Commons Sitting of 15 June 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Trustees and Mortgagees, &c.; Legitimacy Declaration; Police Force (Ireland); Administration of Justice (Dublin); New Trial in Criminal Cases.
CASE OF MR. JOHN TOWNSEND.

  MOTION.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he rose to move that the Copy of Record Adjudication of Bankruptcy against Mr. John Townsend, Member for the borough of Greenwich [presented 11th June], be read by the Clerk of the Table.
  Motion agreed to.
  The Clerk then read the record, as follows—:
  "The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849.
  "In the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall Street, London, 28th day of August, 1857.
  "In the matter of John Townsend, of Greenwich and Charleton, both in the county of Kent, auctioneer, against whom a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy was filed on the 28th day of August, 1857, before Mr. Commissioner Fane,—
  "I, the said Commissioner, upon good proof upon oath before me this day taken, do find that the said John Townsend became bankrupt within the true intent and meaning of the laws of bankruptcy, before the filing of the said petition against him, And I do therefore declare and adjudge him bankrupt accordingly.
  "R. G. C. FANE, Commissioner,"

  2099
  "This adjudication was annulled by an order made by Commissioner Holroyd, on the 6th of October, 1857. J. F. M. R."
  "The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849.
  "In the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall Street, London, 29th day of March, 1858.
  "In the matter of John Townsend, of Greenwich, in the county of Kent, auctioneer, against whom a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy was filed on the 29th day of March, 1858, before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn,—
  "I, the said Commissioner, upon good proof upon oath before me this day taken, do find that the said John Townsend became bankrupt within the true intent and meaning of the laws of bankruptcy, before the filing of the said petition against him. And I do therefore declare and adjudge him bankrupt accordingly.
  "EDWARD GOULBURN, Commissioner."
  On the Motion of Mr. FITZROY, the Acts 52 of Geo. III. c. 144 (respecting Members who become bankrupts), and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 5 (Bankrupt Law Consolidation) were read by the Clerk of the Table.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he would now move that Mr. John Townsend, Member for the borough of Greenwich, having been found, declared, and adjudged a bankrupt from the 29th of March, had since been, and still was by law, incapable of sitting and voting in that House.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That Mr. John Townsend, the Member for the Borough of Greenwich, having on the 29th day of March last been found, declared, and adjudged a Bankrupt, has since been, and still is, by Law incapable of sitting and voting in this House."
  MR. TOWNSENDsaid, he considered it his duty to the House, to his constituents, and to himself, to rise upon the present occasion, and to offer, with the permission of the House, a few observations in explanation of the votes he had given upon the last few divisions, and the reasons which had induced him to think he was privileged to retain his seat in the House. Since he had had the honour of seat in that House he had always endeavoured, in every possible shape and way, to conform to its rules and regulations. He had never thrust himself upon the notice or the society of any hon. Member on either side of the House, and if he had erred in the votes he had given and in continuing to sit, it had been in ignorance, and certainly not in defiance, of the rules of the House. It was perfectly true that an adjudication of bankruptcy had been filed against him in consequence of his having been involved in a heavy Chancery suit, over which be had no control, and the political persecution that had been
  2100
  directed against him, but he had every reason to suppose that in the course of a few days or weeks that bankruptcy would be superseded. He had but one harsh creditor, but for whom the bankruptcy would have been superseded long ago, and he would never rest contented until all his debts had been paid with 20 s. in the pound and interest. With great respect and deference to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. FitzRoy), he would submit to the House, from facts which he would endeavour to prove in explanation, that there were at least very divided opinions as to his right, under existing circumstances, to sit and vote in that House, and he believed he should be able to show that he was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that he still had the right to sit and vote as a Member of that House. As, however, there were many leading technicalities bearing on the case, which, as he was not a lawyer, he could not be expected to know, he should rely upon that which he had always heard and believed—namely, that it was as much the pride and pleasure as it was the duty of the strong to protect the humble and the weak. He would, therefore, at once appeal to the law officers of the Crown, and to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House, to assist him in the discussion which he trusted would follow the observations he was now making, by quoting any legal points with which they might be familiar in support of his case. He had endeavoured in every possible way to ascertain the true meaning of the Act which had been referred to, and he was assured by parties who were capable of judging that he had a perfect right to sit in the House and to record his votes. He had instructed a friend learned in the law to give him his opinion upon the point now raised, and his opinion was that he (Mr. Townsend) had an undoubted right to be and to continue a Member of that House. Certain cases were quoted in support of this opinion, and among others the case of Sir R. Price, formerly a Member of the House, who, although he had been adjudicated a bankrupt, yet, the proceedings having been suspended and adjourned time after time, he, prior to the supersedeas being taken out, sat and recorded his votes. He would respectfully submit that if Sir R. Price had the power to sit in that House, he, although a more humble man, had the same power. It was no secret to any one that circulars were continually sent to hon. Members inviting them to attend cer-

