he had never heard an attack which seemed it should not be taken till after that hour to him to be in worse taste than that made it would be proceeded with. No discourby the right hon. Gentleman. tesy had therefore been shown to the right hon. Gentleman or his Friends. MR. LIDDELL protested against the remark that the whole body of freemen were corrupt. No doubt many of this class of voters had been corrupted, because they were poor; but the blame was upon those who corrupted them. The freemen who were not corrupt, or who were not likely to be corrupt, were the very men to whom this Bill would apply; and he asked the House of Commons to deal with the anomaly which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. SIR MINTO FARQUHAR said, he was astonished at the arguments used by hon. Members who professed to be anxious to extend the franchise. If a £6 franchise were created, a large proportion of these freemen would become voters, and then he trusted that the language of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be forgotten. MR. BONHAM-CARTER said, that as one of those who had been in the House from an early hour expecting that the Bill would come on, he must say he thought there had been an absence of the usual courtesy on the part of the hon. Member who had charge of the measure. When a Member was in charge of a Bill, the House might reasonably expect that he should be in his place when it came on, at whatever time that might be. MAJOR HAMILTON said, that on this question an appeal had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Collins) to Scotch Members possessing a knowlege of Scotch law, He was a Scotch Member, but knew nothing whatever of Scotch law, the study of his life having been to keep out of all law, and especially of Scotch law. He knew the feelings of the Scotch people, however, and had no hesitation in saying that they wished that the number of Scotch voters should be increased. He regretted that the great Liberal party which sat opposite should have endeavoured to put down the hon. Member for Knaresborough when making a Liberal speech. His idea of Liberalism was that every person who was entitled to vote under the Reform Act should be permitted to exercise the franchise. As the Bill was intended to effect that object, he should give it his cordial support. MR. VANCE said, he had informed the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, that if the Bill should be called on before ten o'clock, it would be postponed; but that if JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRE Bill considered in Committee. Clause 3 (Repeal of certain Acts). MR. BUTT said, that this Bill proposed to make the law of Ireland similar to the law of England with regard to the law of judgments. But the law in England was based on the writ of elegit, whereas this measure did not propose to restore that in Ireland. The result of the measure, if passed, would be to force the estates of the landed proprietors in Ireland into the Incumbered Estates Court. 4 1 MR. WHITESIDE said, that the Bill proposed to make the law in Ireland really what the law of England was under Lord St. Leonards' Act. The writ of elegit had only been issued once in Ireland during the last two years. The measure he proposed would do away with the system of receivers; it gave a facile and inexpensive mode of proceeding. MR. BUTT said, that it would be impolitic to abolish all remedies for debt against lands in Ireland except that of a sale. He did not object to the law of elegit as it at present existed. MR. WHITESIDE said, that the existing law of what were called judgment mortgages was the worst contrivance that the wit of man ever conceived. They were neither mortgages or judgments properly so called, but a hovering lien which no lawyer could understand. After some further conversation Sir ROBERT PEEL proposed that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed. House resumed. ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL. On Motion of Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bill to to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON and regulate the Compensation for Accidents, ordered Mr. THOMPSON. Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 103.] WATCHMEN IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. BAGWELL, Bill to make more effectual provision for the appointment of Watchmen in Towns in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAGWELL and Mr. WALDRON. Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 102.] House adjourned at half after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, May 1, 1863. MINUTES.]-Sat First in Parliament-The Lord Sherborne, after the death of his Father. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Telegraphs (No. 86); Cayman Islands [H.L.] (No. 88). Committee report Progress; to sit again Second Reading-Vice Admiralty Courts [H.L.] on Wednesday 13th May. Question, "That the word sixteen stand part of the Question,"-put, and negatived. Word "seventeen "inserted. Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR, Mr. LOWE, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL Bou VERIE, Lord ROBERT CECIL, Mr. Alderman COPELAND, Mr. FENWICK, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, Lord FERMOY, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. TITE, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. SELWYN, Mr. HUNT, and Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE:-Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum. (No. 79). Report-Inclosure (No. 59). VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS BILL. (No. 79.