestion that the Admi-
ralty Court should not be united with the Court of Pro-
bate. He thought it would be far better to send Admi-
ralty eases before the common law courts, with juries of
nautical men, than that the judge of the Probate Court
should not have time to try the issues that might arise.
He objected to the limitation of the provincial probates
to cases where the property did not exceed 1,500/ There
were cases in which a man's debts might swallow up the
greater part of his estate, and there was no reason why
the unnecessary additional expense of bringing the matter
up to London should be imposed upon the executors.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that no alarm need be ap-
prehended with regard to the amount of work that
would be thrown upon the judges by having to transact
the business of the Admiralty Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL bad satisfied himself
that there were reasons why it would be better that
Admiralty cases should be confined to a single judge.
The chose before the committee simply provided for a
future eontingeney, upon which a bill would have, at
some future period, to be brought in ; in the meanwhile
that contingency ought to be provided for, and he trusted
that the c )mmittee would accept the clause.
Mr. ATHERTON thought that the common law
courts were already sufficiently burdened, and that to
add any more business would be to place the hat straw
on the camel's back.

Sir F. KELLY approved of the cause. No doubt
many questions came before the common law courts
which came before the Court of Admiralty also ; but the
latter court had a jurisdiction in rem which the former
did not possess. This jurisdiction was of the utmost uti-
lity where one of the parties, as frequently happened in
collision cases, was a foreigner, residing out of the juris-
diction of the ordinary courts. Ile trusted, therefore,
that this jurisdiction in Admiralty cases would be care-
fully preserved.
The clause was then agreed to.
Upon chose 10,

Sir E. PERRY moved to leave out after " esta-
blished," and insert " District courts to be presided over
by the county court judge in all county court districts
except those of the metropolis (Nos. 40, 44, 42, 43, 44,
45, 47, and 48), and a public registry shall be attached
to each court, the registrar whereof shall, be under the
control of the Court of Probate." His object was to as-
sociate the reg;strar with the judge of the county court.
Taking .Devonsaire, the county with wuich he was con-
nected, as an instance how the matter would be affected
if the bill passed as it stood, he might mention to the
committee that whereas at the present time probate
could be obtained at the different places in that county,
under the bill there would he but two such places where
that facility would be afforded. Now the effect of his
amendment would be to attach an ecclesiastical registrar
to each county court. This proposal would lead to
the appointment of 51 registrars instead of 41. There
would accrue from such a proposition a benefit to the
public, inasmuch as at a future time the registrarships
could be held by the county court registrar:.
Mr. ATIIERTON opported ti. amendment, consi-
dering it to be most desirable that in small properties the
greatest possible facilities should be placed in the way of
those having to administer the estates of deceased par-
ties.

Mr. COLLTEFt thought it was contrary to principle
that the contentious jurisdiction should be marAalled
according to the county court districts, while, the non-
contenti ,us jurisdiction was settled by the diocesan dis-
tricts. One system ought to be adopted, and that system
was the county cool', diktricts. The diocesan divisions
were antiquated and inconvenient, while those' of the
county courts had recently been settled by a commission
which had carefully inquired into the whole matter, and
were therefore roost likely to meet the requirements and
the state of population at the presenr day.
Mr. B. DENISON supp:nted the clause as it stood.
He could sately say that those parties who lived in the
Yorkshire districts were extremely anxious that the ex-
isting divisions should be preserved, and that York
should continue to be the c:ntre of them.