  2101
  tain divisions. These circulars were never marked "Private," or "Confidential," or he should not have alluded to them; but he had received these circulars from hon., right hon., and learned Members, inviting him to come and vote for certain measures which were expected to be brought into debate in that House. No later than yesterday morning he had received a circular from a right hon. and learned Gentleman, quite capable of judging upon the question whether he had a right to vote, inviting him to attend the House last night and record his vote. He could not believe for a single moment that these hon., right hon., and learned Gentlemen" would think of offering an intentional insult to a large and independent constituency by inviting their Member to a division upon which the door would be shut upon him. A man might as well invite another to dinner, and then tell him that he had no business there. When he came down to the House he found the door open, and no bar or opposition offered to Ins entrance. He found his name duly printed on the division desk, and this he took for an invitation to come and have his name ticked off. He took his seat in the House, and not a syllable was said to him. He recorded vote after vote, and his name was printed in the division lists, and published in every newspaper in the United Kingdom. All of a sudden the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Mr. FitzRoy) moved, in his absence, for a record of the adjudication. The right hon. Gentleman gave him no previous notice of his intention Now, he did think that the right hon. Gentleman might have condescended to drop him one line. The first he heard of it was from the right hon. Gentleman's own lips the same night, while he was in the lobby on the division upon the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King). The right hon. Gentleman told him when he was in the division lobby that he had no power to vote; but he (Mr. Townsend) had not forgotten the 180th rule of the House, which says, "Every Member present in the House when the question is put will be required to vote," which was explained by the marginal note as follows, "Every Member then present must vote." He had, therefore, no alternative but to go on and register his vote. He contended with every respect to the House that the Act gave a Member twelve months in which to supersede the bankruptcy. It was never intended by the 52 Geo. III. c. 144, that a harsh creditor should have the power of going to the
  2102
  Bankruptcy Court and obtaining an adjudication upon a £50 debt, when it might so happen, although he did not pretend that it was so in his case, that the debtor might have £50,000 wherewith to meet the debt. Was it not against reason and common sense that while proceedings were going on a creditor should have the power, upon a disputed debt, to shut the door of the House and deprive a constituency of the services of its Member? To the best of his belief in a few weeks he should be able to supersede the bankruptcy. He was told, however, he must resign to make room for a former Member; but until the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair decided to the contrary, he was supported in his seat by the unanimous voices of 30,000 free, honest, and independent men of Greenwich, who would not suffer him to be put out at the dictation of any moneybag candidate. They did not care a rush whether their Members had £50,000 a year or only £500, provided they did not, as candidates upon the hustings, undertake to do that which as representatives they did not intend to perform. He respectfully contended that when so much reasonable doubt existed, it was his bounden duty to his constituents, from the pledges he made to them upon the hustings in favour of all those great measures of reform which were now happily passing the House, and in which they took such deep and unbounded interest, to put aside his own personal feelings, however painful, and to be present to support those measures. He would not detain the House further, but thanking hon. Members for the attention with which they had heard him, he would now retire in accordance with the rules of the House, confident that his case would be discussed and fairly dealt with by hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member then left the House.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought that every hon. Member must feel that the subject was a painful one, and only to be approached with great reluctance. Consequently the House owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Lewes for bringing this question before them, because unless some hon. Member, regardless of personal feelings, and above all, party suspicion, brought questions of this kind, the credit and dignity of the House would suffer. It was highly important to the dignity and credit of the House that such cases as this should not be passed over. The hon. Member for Greenwich, it appeared

