combined States with which Foreign the usual annual return of the state of busiPowers could deal; some of the provinces ness before the Judicial Committee of the had revolted, and war was now waging Privy Council, took occasion to state that between them. That their Lordships only one single case remained to be dismight judge of the manner in which the posed of before that Court. It was the petitioners had put forward their claims only tribunal in this country which stood in under the Treaty, he would compare their a similar position; nay, he believed there statement with the Treaty itself. The was not a second example of an equal petitioners alleged that by this Treaty absence of arrears in the history of the there should be reciprocal freedom of judicial establishments of the civilized commerce between Great Britain and the world. Yet it was the only body of Judges, United Provinces, and perfect freedom and though having under its jurisdiction, not security for British subjects there. Now only the British Islands, but India, and the Article of the Treaty referred to was to the whole of our Colonial Empire, for this effect-that there should be between which this great and opulent country reall the territories of His Britannic Majesty fused to make a pecuniary provision; and in Europe and the territories of the United for his part he felt almost ashamed of Provinces in the Rio de la Plata reciprocal being obliged to have recourse to mendifreedom of commerce; that the British cancy in order to procure the judicial should have liberty to come with their services of his noble and learned Friends. ships into all the ports of the territories He regretted that the Bill introduced last aforesaid "into which other foreigners year for the remedy of this evil should are or may be permitted to come." There have been rejected by the other House, fore it appeared by the Article of the under the supposition that the new judicial Treaty, that this country had only a right office to be created was intended for himto claim that which was granted to other self, which was totally unfounded and foreigners. The Article went on to say, untrue, as everybody who knew anything that the inhabitants of the two countries about the matter was aware that it was should enjoy perfect security for their intended for somebody else. commerce," subject to the laws and sta- Return ordered. tutes of the two countries respectively." So that this country was at the mercy of a sovereign State, choosing to make laws restrictive of free commerce, provided they gave us all that was enjoyed by the most favoured nation. This country was now engaged in the endeavour to restore peace in Rio de la Plata ; and he hoped that the result would be an improvement in the present state of things, and a great extension of our commerce in those regions. But we should lose more than we could possibly gain, if, in dealing with these States, we lost sight of the principles of justice. They might be unwise in their commercial policy, and they might be following out a system which we might think imprudent and injurious as regarded their own interests as well as ours; but we were bound to respect the rights of inde-lic house. pendent nations, be they weak or be they strong.

Lord Brougham agreed that the petitioners might have overstated their claims. Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.] Lord Brougham, in moving for

TURNPIKE ROADS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] The Duke of Richmond moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved after the third reading of this Bill.

The Earl of Rosebery suggested that the operation of the measure might be postponed for two years, which would save the interests of those who had advanced money on the toll houses under the present system.

Lord Campbell opposed the postpone. ment, the evils resulting from the present condition of the toll houses being so great as to require an immediate remedy. There was not a single toll house in the south of Scotland that was not employed as a pub

The Duke of Richmond said, so long as the practice continued, it was evident the toll keepers would care much more about the quantity of whiskey drank, than the amount of toll collected. In some places where the license had been withdrawn, it was found that the amount of toll had not decreased.

Amendment, by leave of the House,

withdrawn. A further Amendment moved | officer, the principle suggested by the and negatived. Bill passed.

right rev. Prelate had never been strictly acted upon. Many lay peculiars had this

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONSOLIDA-jurisdiction, who derived their power from

TION BILL.] On the Report being brought up with Amendments,

The Bishop of London, as one of the five bishops on the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred by their Lordships, said, that they had done all in their power to improve the Bill, but he hoped it would not be considered that they were pledged either to the principle or the details of the Bill, which would deprive the bishops of the assistance of important officers, because it would deprive them of the means of remunerating them. He did not see how it would be possible to have efficient registrars or active apparitors, without whose assistance the process of the Courts could not be carried on. The scope of the measure would be to weaken considerably the efficiency of that jurisdiction still left to the bishops. The Bill, moreover, provided no compensation for the displaced officers, against the injustice of which he felt himself bound to protest.