talked
t the
chcouldder
member
utn
cb foree
r;
faocrno iDno
vmeeveroi ni
net
np
eoer listent. Tthoe
at hG en amendment. member
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was sorry that he
, when the committee was
dealing with rural districts, consisted in preserving, as
far as possible, the existing habits of the people. They
would find it most to their convenience to go to those
places to which they bad been in the habit of geinc, in
order to prove wills. The hon. member proposed to undo
all existing arrangements, and then to impose upon peo-
ple the necessity of travelling about after the county
court judge—for that functionary visited different towns
is succession—in order to transact the common form
business of proving a will. And the person to transact
that common-form business was to be a registrar of that
county court. But he reminded the committee that these
registrars had important duties to perform, and it was
highly expedient that their offices should be held by men
who were possessed of ainpleexperience. The:bill proposed
to place experienced gentlemen in the position of regis-
trars, and to give them the means of communication with
the judge of the Court of Probate in London. Thus it
was hoped that due security was made for the proper
fulfilment of the important duties entrusted to them.
The county court judge would be competent to decide
matters of fact, but it would be quite at variance with
their intention to mix them up with more important
questions.
Mr. COLLIER, said that all he contended for was that
the registrar should be attached to the county court.
Nothing that bad fallen from the Attorney-General had
altered his opinion.
Sir E. PERRY said that the Attorney-Genera) had
misunderstood him. His only object was that ti e reg,s-
trar shoul f be attached to the county court, instead of
the diocesan court. Hh hon. and learned friers 1 proposed
41 registrars ; he suggesteddistrict.
52, to be located in some
central spot in each
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause then
agreed to.
Clause 11 was then agreed to, without discussion.
Clause 12, with some verbal amendments proposed by
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was also agreed to.
Clause 13,
Mr. DIVE TT moved to insert, in line 2, after the
word "court," the words "and all managing clerks who
have been continuously emjloyed in any diocesan court
for 15 years and up wards immediately before the passing
of this act,"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to inserting
any words having reference to the managing chrks in
that clause. Their case might be considered lower down
in the
After a short conversation the amendment was nega-
tived without a division, and the clause agreed to.

Clause 14,
An amendment, proposed by Mr. SALISBURY, was
assented to by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and the clause
agreed to.
Clause 15, fees of diocesan and district officers.
paidimpossible
at
irl
Mr. MALINS proposed that these officers should be
Mr. ROEBUCK support the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected. It would be
properly to apportion the sal trios.
Tne amount varied much in different districts, and if
the officers were paid by salaries some would !Ave too
much and Come too little.
After an observation fro-n Sir E. PERRY, . . .

-
Mr. HENLEY thought that Government had taken
the wisest course in adhering to the fees. When this
act bad worked for a few years they might be able to
fix on a proper scale of salaries.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the work might be as bard in
a small district as in a large one, while the fees wool I be
very different.
fees were to be regulated.
He wished to know ou what scale the

- --gt atad.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the mode of
regulating the fees would be two-fold. In the first place
they would be regulated by the amount of the stamp,
which was sometimes so smad as sevenpence, and not
acc3rding to the length of the document. In some
wises the probate
might contain only a few words, and
in others it might extend to several sheets. The fee
would be in proportion.
Mr. BRISCOE opposed the amendment, which was
put and negatived, and the clause was agreed to.
ncl
Clauses up to 23 i • ordered to stand part
u.tive were
of the bill.

Mr. WESTITEA.D inquired whether the clerical sur-
rogates would under the bill coutinue to perform the
duties which now devolved upon them of swearing- affi-
davits, &c.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not say that it
might nat be necessary, in framing the rules and orders,
to alter in some way the duties which were now per-
formed by the surrogates. But this he said, viz., th-t
with regard to the surrogates, and the clerical surrogates
more especially, it was intended to secure them the full
measure of remunerative employment they now enjoyed.
Mr. STEEL moved to insert in hue 31, after " pro-
bate," the cords "Provided that in every city, borough,
and town throuAeut Knoand containing not lems than
judge 5,000 inhabitants, the shall appoint the registrar
of the county court of the district in which such city,
borough, or town is situate cr some other fit and proper
person within such city, borough, or town, to be such
commissioner or commissioners.'
Lord HOTEIA.II believed there was considerable diffe-
rence in the duties performed by the surrogates in York
and Canterbury, the duties of the surrogates of York
being nearly cited to those of the proctors in the pro-
vines of Canterbury, consequently their emoluments
were greater. Waa L intended to male provision accord,

The committee, however, would not allow it to be
withdrawn, and a division took place. The numberg
were—

For the amendment
For the clause . 271
Majority --294
On the question that the clause be agreed to,
Mr. MA LINS said he wished the committee distinctly
to understand that he greatly regretted they had had the
trouble of dividing. He had been desirous of withdraw
ing his amendment, and he thought it was not fair that
the division should have been forced upon him under the
circumstances.' (Laughter.)
The clause was then agreed to, as were the following
clauses to 39 inclusive.
On clause 40, which provides that probates and affmi-
niltration way be granted in *common form by Ow dietrio

registrars when the personal estate of the deceased is
under the value of 1,5001.,