  2103
  by the Return, had been adjudicated a bankrupt on the 29th of March last, and the commission bad not since been superseded. The Act of Parliament was as clear as anything could be. It did not harshly require that a Member on being declared a bankrupt should lose his seat immediately, but it gave him a breathing time of twelve months, during which he might get the commission superseded, or pay off his creditors; but it did inflict on a Member so situate the incapacity of sitting and voting during those twelve months, or for so long a portion of them as the adjudication of bankruptcy continued in force. The moment that the proceedings in bankruptcy were superseded, his right to sit and vote returned. When the twelve months had expired, if the adjudication were not removed, the seat became vacant, and the Act gave power to the Speaker at once to issue a new writ for the seat. The only doubt that he had felt on this point arose from the use in the Act of the words "whenever a commission of bankruptcy shall issue." Commissions of bankruptcy had long since been put an end to, and it might perhaps have been going too far to say, that in a matter of this sort, without some express enactment, the provisions of this Act could be applied to a different mode of procedure. But the 5th clause of the Act of 1849 provided that, wherever in an Act of Parliament mention should be made "of any commission of bankruptcy," such Act should, for the future, be construed with reference to proceedings for a petition of adjudication. It had been urged by the hon. Member that an adjudication might be obtained against anybody, even if he had £50,000; but it should be remembered that such an adjudication could not be supported. There seemed, therefore, to be no reason to be alleged against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and be thought the House was bound to adopt it out of regard to its own honour and credit. At the same time, he trusted that the result would be that the hon. Member for Greenwich would return speedily to his place, and that there would be no occasion to put in force the extreme powers of the Act.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he agreed in the construction put upon the Act by the Solicitor General. The course suggested by the right hon. Member for Lewes was the only one open to the House, and he should give it his support. As the House had recently passed a Bill to abolish the property qualification, it behoved them
  2104
  to be more careful than ever in not passing over cases of this sort.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYremarked, that he thought the Resolution should strictly follow the words of the Act, which were "sitting and voting."
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he hoped Mr. Speaker would express his opinion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was a question on the construction of an Act of Parliament, and one for the consideration of the law officers. At the same time, he might say that he agreed with the interpretation put on it by the hon. and learned Solicitor General.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered—
  That the said Mr. John Townsend do withdraw from this House until his Bankruptcy shall have been superseded or annulled, or until his creditors proving their debts shall have been paid or satisfied to the full amount of their debts.
  Notice taken—
  That upon Monday the 7th day of this instant June, in Committee on the subject of the Government of India, upon a Division, Mr. Townsend voted with the Ayes.
  That upon Tuesday the 8th day of this instant June, on the Third Reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill, upon a Division, Mr. Townsend voted with the Ayes.
  That upon the same day, on the subject of the Ballot, upon a Division, Mr. Townsend voted with the Ayes.
  That upon Thursday the 10th day of this instant June, on the Second Reading of the County Franchise Bill, upon a Division, Mr. Townsend voted with the Ayes.
  Ordered, That the said Votes be disallowed.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he was not about to discuss the general principle of the Bill, although he did wish to see the powers proposed to be given to the new Court vested in the Court of Chancery. He wished, however, now, as he could not do so in Committee, to call attention to the case of Mr. Flanagan, formerly the secretary of the Incumbered Estates Commission, who surrendered a life office for that appointment, the salary of which was £1,000 per annum. He afterwards assumed without further salary the judicial office of master, the duties of which were extremely arduous, and although that office was now to be abo-