Lord Cottenham: If the interests of the public were promoted by the consolidation proposed by this Bill, such an object ought not to be set aside because of the inconvenience which might be suffered by certain officers. This was not the House in which compensation could be awarded. With regard to the object of the Bill, it was neither more nor less than that approved of by both Houses of Parliament, by Select Committees of both Houses, and by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and by two Law Commissions. The result had been an uniformity of opinion rarely found on a subject of such importance. All had concurred, without any difference of opinion, in approving the scheme now proposed to be carried into effect. As to the question of matrimonial jurisdiction, it had not been transferred without having been much considered and discussed in Committee. He understood the right rev. Prelate's objection to be urged against the transfer to a purely lay tribunal of the power of declaring a divorce in certain cases, that marriage being of a spiritual nature, it ought to be dissolved only by a spiritual court. Without adverting to the alteration of the law which made a marriage good though celebrated by a purely lay

no spiritual authority whatever. But what put the question beyond all doubt was, that there was at all times an ultimate appeal in matrimonial causes to the Sovereign, who, previous to a late alteration, delegated the inquiry to the High Court of Delegates, consisting of Common Law Judges and Advocates of the Civil Law, who were not spiritual persons. The duty was now delegated to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, with the holder of the Great Seal at its head-a perfectly lay tribunal. That tribunal had no power of its own, and reported to the Crown what ought to be done, though the act of pronouncing divorce was that of the Queen in Council. At present, if the ecclesiastical courts refuse a divorce, and on an appeal to the Judicial Committee the Privy Council report that the spiritual court was wrong, and ought to have granted it, the result would be that the divorce would be granted by the Queen in Council. Where, then, in such a case was the spiritual jurisdiction? But it might be sad that both the spiritual and temporal authority was vested in the Sovereign as head of the Church, and that the Crown communicated to the tribunal she appointed the ecclesiastical character which belonged to it. The result would be the same under this Bill. The power of directing divorce rested always ultimately with the Crown, and this Bill no more in this respect trenched upon spiritual jurisdiction than. the existing law. He ventured to say that no Bill passed this Session would communicate greater benefits to the public than the present.

The Bishop of Salisbury admitted there were evils in the present system which it was desirable to remove. He could not object to the transfer of the testamentary jurisdiction for instance; but what he did complain of was, that this Bill destroyed the means by which ecclesiastical jurisdiction could be enforced. Now, that jurisdiction formed part of the institutions of the country, and ought not to be touched except on adequate grounds. The question of compensation which had been raised, at once showed that a measure of this nature ought not to be introduced except on the responsibility of the advisers

of the Crown, particularly as it affected | sequence of what had fallen from the the efficiency of the Church, one of those right rev. Prelate, he begged to state the institutions which they were sworn to position in which he stood as to this Bill. maintain, and which they were bound not During the last Session he had brought to touch, except after communication with forward a measure of a much more modified those who were considered competent to character; but he had stated as a reason give advice and information on the sub- why it was so restricted that he despaired ject. The Bishops had every reason to be- of carrying a more extensive measure lieve that no measure would have been through the other House. He had said passed this year on the question. As a this Session it was not his intention to Bill of this description materially affected bring in a Bill on the subject; and this his jurisdiction, he had waited on the right resolution had been come to after consulhon. Gentleman the Secretary for the tation with his colleagues. But when Home Department, at an early period of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend the Session, to inquire whether it was (Lord Cottenham) was brought in, be, probable such a measure would be sub-without any communication with his mitted to Parliament, and he received an assurance there was no chance of it. It was only on his return from London from his visitation, that he saw in the papers an account of the discussion on this Bill, in which the Ministers expressed their cordial concurrence in the object of the measure, and they had since pressed it on with a degree of zeal fully equal to that of its proposers. It surprised him that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham) should have quoted the Peculiars as an instance of a lay tribunal. They were certainly now in no sense of an ecclesiastical character, and they formed one of those abuses which it was desirable to remove; but they were unquestionably of ecclesiastical origin, and derived their power from the Papacy.