- - -
efficient, and brought home to every man's door, and he
mould therefore support the amendment.
- Air. ROLT eaitl, there was no doubt the small trades-
mar: or farmer vaiurd his property as much as a man
possessed of a far higher amp tnt of wealth ; but the rea-
son for the limitation proposed by the clause under con-
sideration tar as that a mistake in the granting of pro Late
for farming stock was not irretrievable, and might be set
right before any mischief was done ; but if they wera
dealing with money in the funds to the amount of thou-
sands of pounds, and any mistake were committed even
for an hour or a day in the granting of probate, that
mistake would be irretrievable. It was that considera-
tion which led the commission to the conclusion that
it was right to limit the amount of the property on
which property could be granted by the diocesan courts.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the bon and learned gentleman
who last addressed the committee fancied that all pro-
perty under the value of 1,5001. must necessarkly be
farming stock, and that all above that sum was money
in the funds. (A laugh.) He would ask the hon. and
learned gentleman whether a mistake committed in the
granting of probate would not be quite as fatal where
the money in the funds, which was the subject.of it, well
below 1,5001., as it would be where the sum was 15,0001.?
If they wanted integrity in the administration of an
estate above the value of 1,5001., he (Mr. Roebuck) cm-
tended they wanted it equally with respect to property
below that amount.

Mr. WESTHEAD moved the omiasion of the-words
after the word " affidavit" in Hoe 30, and the insertion
of the following words ; —"and that such probate or let-
ters of administration shall cover all personality, wher-
ever situate." The object of his amendment was to en-
able ex -cuters, or persons taking out letters of
administration, to do so to any amount of personalty. It
was stated that four-fifths of the wil's proved in England
related to amounts below 1,500/., and he could not con•
ceive what good reason there could be for debarring tes-
tators from obtaining probate of wills to any amount of
personalty in the district courts. (Flean)

Mr. CAYLEY supported the amendment, and ap-
pealed to the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (\lr.
Henley), who was a member of the commission, to
explain upon what ground the limit of 1,5001. was
adopted. In many instances the machinery io one ma-
nufactory might be worth 1,5001., and in another worth
2,0001., and why shoul•1 the-executor of a man whose ma-
chic ery was worth the former sum be enabled to take
out letters of administration in York, while the executor
of a person who possessed machinery worth 2,0001. s•as
obliged to come to London. The same observation
would apply to household furniture, which•in many cases
was worth 2,0001., 3,000/ , or 4,0001., and in such
in-
stances probate could not be obtained in the district
court, but the wills must be proved in London.

Mr. HENLEY regretted that he could not give a
satisfactory answer to his hon. friend's question, far he
must honestly say be was unable to assign any reason
for the adoption of the limit of 1,5001. (" Hear," and
a laugh.) He (Mr. Henley) divided in the commission
against the limit of 1,5001., and he was in a minority of
one. (A. laugh.) He must say, however, that persons
whose opinions were entitled to much greater weight
than his (Mr. Henley's) were strongly in favour of
adopting a lower limit than 1,5001., and in several of the
billy which had been introduced or shadowed out of late
years it was proposed that t'se powers of proving in
country districts should be limited to a much lower sum
than 1,5001. For his own part, he would have been glad
to see the limit extended to 2,0001., or even higher ; but
as some concession must be made when differences of
opinion Existed, he would rather have this measure with
the limitation to 1,5001., than run any risk of its defeat.
If, however, those who had charge of the bill would ex-
tend the limit, he believed it would be a boon to the
country, for 1,5001. would not cover the value of stock
upon a great proportion of farms. (Hear, hear )
Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Attorney-General would
accede to the suggestion of the right lion. gentleman, for
the. only obj ct of the clause seemed to be to take busi-
ness out of the hands of the proctors in the country, and
transfer it to Doctors'-commons.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he should wish to ascertain from
his bon. and learned friend the Attorney-General what
reason existed for fixing a limit at all. (Hear.) There
was just as much necessity for the employment of officers
possessing integrity and intelligence in the granting pro-
bates of wills in cases in which the sum involved did not
exceed 1001. as in those in which it reached 10,0001. If,
then, the same' qualifications were required in the former
as in the latter cae.e4, why fix a limit ? He saw no good
reason ,why it should be done, while there were many
strong arguments against the adoption of such a course.
The tendency of the present day was to bring the law
home to every man's door, and he should like to know
why that which was a sound policy had been departed
from in the present instance.