2105
lished, yet as Mr. Flanagan had satisfactorily and efficiently performed all its duties, that gentleman was, he thought, fully entitled to a retiring compensation, to be fixed upon the Estimates. If he had continued secretary he would have been provided for in the Bill, but as he had taken a higher and a more laborious office, he was now to be sent away without any retiring allowance.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was impossible, in justice to the other officers of the court, to select Mr. Flanagan for a special provision in the Bill, fixing his compensation at his present salary. He would with the other officers be provided for by the
Treasury. The Incumbered Estates Court had been created as an experiment and for a temporary purpose, and Mr. Flanagan became its secretary with a full understanding of that fact, and there seemed no reason why the House should sanction the principle that a gentleman who did so ought on his retirement from an office of that character to be entitled to his full allowance. It was true that he subsequently became master, but that was upon a minute of the Commissioners, and not upon the appointment of Her Majesty's Government, and in virtue of an Act of Parliament which had been strained for that purpose.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought it was a pity that the Bill should be inaugurated by a gross act of injustice. He saw no reason why Mr. Commissioner Hargreave should receive his full salary in the Bill while Mr. Flanagan, who was also a judicial officer, was left to the discretion of the Treasury.
MR. MALINShad heard so much of the efficient manner in which Mr. Flanagan had performed the judicial duties of Master that he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) would do well to accede to the general wish that Mr. Flanagan's compensation should be named in the Bill.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he thought the principle laid down by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) was the correct one, and he hoped he would stick to his guns and act upon it, not only in the case of Mr. Flanagan, but also in that of Mr. Hargreave, as it was but right that both gentlemen should have their claims investigated by the Treasury. With respect to the Bill itself, he thought the 51st clause of it was prejudicial to the rights of property.
COLONEL FRENCHdefended the clause, and stated that when the Incumbered Es-
2106
tates Court was first established sales were hurried on, regardless of sacrifice, by solicitors who were only anxious to get their own costs out of the proceeds.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he hoped the Bill would be the model for a similar measure for England. He agreed with the Attorney General for Ireland that the compensation of Mr. Flanagan should be left to the Treasury, but the same principle applied to Mr. Hargreave.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the responsibility in this matter rested not upon the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Deland, but upon the Treasury. The matter was fully considered, and the conclusion was arrived at that, although some exception might be made in the case of a judicial officer, it was the opinion of the Treasury that that exception could not be extended to other officers. There was no reason why, if Mr. Flanagan was included, the claims of other officers also should not be placed in the same category. He quite admitted that Mr. Flanagan was a meritorious officer, but it was impossible that Her Majesty's Government should allow a specified compensation to be introduced into an Act of Parliament in any other case than that of a judicial officer.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the masters were introduced in consequence of the pressure of public business; and had it not been for the indefatigable exertions of the secretary, Mr. Flanagan, the Act would have failed to a great extent. He was glad to find that the compensation by the Treasury to Mr. Flanagan was to be liberal; but still he thought that it was very unfair to put a man of his great abilities in the same category as a writing clerk attached to an office which had been abolished.
LORD NAASsaid, dint the Government had not felt themselves authorized to deal with Mr. Flanagan in the mode suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy.) The best mode, however, would be for him to take the sense of the Committee upon it, and, of course, if such were the wish of the Committee, the Government had no objection to a vote being proposed for that purpose.
MR. BARROWsaid, he must protest against these personal questions of compensation being brought forward without notice, and at a time when those hon. Members who took a great interest in keeping down the taxation of the country were not present.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman proposed to make a Motion, not for the purpose of voting money out of the Consolidated Fund, but for the disposal of money voted by the House, it was competent for him to make it in Committee, when the matter could be discussed.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, that since the Bill was last before the House it had been carefully revised, and various points on which great discussion took place had been considered with reference to the objections which had been made. Several clauses, including that for the appointment of receivers, and for the purpose of sending issues to be tried by a jury, had been struck out. Other difficulties had been obviated, and he was not aware that there was anything he could yield which he had not yielded, except as to the principle of the Bill, to which he was determined to adhere.
Clause 1 and 2 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
Clause 3.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he regarded this as one of the most important measures of law reform in the present generation, and he believed that a similar court would ere long be established in England. Great improvements had been made in the courts of equity of late years, but still the tendency was to relieve the Judges, and to throw the work upon the officers of the Court. It was a false step to diminish the number of the Judges of this Court from three to two, and there was no economy in so doing, because they pensioned off the third Judge upon his full salary. It would be quite enough to diminish the number of Judges when experience had proved that two Judges could efficiently perform the duties of the Court. He moved to leave out the word "two" and insert "three."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he thought that hon. Members hardly knew what would be the consequence of agreeing to this Amendment, The proposition of the Government was to construct a permanent court with a permanent staff, and to elevate the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court to the position of Judges. The whole matter had been examined minutely by a Commission, which gave it as their opinion that the business of the Incumbered Estates Court, together with some of
2108
the business of the Court of Chancery, could be discharged by two Judges sitting daily, with a proviso that those Judges should be Messrs. Hargreave and Dr. Longfield. When he read that statement he confessed he was astonished, but Mr. Hargreave himself had expressed his opinion that two Vice Chancellors and the Master of the Rolls, with a competent staff, would be able to do the business of the Incumbered Estates Court in addition to the business they then performed, although he thought it probable that they might be hardly worked. Subsequently he was asked what number of Judges sitting daily would be required to do the business of the Incumbered Estates Court alone, and he gave it as his opinion that one Judge with a proper staff would do. The opinion of Dr. Longfield was similar. By the Bill of the late Government the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fitz-Gerald) proposed to transfer the Incumbered Estates Court to the Court of Chancery, and to appoint two Vice Chancellors to transact the business; but his (Mr. Whiteside's) proposal was, that they should only have to transact the business of the new Court, and there was no ground to suppose that the number of Judges was not sufficient. The learned persons who composed the Commission to which he had alluded, had made certain recommendations, every one of which were carried out by the Bill. It would be a very dangerous thing to introduce a system by which the number of Judges in the Courts might be increased with too great a facility. The number of petitions in the Incumbered Estates Court was by no means such as to justify such a proceeding. About sixteen petitions had been presented in February, seventeen in March, and twenty in the last month; and had there not been great arrears to get through, it would be ridiculous to suppose that the business would fully occupy three Commissioners. Dr. Longfield had recently sent him a document in which he said, that if he now had the whole business of the Court to transact he should not be so pressed as he was in 1853. If this was not a permanent measure, the case would be different; but they must remember, that having once appointed a Judge of a permanent Court, there was no getting rid of him, unless with very large compensation. When they took into consideration that the Judges of the new Court would sit separately every day in the week, instead of sitting together, as the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court did, on

