essential to the satisfactory discharge of the business of the courts. To those representations he had felt it his duty to yield; but he had prepared two clauses; the one providing, that in the event of a vacancy among the officers of the courts in question, that vacancy should not be filled up without a certificate from one of the chief judges of the necessity of filling it up, and without the sanction of Parliament; the other, providing that no compensation should be granted, except in certain cases.

He

Mr. Harvey opposed the Bill, condemning the departure from the recommendation of the Commissioners. objected, moreover, to this Bill, because it went, in the face of the recommendation of a Commission which sat for a long period, to create three situations with salaries attached to them, of 1,2007. each. The whole of this was a judicial job. It was said, fifteen officers were necessary, though the Commission declared twelve sufficient. He contended, it was most improper to set aside the recommendation of the Commission, made upon the representation of the judges. He objected to the mode of granting the certificate by the judges, inasmuch as this might lead to great abuse, because they might certify to their sisters' sons, or other parties equally nearly related. The appointment of the three additional officers ought, surely, to be delayed till it was found whether they really were required. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House, with reference to the creation of these three additional officers.

Mr. Sergeant Goulburn said, that this Bill was brought in in pursuance of the recommendation of a Commission, of which he (Mr. Goulburn) had the honour to be Chairman. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark, had not opposed the measure until the last occasion, when he made a speech precisely similar to that which he had first made. With reference to the appointments which had been made of relations by the judges, would the hon. Gentleman say they were not fully competent to the duties of the offices to which they were appointed, or were not fit and proper persons to be so recommended? He denied, that the salaries of 1,2001. a-year each were too high. The object of the Bill was to reduce the creation of new offices by aged persons holding offices under the courts;

and, assuredly, the proper persons to fill up the vacancies as they occurred, were the judges of the land.

Mr. Hodgson Hinde thought the House was bound to abide by the recommendation of the Commission to limit the number of officers to twelve; and unless he heard something more satisfactory than had fallen from the learned Sergeant, he would vote for the amendment.

Bill read a third time.

A clause, by way of rider, was brought

up. Mr. Tooke concurred in everything which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, because the creation of these three additional appointments, contrary to the recommendation of the Commission, was a most outrageous job. He would take this occasion of asking, how it happened that the recommendations of the Commission, in regard to the Crown-office, had not been acted upon and framed into a Bill? Had this been done, there would have been some consolation for the expense which this Commission would cost the country.

The Attorney-General complained of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Truro. He believed, that the judges of the land had acted upon the purest and most conscientious feeling. The business in the taxation of costs in the courts, in consequence of recent regulations, had been much increased; and as the duties of their officers would, in a great degree, apply to this branch of business-though he had the highest respect for the recommendation of the Commission-the additional number of three was not too great. He protested against the attempt made, to impugn the motives of the judges in reference to these appoint

I receive with great satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address. It is gratifying to me to learn that the House of Lords will apply itself without delay to forward such measures as will not admit of postponement without injury to the public interest, and to make such provision for the public service as may be requisite for the welfare of the United Kingdom."

MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION ACTS.] The Lord Chancellor moved the third reading of the Marriages and Registration Act Amendment Bill.

The Bishop of Hereford was understood to say, that the clergy of the Church of England intended to continue marrying by publication of bans, as heretofore. He thought there was some ambiguity in the 18th Clause of the original Bill, and added that there was no necessity for interfering with the Dissenters, but he would contend that the Church of England ought not either to be interfered with. He was not then prepared to suggest a remedy, but he

objected to further restraints upon the members of the Church.

The Earl of Shrewsbury expressed a hope that the House would consent to retain the 33d Clause, which had been struck out in conformity with the motion of a right hon. Prelate yesterday, during his (Lord Shrewsbury's) absence. In the Act of last year the words "separate buildings" had been introduced, the effect of which had been entirely to exclude the Roman Catholics from its operation, inasmuch as there were very few chapels belonging to that persuasion which did not form a part of some school, college, or mansion. The clause which he desired to retain would remedy this defect, and he should therefore move its re-introduction.

The Earl of Malmesbury suggested, that as points of objection were raised up, which had not been urged before, it would be better to adjourn the debate till to-morrow, in order to give time for the consideration of those objections. It would be hard that the Roman Catholics should be excluded from the benefits of the Act, which was intended for the relief of all who dissented from the Established Church.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the delay suggested by the noble Earl might have the effect of defeating the Bill altogether, for it was necessary that the Bill should become a law on the 1st of July. Lord Ellenborough had no objection whatever to the Roman Catholics partaking of that relief which the Bill intended for them, as well as for other parties dissenting from the Established Church, for he was sure that they would make no improper use of the houses which might adjoin their places of worship. His only difficulty was, that the amendment suggested by the noble Earl would make a distinction between Catholics and other Dissenters, which, he believed, had not hitherto been made by Parliament.

The Earl of Malmesbury said, that the difficulties in which the House was placed with respect to this Bill arose from the very late period at which it had been sent up to their Lordships from the other House, from which it was received only on the 19th of the present month. Their Lorships had not had time for its due consideration, and they were now told that if they did delay to consider some important parts of the Bill, they would endanger its not passing within the time fixed for its becoming a law.

The Bishop of Hereford said, that his

objection to the discussion of the suggested amendment at present was, the absence of the most rev. Prelate who had objected to the clause, and who would no doubt have attended if he had thought that any further discussion on the measure was expected. With respect to the proposed amendment, he could assure the noble Earl that he had not the smallest possible objection to it; on the contrary, he would cordially support any clause which would enable Roman Catholics to marry in their own chapels according to their own religious rites, for their Lordships had a general assurance in the great strictness of the Roman Catholics in the observance of their religious rites, that no improper use whatever would be made of any building adjoining to their places of worship. It appeared to him, however, that the suggested amendment would make a general rule for Dissenting as well as Roman Catholic places of worship, and to such general rule he could not consent.

The Earl of Fingall thought, that the difficulty might be got over by the insertion of the words "or buildings appointed to Catholic worship." Unless some such words were introduced, the Catholics would be deprived of the benefits which the Bill intended to give them, for their Lordships were well aware that the Chapels of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry and many public places of Catholic worship were attached to private residences or other buildings.

Lord Lyndhurst said, that the present Bill afforded another illustration of the manner in which Bills were sent up from the other House. This Bill had been brought into the other House on the 21st of April, and was sent up to their Lordships on the 19th of June. The other House had had two months for its consideration, and yet their Lordships were expected to get it through in six or seven days.

Debate adjourned.