The ATrORNEY-GENERAL said that the point
to which his hon.:-.'and learned friend who had just
sat down, as well as the hon. member who had im-
Enediattly prepeded him, referred, was one which had
been the subject of frequent deliberations upon the
part of tne commission. That deliberation, be might
aid, had depended not so much upon the pre con-
ceived notices of the members of the commission, as
upon the evidence of the very experienced solicit ,re and
other practitioners who had been exiinined before them,
and all of whom bad concurred in representing thegreat
dangers which must attend the unlimited extension of
the stun with respect to which probate should be granted
in the country districts; He bad not been aware that
the point would have been pressed so much upon their
attention that evening, but since the discuss►on with re-
ference to it bad arisen ho had looked over some passa-
ges of the report of-the commissioners, as well as of t'le
evi lence which they had taken, and he found in the re-
port the following distinct expression of opinion upon
the part of the commissioners :

" We think it evident that protection would be best af-
forded the public by the establishment of a central court
in London. The skill and vigilance which are required to
guard against fraud and mistakes will be, we think, most
certainly possessed by officers in London, under the imme-
diate control of a judge, to whom they will have an oppor-
tunity of applying in any emergency that may arise, and to
whom they will be immediately responsible."

Such was the opinion of the commissioners, and he might
remind the committee that the practical working of the
law as it stood, owing to the doctrine of bona notabilia,
was to bring every cause in which the sum involved ex-
ceeded 5001. or 6001. within the jurisdiction of the Pre-
rogative Court. Now, if probate were granted upon an
imperfect will, or to the wrong parties, and an executor
or administrator were appointed to take possession im-
mediately of the estate of the testator, and it should be
afterwards found that probate had been improperly
granted, those persons who might have paid money
money under its operation would have to pay it over
again. The question therefore was one in which bankers
and public companies, as well as the community at large
were deeply concerned, and the comm;s,ioners taking
these matters into consideration, had concurred in the
expediency! of a thorNgh and frequent examination
of the documents produced being entered into before
probate could with any degree of security be granted.
One of the witnesses who had been examined
before the commission—he meant Mr. Trevor
of the Legacy Duty-office, a gentleman of great
experience and intelligence—stated, in reply to a ques-
tion which had been put to him, that, in his opinion, one
tribunal for proof of wills would be found more efficient
than a great number, in consequence of the uniformity,
in dealing with those instruments which it would be cal-
culated to produce. He had gone on to say that since
. the passing of Lord Campbell's Willa Act he had known
probates of wills to be granted in the diocesan county
in cases in which the document had been obliterated,
and in which no inquiry had taken place as to whether
the obliteration had occurred before or after the comple-
tion of the-will. Such was the nature of the proceedings
which were sometimes observable in the diocesan courts
as they stood, and be did not therefore think that the
committee would be warranted in assuming that each
individual registrar would be competent to exercise over
wills that same careful superintendence that would be
exercised by the officers successively through whose
hands they must pass in the Court of Probate in Lon-
don. He might also refee to the.evidence of Mr. Shep-
herd, who bad been examined before the commission,
and which went to establish the justice of 'the view
which he had urged upon the committee. The testimony
of men of experience in such matters having then been
opposed to the continuance of the power of granting
probate to an unlimited extent in the case of the dioce-
san courts, the conimis,ioners had come to the conclu-
sion that for the benefit of the country districts liberty
should be given the registrars of those courts to grant
probates to some fixed amount, but that that liberty
ought to be corifin,d within very narrow limits. His
right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire was quite
right in stating that several members of the commission
had been desirious to fix that limit at even a lower
auto than. 1,5001., but it had not been d, eined expedi-
ent to take that course ; while he was of opinion that,
as great critical nicety, great care, and a knowledge
of law were required in dewing with wills, it was
desirable that' the district registrars should not
be intrusted with granting of probates in cases in
which a larger amount was involved. Some limit
must be taken, and, it he was not mistaken, the present
limit had been fixed by his right hon. friend the member
fOr OxfordEhireo, who had stated that, in his opinion, the
farmers, whose interests would be affected, would rarely
be found to possess bona notabilia exceeding the sum of
1,500/. (Mr. Henley was understood to express his dis-
sent from this statement.) He had understood the right
hon. gentleman to have said so, but, be that as it might,
he felt perfectly confident that any gentleman who
looked carefully into the evidence which had been taken
before the commissioners, and at their report, would feel
that they had acted wisely in adopting the course which
they bad pursued. He hoped, therefore, that the com-
mittee would not consent to a proposition the effect of
which would be to subject wills involving large amounts
of property to a comparatively insufficient examination.
Sir J. TROL LOPE said 'the argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman sought to establish the expediency of
a strict-reliance being placid upon the evidence of the
solicitors and other practitioners who had been examined
before the commission. Now, so far as he (Sir J. Trol-
13pe) recollected the evidence which had been adduced
before that commission, it had emanated from persons
who were connected with the courts in London—(hear)
—and the whole tendency of whose testimony had been
in favour of the system of centralisation. His own ex-
perience went to prove that the business which had been
brought under the consideration of the district courts
had been most satisfactorily discharged, and he should
wish to know from the hon. and learned gentleman
whether property whicti did not exceed a sum of 1,5001.
was not of as much value to the person who possessed it
a 3 a larger sum would be to the person whom the hon.
and learned gentleman seemed to take it fur granted
would, if he were empowered to do so, seek for pro-
bate in the district court% Now, everybody must be
well aware that those who ha-I a large amount of
property at stake brought their business up to London.
He should like, however, to know why the shopkeeper
upon one side of the street, who had property in-
volved only to the amount of 1,0001., should be enabled
to transact business at a comparatively tr,fling expense
in the district courts, while a farmer upon the other
side, because he happened to possess Rome hundreds
more, should be compelled to resort to the central court
of London. He thought the reasoning of the hon. and
learned gentleman in support of this view upon the
matter was of a character the most unsound. He ob-
jected to any limitation at all, and should, therefore,
vote in favour of the amendment.
_ _