2109
Wednesdays and Saturdays, and that the appeal would be not from the three Judges as now, but from each Court, it was impossible not to see that two Judges would be able to do the work of three under the old system. It would not be possible to refer the business of the Court to other officers, because they would not exist. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not be able to persuade the Treasury to grant some £10,000 a year for salaries to the Judges, and, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman in effect proposed to give the same suns of money to three Judges which he (Mr. Whiteside) proposed to give to two. He had the authority of the two subordinate Commissioners for saying, that they would not consent to remain in the Court if their present position of equal work, but inferior rank, were perpetuated in the new arrangement. He might also remark, that if three Judges were retained, there must be three sets of officers retained, which would cause a great additional expense. He, therefore, submitted to the Committee, in opposition to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, first, the opinion of the Commissioners in Ireland; secondly, that of the Committee of the House; thirdly, that of the Commissioners themselves; fourthly, the state of the business in the Court; and fifthly, the financial question. He hoped that on these grounds the Committee would agree with him that, considering no injustice would be done to Mr. Hargreave, and that his allowance would cease when he had another judicial appointment, there was not sufficient ground alleged for the increase in the number of the Judges of the proposed new Court.
MR. MELLORsaid, that it might be deduced from the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman that one Judge would be sufficient. Indeed, he thought that it was very probable that after the first rush of business one Judge would be enough. Seeing that there were three Judges to be disposed of, and that it was the intention of the Home Secretary to introduce this system into England, the best plan that could be adopted would be to retain Mr. Hargreave, equalizing his salary and that of Dr. Longfield, until a similar court were established in England, when he might be transferred to such court. He saw no difficulty whatever in equalising the salaries; and inasmuch as the greater the numbers of the Judges the less work there would be fur the examiners, they might get rid of one of them. He did not think that the extreme difference to the Treasury
2110
would be more than £1,000, and it would be most miserable economy to dispense with the services of Mr. Hargreave by allowing him to retire on his full pay. He trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would be carried, as his hon. and learned Friend intended to follow it up by another Amendment, that upon any vacancy occurring it need not be filled up.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that if it had not been for the accidental circumstance that three Judges already existed, no such proposition as that made by the hon. Member opposite would have been submitted. Arguing from the analogy of the English Court of Chancery, there was very little doubt that two Judges would be amply sufficient. It was most unwise to multiply Judges unduly, as men who were only half occupied never did their duty properly. Nor did he agree in the proposition that Judges should be called upon to transact the business done in chambers in the Court of Chancery.
MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to remind the learned Attorney General for Ireland that the Court would have to exercise a new jurisdiction infinitely more extensive than was ever exercised by the old Court, or by the Court of Chancery. It might have to adjudicate on the title of every man in Ireland. Three Judges were certainly not too many for the anticipated duties. On the establishment of the Court, there would be a greater influx of business than took place at the beginning of the Incumbered Estates Court. Whatever expense was necessary, the House would not refuse, though the Treasury might do so. They would not peril the success of the measure for a paltry £1,000 a year. The Irish bar would look upon the removal of Mr. Hargreave as a very heavy blow to the efficiency of the Court.
Mr. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he wished to express his belief that the other Commissioners were equally popular with Mr. Hargreave. He was in favour of the appointment of three Judges with salaries equalized at £3,000 a year.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the Bill had been prepared with great care, and had been well received, as it deserved to be. When he was in office, on the retirement of Baron Richards, strong remonstrances were made against the Court going on with two Commissioners. There were petitions from suitors to that effect, and the two remaining Commissioners expressed their inability to take Baron Richards's business, saying that they would rather retire from the