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in mov ing the second reading of the Bill, said, its object was to facilitate the appointment of Vice Admirals and officers of the Vice Admiralty Courts in Her Majesty's possessions abroad, and to extend the jurisdiction and amend the practice of those Courts. The Vice Admiralty Courts in the British Colonies were under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England, and the appointments to the judgeships of these Courts rested with the Admiralty at home. The inconvenience which this Bill sought to remedy arose from the small amount of business in these Courts, which rendered it necessary that the Judges in them should discharge other functions. Whenever a judgeship in a Vice Admiralty Court became vacant, notice had to be sent home, and months often intervened before a new appointment was made, during which time a cessation of the Judge's functions took place. provisions of this Bill were, that the Governor of any colony in which the office of Vice Admiral shall become vacant shall The ALBERT BRIDGE BILL [H.L.] MOTION OF RE-COMMITMENT. be ex officio Vice Admiral until a formal appointment shall be made by the Admiralty. On the office of Judge of a Vice Admiralty Court becoming vacant, the Chief Justice or other principal Judge of tions from Inhabitants of Chelsea and LORD CHELMSFORD presented Petithe Colony was to he ex-officio Judge of that Battersea in favour of this Bill, and moved Court until a new Judge had been formally that the Bill be recommitted to the same appointed. As to the Registrars and Mar- Committee which had previously considershals, on any vacancy occurring, the Judge ed it. In taking that course he begged to of the Court, with the approval of the say, that he did not do so out of any disGovernor, may appoint a person to act respect to the Select Committee; but beuntil some person shall have been appointed cause he thought there had been some by the Admiralty. There were some other misconception in the matter. The object minor alterations, but the above were the of the Bill was the construction of a bridge, principal features of the measure. The to be called the Albert Bridge, between Bill had been drawn by Mr. Rothery. Re- Chelsea Suspension Bridge and old Battergistrar of the High Court of Admiralty-sea Bridge, beginning at Oakley Street, a fact which he thought would have weight with their Lordships in considering its merits. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. LORD CHELMSFORD said, he had read the Bill, which appeared to him admirably drawn, and met with his full approbation. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2". CAYMAN ISLANDS BILL [H.L.] House adjourned at a quarter past Chelsea, and ending in Battersea Park. The project was very popular in Chelsea and its neighbourhood; and there was not the slightest opposition to it, except from the proprietors of old Battersea Bridge, who naturally enough were anxious to protect their tolls. When the promoters of the Bill informed the Committee that they had witnesses to speak to the great convenience of the bridge, they were told that this evidence was not required; and thereNew-fore they were greatly surprised at the Resolution to which the Committee came to reject the Bill, on the ground of their unwillingness, without a more pressing necessity than had been shown in this case, to sanction the erection of a new proprietary bridge over the Thames, with tolls in perpetuity. He was assured that the promoters would have been willing to introduce into the Bill a clause enabling the public to redeem the tolls upon the proposed bridge by the payment of the cost of the structure and 10 per cent. It was obvious, therefore, that the Resolution of the Committee did not meet the case before them, and that the question which they should have decided was whether the preamble of the Bill had been proved or not. The Committee further recorded their opinion that the whole question of bridge accommodation within the metropolitan districts should receive the early consideration of some public Department, especially MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading with the object of providing for the aboliDuchy of Cornwall Management (1863) [H.L.]tion of all tolls as far as possible. (No. 90). HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, May 1, 1863. The House met; and Forty Members not being present at Four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Committee-Hares (Ireland) (No. 52); Vice-Ad- Many years had elapsed since a similar recommendation was made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons; but up to the present time nothing had been done, probably because of the immense sum of money which would be required. proprietors of Southwark Bridge alone re The Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee to which the Bill was referred on the 14th April last. quired £300,000 for the purchase of their | who would speak to the same facts if the bridge. The whole matter, in fact, was Committee thought it necessary to hear tied up. But here was a Bill which would them; and the Committee did not think it confer great benefits upon the public, necessary to do so. It was one of the which would open a more convenient access duties of a Committee to prevent the exafrom a populous neighbourhood to Batter- mination of witnesses from being drawn sea Park, which was opposed only by the out to an unnecessary length-and in this proprietors of old Battersea Bridge, and instance the Committee thought, considerwhich would so enhance the value of the ing the clear and forcible way in which the property in its vicinity that in four years case had been stated, that further evidence the increase would pay the whole cost of the was unnecessary. He therefore thought it bridge. He hoped their Lordships would was a little too much for the petitioners agree to his Motion that the Bill should to ask that they should now be permitted be referred back to the Select Committee. again to come forward with an altered case. He wished to say nothing against who asked for this further inquiry. He the high repectability of the Gentlemen had no doubt they would be glad to see not merely one, but five new bridges spanning the river; and the Committee themselves were very far from saying that it might not be desirable to erect a bridge at this spot at some future day. All they said was that the time had not yet arrived for the erection of another toll-paying bridge. A very short time ago Chelsea bridge had been opened, and in that instance the bridge was required to be free on Sundays, and the Committee were of opinion that a case had not been made for sanctioning the erection of another toll-paying bridge in this neighbourhood during this Session. The Committee also participated in the feeling which was now general among their Lordships and the public, that the time was come when there ought to be a survey of the metropolitan bridges as well as railways, and