Mr. ROEBUCK said, the Attorney-General seemed
to fancy that there must be some essential difference
between the will of a rich man and that of a poor man,
and that he was now making an experiment in corpore
viii. (A. laugh.) The hon. and learned gentleman ap-
peared to think that a testator dying and I,,aving pro-
praperty worth only 1,5001. was a person so poor and
unworthy that any inefficient officer might administer
his estate, but that a man dying worth a greater amount
of property required the exercise of a far higher amount
of intelligence in the distribution of his effects. (blear.)
He (Mr. Roebuck) would ask the committee to look
bow these matters were managed in America. There
they had local courts of probate which were vgarded as
great safeguards of the constitution, and appreciated by
the whole poi ulatiou, Se wished to gee law cheap,

The committee then divided upon the question that
the wards proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,
the effect cf the amendment being to,strike out the pro-
vision of the bill by which the jurisdiztion of district re-
gistrars was confined to estate under the va'ue of 1,5001.
The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes ... 162
Majority ---31
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers.

The question was then put, that in lieu of the words
struck out the words " and that such• probate or letters
of administration shall cover alt personalty wherever
situate" be inserted in the clause.

Mr. AYRTON suggested that, considering the late.
ne-s of the hour, the further consideration of the clause
of the bill might be postponed.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said that the practical
effect of the vote at which the committee had untortu-
rately arrived—(a laugb)—hon. gentlemen might laugh,
and no doubt those who were opposed to the principle of
the bill had cause to do so, but that vote would, if car-
ritd into (flee', render the whole bill useless. So fully did
be feel the fatal results to the measure if the amendment
of the hon. gentleman were carried, that he should feel
it to be bis duty to take the sense of the committee upon
the question of the insertion of the words proposed to be
introduced by the hon. gentleman.

_
The committee then divided :
For the motion l4l
Against it 139

Majority 2
The announcement of the numbers was received with
great cheering.
On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again.

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUSTICES
OF THE PEACE BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1, Justices to have power to state a case for
the opinion of the superior courts,
Mr. HENLEY thought this would throw a great in-
crease of business on the superior courts, and be often
used for the purpose of delay.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL believed the effect of
the bid would be to bring up only difficult questions of
law, which the magistrates were as anxious as the parties
themselves to have the opinion of the court on, and no
case could be stated except on the application of the
parties, and with the consent of the justice.
Mr. G. HARDY considered no case bad been made
out to show the necessity of this bill.
Mr. NAPIER supported the bill. It was a simplifi-
cation of procedure, and afforded a substitute for the
circuitous process of the certiorari. .