Lord Brougham; The right rev. Prelate seemed to think this Bill was the effect of a collusion between its authors and the Government. Now, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had introduced it in a speech of a somewhat hostile character to the Government; and when it was submitted there was not the least conception of the course which the Government would take.

noble and learned Friend, rose in his place, and said that as it corresponded in all its main features with a Bill submitted by one of his Colleagues in 1842, he could not do otherwise than support it. How could he act otherwise as to any Bill moved by one of their Lordships, which had been previously brought in by Government, but unsuccessfully prosecuted by them?

The Bishop of Salisbury said, the Lord Chancellor had referred to the Bills of 1842 and 1843. It was not convenient to speak of that Bill now without having it to refer to; but, if he did not mistake, there was an important distinction between that Bill and this, inasmuch as the former contained the clause respecting spiritual discipline, which was struck out by the Select Committee. He remembered distinctly that it was in 1842 he first had any intimation that the present Government meant to introduce a Bill on this subject. On Ash Wednesday in that year he attended a meeting at Lambeth Palace, specially summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to confer respecting a Bill on this subject which the Got vernment had laid before the Bench for The Bishop of London fully concurred their consideration; and it was the una with the observations of the right rev.nimous opinion of the Bench on that ocPrelate, that a measure of such great im-casion that the clause relating to spiritual portance to the Established Church, which discipline ought not to be included. Soon was an essential part of the institutions of the country, ought not to have been introduced, except on the responsibility of Government. Such a step had never been taken for upwards of 200 years. It was certainly an understanding with the late Government, that no Bill affecting the Church should be introduced without consultation with the Bishops.

The Lord Chancellor said, that in con

afterwards he met the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and in the course of conversation that right hon. Gentleman said to him, "I have been endeavouring to meet the wishes of the Bishops on that subject," and a few days afterwards an amended Bill was sent to all the bishops for their approval. That Bill, however, did not propose to abolish altogether spiritual discipline, but it pro.

posed a clause to carry it into effect which | Bill, and we will consider the course to be he thought was inadequate, and accord- adopted." ingly he wrote a letter to the Primate on the subject, with a request that he would lay it before the Government. That Bill was not brought in in 1842; but the Bill his noble and learned Friend alluded to was brought in in 1843, and he believed it did not contain the clause relative to spiritual discipline which was contained in the Bill when the noble and learned Lord expressed his approval of it. Being accused of inconsistency, he thought it his duty to point out that in this respect the Bills were materially different.

Lord Brougham said, that the difference was that this clause was contained in the Bill, but was now struck out to please the right rev. Prelates. The right rev. Prelate was complaining that he had had his own way in the Select Committee. His noble and learned Friend had only said that he would give his general support to the Bill, without pledging himself to every clause. The right rev. Prelate complained that a great surprise had been practised upon him; but, because the Government had no intention of bringing in the Bill themselves, were they necessarily to oppose it because it was brought in by his noble and learned Friend? Less ground for surprise he never heard. It amounted to this-that the right rev. Prelate thought, when a Peer would not bring in a Bill himself, he did not mean to allow another Peer to do so.

The Bishop of London said, his complaint was not that the Government did not bring in this Bill, but that they did not make up their minds whether such a Bill should be brought in or not; and if they determined that it should, that they did not bring it in themselves. He maintained that a Bill of so much importance to the Church ought not to have been brought in except by the Government, and not by them until after due consultation.

Lord Campbell begged to remind the right rev. Prelates who had spoken, that the Bill originated with the Commission of which they and four or five other Prelates were members, and that they were unanimous in recommending it in all its main features. It was he who asked his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether he meant to bring in the Bill, and his noble and learned Friend's reply was, "You bring in the VOL. LXXXI. S Third

The Bishop of London said, it was quite true he was one of the Commissioners in 1832, and signed the Report, the recommendations of which tallied to a great extent with the provisions of the present Bill. He had, however, yet to learn that, in the course of thirteen years, additional experience might not properly tend to modify his opinions on a measure like the present. In fact his opinions respecting it were modified to a certain extent, though he did not now object to the whole Bill, but only to some of its provisions. As to his signature being attached to the Commission, if it were worth while he could tell a story on that subject which would effectually refute the charge of inconsistency.

The Lord Chancellor said, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had a little mis-stated what he said, in reply to his question. His words were, "I have no intention to bring in a Bill, but if you bring one in, I will tell you what we will do with it."