of the metropolitan communications generally. He trusted their Lordships would not think it necessary to refer the Bill back to the Committee. If they were to do so, he did not know how the Committee were to deal with it. They had already heard so much evidence that it was utterly impossible that any further evidence could throw any more light on the question. At least, he hoped, if their Lordships were to refer the Bill back to the Committee, they would at the same time give the Committee an instruction how to act with respect to it. LORD TAUNTON, as Chairman of the Select Committee, opposed the Motion. He trusted their Lordships would not disturb the decision of the Committee, who were more competent to decide a question of the kind than the House, and who had inquired into the matter for two entire days, and had examined nine witnesses on one side and three on the other. He therefore called upon their Lordships to support their decision. He had great difficulty in answering the noble and learned Lord, whose experience and ability in stating a case of this sort were, perhaps, unrivalled in their Lordships' House; but this cirqumstance of itself should warn their Lordships against being led away by ex parte advocacy, and coming to a too hasty decision. Now, here was a Committee that had heard both sides, and the presumption was that justice had been done. He was fully ready to admit, that if a case of grievous irregularity were established against the Committee, the case should be reheard and justice done. Now, here the accusation was that the Committee had unduly excluded evidence, and that they had not permitted all the witnesses to be called. He would state to their Lordships what took place. Nine witnesses of the highest character attended before them; and there never was a case better stated as to either facts or opinions. There were Sir Charles Fox, the eminent contractor, who came from Frankfort for the purpose; Mr. Freake, the great builder, and seven others. They stated their views in the clearest and most forcible manner; and at the close of the evidence (the fact appeared on the shorthand-writer's notes), Mr. Rodwell, the counsel, said, that he had other witnesses LORD DE ROS said, that as the dissenting Member of the Committee, he thought that his noble Colleagues had come to a wrong decision. The Committee was appointed to consider the Bill, not to consider the whole question of metropolitan bridges. The bridge would have been of great value; and he would be glad to see the Bill re-committed, as he understood that much additional evidence was likely | blame whatever upon the Committee, and to be brought forward in its favour. THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said, he fully concurred with all that had fallen from the noble Chairman (Lord Taunton). He had sat upon many Committees, and had never come to a clearer conclusion in his life than upon this question. It might, perhaps, have been advisable if they had not entered into their reasons so fully; but they had reason for believing that a number of new bridges of the same character were about to be thrown across the river, and he thought it high time that the attention of the public should be called to the question. The counsel who had the conduct of the case himself admitted that it was unnecessary to call further evidence. It would be most unwise to overturn the decision the Committee had arrived at after careful consideration. it was admitted that they had heard the That that the preamble had been proved, and then, in considering the clause imposing the tolls, to have recommended any modifications they thought desirable. He thought that the Committee having erroneously decided against the Bill on a point which was, by some means, never brought before it, that their Lordships would do well to consent to its re-committal. LORD CRANWORTH said, that the duty of a Select Committee was one of so difficult and delicate a nature, that if this were a proposal to interfere with its functions, he (Lord Cranworth) should be most unwilling to support it. But it did not appear to him to be a proposal of that na-tary course would have been to have said ture. It rather resembled what was known in the law as an application for a new trial. Such an application was made upon various grounds; but if made on the ground of evidence, it was generally made on the ground that some evidence which ought to have been received at the time was not received. Now the case of these Petitioners was not precisely analogous. They said they had new evidence to offer, and that they would have been willing to introduce into the Bill clauses for the redemption of the tolls. This was not quite satisfactory, because the Petitioners did not say they were ready with the evidence at that time, or that they intended to propose to introduce the redemption powers into the Bill, but that they were ready to do so now. On the whole, he was in favour of the re-committal of the Bill. LORD TRURO fully concurred that it, was impossible that more patience could be shown by any Committee than was displayed by this Committee, and he never saw less disposition to interfere with the evidence than was manifested by the noble Chairman. THE EARL OF DERBY said, he knew nothing of the merits of this question beyond what he had heard in the House. He felt quite sure that no one in their Lordships' House would desire to cast any LORD TAUNTON said, the Committee did hear a very able speech from Mr. Hope Scott on the subject of the tolls. THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes, that was the case for the opponents. LORD TAUNTON: That was so; but the question of tolls was an element in the general question as to the necessity for the bridge. This Bill was promoted by a very powerful body, and it would be a great misfortune if their Lordships, in regard to this measure, should swerve from the usual course, which was the only safe one that could be pursued in the conduct of business, and most worthy the character of that House. EARL GRANVILLE said, the Commissioners of Works thought the bridge would be an important advantage to the public. He agreed that it was a serious thing for the House to upset a decision of its Committee, but there were cases where their decision might be re-considered without |