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD considered the provisions
of the till so valuable that at his suggestion it was pro-
posed to extend its operation to Ireland.
Mr. MASSEY said that at present there was no means
of reviewing the decision of a magistrate at petty sessions
if erroneous in point of law. The object of the bill was
to remedy this defect.

Mr. HENLEY must protest against the magistracy
being put to any expense. Ile should suggest that the
cases go through the Home office.
Mr. NAPIER thought that his right hon. friend was
under a misapprehension with regard to the bill. In most
cases before magistrates there w ere two parties to the
question, and these two parties would alone be necessary
to be represented before the superior courts. The ma•
gistrate would be put to no expense.
Mr. LIILDYARD considered it had not been shown
that this act would not throw great expenses upon the
agis t racy.

The SOLICITOR-GENERA.L explained that under
the bill all that was necessary was for the magistrate to
write down upon a piece of paper the point of law upon
which he hai based his conviction. Beyond this he had
nothing to do, and would be put to no expense.
Mr. MILES moved that the chairman report progress.
The' bit would require great consideration before it
could be assented to.'

The motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.
SUPPLY.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up
and agreed to.

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (COLONIAL

COURTS) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and patted.
SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ABATEMENT

BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE MILITIA.
Sir J. RAMSDEN brought in a bill to suspend the
making of lists for the militia •

LIFE INSURANCES.
Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to re•
gulate life insurance offices.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of
and the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

COAL hiARICET.—JIILY 6.
Prices of Coals per ton at the close of the market.
Wallsend, Ms. WaHamad, Ike.
s. d. s (L
Stewart's l7 Braddyll l5 9,,
Cassop 16 3 t;
South Hetton 17
Caradoe .
Lambton 16 6 4eaham l5 9
Tees l7 0 Trimdon l6 0
Ships at market, 38 ; sold, 29.

lADVERTIIRMANT.I SPONTShiNN AND GENTLEMEN of
ARMY AND NAVY. S. and 11. Solomon, opticians, 39, AAA'
marie-street, Piccadilly, West. Ohsneye—opposite the York
Hotel.—Portability, combined wiih great power in Field,
Racecourse. Opera, and general out-door day and night
powerful waistcoat pocket Perspective Glasses, weighing
only four ounces, each containing 12 and 18 lenses, coir
structed of German glass, will show distinctly a persono
countenance two and a half and three miles. They serve
every purpose on the race-course, and at the opera houses,
country scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 8 to 10 miles.
They are also invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, and
yachting. Single ones, the size of a walnut, possessing the
same great power. Her Majesty's Coast-Guards are making
use of them as day and night glasses, in genera use by OP
tlemen, of the Army and Navy, and by sportsmen, gentlemen,
gamekeepers, and tourists. The most powerful and brilliant
telescopes, possessing such extraordinary power that some,
three and a-half inches, with an extra astronomical eye-pieee
will show distinctly Jupiter's moon's, Saturn's ring, and the
double stars ; with the same telescope can be seen a persodo
countenance three-and-a-half miles distant and an object,
from 14 to 16 miles. All the above can be had of larger and
all sizos, with increasing powers, and are secured by
Her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. Newly-invented Spec'
tacle Lenses of the grey est transparent power. The valu-
able advantage derived from this invention is, that vision
becomes preserved and strengthened; very aged persons are
enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupatiou---
can see with these lenses of a much less magnifying power
--and they do not require the frequent changes to the
dangerous effects of -farther powerful assistance. Persona
can be suited at the Mo ,remote part of the world by send:
in/ one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and
stating the dist+nce from the eye they can read small print
with ir, and those who have not made use of spectacles bf
sta iug their age. Deafness.—A newly-inventihd instrument
for extreme cases of thafness, called the Sound Magnifier,
Organic Vibrator„ and invisible Voice Conductor. It fits so
into the ear as not to be in the least perceptible ; the unplea•
sant sensation of singing noises iu the head is entirely se-
mond It affords instant relief to the deafest persons, and
enables them to hear distinctly at church and at public assail'
bleu. 34, Alliemarle-street, Piccadilly.—Opposite the. Yori
Hotel, W.

BIRTIIS.

OF ♦ SON.

On the sth inst., at 14, Ashloy-place, Westminster, the
wife of Archibald Smith, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, barrister'
at-law.
On the 4th inst., at Ashdale, Pembrokeshire, the wife Of
Henry B. Saville, Esq.