Report agreed to.
ments made.
House adjourned.

Further Amend

way).

Reported.-Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Gal 3o and passed :-Belfast Improvement; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway; Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Gloucester Extensions, Stoke Branch, and Midland Railways Junction); Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool Junction) Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Colquhoun, from Brechin, against Universities (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. Butler, Mr. Dawnay, and Viscount Ebrington, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.-By Viscount Ebrington, from Members of Chamber of Commerce, Plymouth, against Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill. -By Mr. Dawnay, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.-By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill.- By Mr. Blackburn, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.

2 U

levels and sections made in consequence of the refusal of the Admiralty to allow the erection of a bridge over the Severn, had brought the question within the cognizance of the Committee on Standing Orders, and it was they who retarded the Bill, and not the Admiralty.

Mr. H. F. Berkeley said, the case was one of great hardship on the parties, and he hoped that some means would be taken to remove the evil.

Mr. Warburton said, that in proportion as the power of the Admiralty was great in stopping great undertakings, so ought to be its prudence and caution in the use of it. Due notice should be given of every objection made by it.

RAILWAYS THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.] Captain Berkeley, pursuant to the Notice he had given, begged to call the attention of the House to the great hardship and injustice to which parties opposing railways which were to cross or interfere with any tidal rivers, arms of the sea, or creeks, over which the Board of Admiralty had control, were exposed in appearing before Committees of the House on Private Bills, without the Bills having first obtained the sanction of that Board, according to the provisions of the Act 8th of Victoria, cap. 20. An instance of this kind occurred in the case of the South Wales Railway, the opponents of which had been put to great expense by not knowing in the early stage of the Bill, that the Admiralty had refused its assent to carrying a line of railway across a bridge to be built over the Severn. Had the parties been informed of this intention of the Admiralty at an earlier stage, it would, he repeated, have put a stop to much needless expenditure. He hoped that the House would take some steps to remedy the evil; and with that view he would now move that the question be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.

Sir G. Clerk said, that no doubt the Admiralty possessed the power of pulling down any erections made without their permission; but the parties connected with any railway or other undertaking should apply to the Admiralty in the first instance, and then they would be made acquainted with the alterations to be proposed, and would thus be saved much time and expense. But the Standing Orders' Committee had nothing to do with the case, if the parties neglected what was an obvious duty.

Captain Berkeley said, that he would withdraw his Motion, and give notice of another Motion on the subject on Monday next.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. Hume, in seconding the Motion, said, that the question was one of great importance to all who had embarked capital in railways. In the case to which his hon. Friend had called the attention of the House, certain parties had not come up to STATISTICS OF IRELAND.] Mr. J. O'Con defend their interests, for they had no idea nell put the following question to the that a refusal would be given by the Ad-right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of miralty to erect a bridge over the Severn. the Exchequer :-Whether the GovernNow, as no bridge could be erected ment will take into consideration the after this refusal, the only way of carrying propriety of adding to the statement of the line across, would be by a tunnel under the Expenditure of the United Kingdom, the river; but here a new difficulty pre- given in the Finance Acccounts of each year, sented itself, for it was well known that a special statement of the local expendi. the navigation of the Severn could be much ture of Ireland; that is, of all disburseimproved by cutting the bed of the river ments out of the revenue of Ireland, of twenty feet below low watermark; but if whatever nature they may be, and a statethis were done, it would require to go to a ment of the balance remitted to England? depth of fifty feet to make a tunnel; and Also, whether the Government will take this would cause a total change in the into consideration the propriety of estabplans, sections, and levels. lishing some means of registry, for statistical purposes, of the nature, quantity, official and real values of all articles of traffic passing between Great Britain and Ireland; and thus supply a deficiency much complained of by the Irish Railway Commissioners of 1838; by Mr. Porter, in his Progress of the Nation; and by others employed officially, or otherwise, in inquiries

Sir G. Grey concurred in thinking that it would be very desirable that as early a notice as possible should be given by the Admiralty Board of any objections which it had to make to lines crossing rivers or arms of the sea over which they had control.

Mr. Fitzroy said, that the changes of