2111
office. With the view to preserve the efficiency of the Court, a third Commissioner had been appointed, Mr. Martley; and it was impossible to impugn the motive of that appointment. He believed that considerations of economy would not be allowed to stand in the way. Efficiency was the best economy.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid there were already three Judges in the Court, and had been from the commencement. Two, or even one, might be sufficient for the present business, but under this Bill there would be an increase to an extent of which no legal gentleman could form an idea. A considerable part of the business of the Court of Chancery would be imported into this court, which would deal with unincumbered as well as incumbered estates. The probability was that every man in Ireland who had a defective title would come before the Court; and yet they proposed to pension off the very man who was best qualified to deal with questions of that kind. Why not pension off Mr. Martley, who had only had one year's experience, in preference to Mr. Hargreave, who had had nine? He believed that this Bill would cause such a rush of business as would rejoice the hearts of the Irish lawyers. He objected to the salaries as too large; £2,000 a year for each of the Judges would be sufficient.
MR. WHITESIDE: They would not take those salaries.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Then give them to others—there are plenty of men in Ireland as competent as Mr. Hargreave.
MR. M'EVOYsaid, he should support the clause.
MR. M'CANNsaid, that the existing court bad worked so well that he was desirous to see as little change as possible.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.

THE ENFIELD MUSKET—QUESTION.
COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any Reports complaining of the inefficiency of the Enfield Musket as being a weapon inapplicable to the service generally, and more especially to the war in India; and if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute inquiries with a view to the substitution of a musket better adapted to the exigencies of the service in that locality?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that no rumours
2112
of the character referred to by the hon. and gallant Member had reached the War Department; on the contrary, they had every reason to believe that the Enfield musket was a most efficient weapon.

THE CASE OF THE CAGLIARI.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrangement by which the King of Naples placed the Cagliari and her crew at the disposal of Her Majesty was made with the concurrence of the Sardinian Government, or whether it has been approved by that Government; and also, whether he has any objection to lay the papers relating to the subject before the House?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I believe that the arrangement by which the Cagliari and her crew were placed at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government was not made with the concurrence of the Sardinian Government in any respect whatever. Neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Sardinian Government had any knowledge of the intention of the King of Naples to make such arrangement—at all events, Her Majesty's Government knew nothing of it. Her Majesty's Government presented a note, requiring a categorical answer, to the King of Naples, for indemnity to our engineers and the restoration of the ship and her crew. We at the same time intimated that a demand of a similar kind
  would be contemporaneously made by the Sardinian Government. It happened, however, that that demand was not made by the Sardinian Government till several days after our demand was presented; and in fact the Cagliari and her crew were set at liberty after our demand, and without ally such categorical demand having been made by the Sardinian Government. Count Cavour, after the arrangement was made, sent a despatch to the Sardinian Representative at Naples, to the effect that he bad been informed that the King of Naples had ordered the release of the Cagliari and her crew, and that in consequence the Sardinian Representative should not present the Note which it had been arranged should otherwise be presented. I may also state that the Sardinian Representative at this Court has since expressed his satisfaction with the arrangement. With reference to the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have no objection to lay the Papers relating to this sub-

  2113
  ject before the House. Some of them are somewhat bulky, and part of them are in Italian and require translation; but, upon an early day, Her Majesty's Government will lay the papers on the table.

TRANSPORT OF TROOPS TO INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NICOLLsaid, he rose to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) when the Report of the Committee on Transport of Troops to India may be expected to be laid upon the table of the House?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that a draft Report had been already laid before the House. On Friday next the detailed Report would be laid before the House, and he hoped to be able to call attention to it on that day.

STATE OF THE THAMES.—QUESTION.
MR. MANGLES: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he intends to take any steps with regard to the present state of the River Thames. [Laughter and Cheers.] My question, I perceive, excites the laughter of some hon. Gentlemen, but I can assure them that if they lived in the vicinity of the Thames they would not think my question one of little importance. By a perverse ingenuity, one of the noblest of rivers has been changed into a cesspool, and I wish to ask whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to remedy the evil?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, in answer to the question which has been somewhat unexpectedly put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I can only say, and he must be as well aware of the facts as myself, that Her Majesty's Government have nothing whatever to do with the state of the Thames; that by a recent Act of Parliament the whole jurisdiction over it has been committed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that Her Majesty's Government can only exercise a sort of veto upon any plan which they may propose for its purification. No scheme which they may propose for its purification can be carried into effect unless it has received the approbation of the Chief Commissioner of Works. All I can say is, that up to the present moment I have not received any scheme from the Metropolitan Board of Works to which I can give my assent, or from which I can withhold it. It may be satisfactory to
2114
know that in my individual capacity I am at this moment serving on a Committee which has been appointed for the purpose of investigating some scheme for the purification of the Thames. When the researches of that Committee terminate, it will be open to the hon. Gentleman to ask me any question with reference to the subject, and I shall be glad to afford him all the information in my power.

CASE OF WILLIAM HENRY BARBER.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of William Henry Barber, presented on the 27th day of April last, and to consider and report whether any and what redress should be afforded to the petitioner; or whether any and what other steps should be taken in reference to the matters alleged. The petition to which his Motion alluded laid a case before the House of wrong and injustice, followed by degradation and personal injury, such as had never been produced in the House, or, he believed, had any parallel in our criminal jurisprudence. This gentleman, a solicitor of high character and good practice, favourably known to many men of position in this country, was tried and convicted, in 1844, of complicity in certain will forgeries, which were prosecuted at the instance of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The prosecutors felt it their duty on that occasion to object to Mr. Barber having a separate trial, and the effect of that arrangement was to prevent Mr. Barber from bringing forward that exculpatory evidence upon the strength of which he afterwards received a free pardon. By the several and unconcerted confessions of the other culprits, Joseph Fletcher, Saunders, Mrs. Saunders, and Mrs. Dorey, after their own conviction, and when silence could no longer avail them, it was demonstrated that Mr. Barber was an innocent man. The jury who tried him had also stated that if they had had the confessions before them, and if an opportunity had been afforded Mr.
  Barber of explaining what appeared to be suspicious in his conduct by placing him upon his trial by himself, their verdict would have been different. Mr. Barber, however, was sentenced to transportation for life, and after being four months in the Compter and Newgate, and three months in separate confinement at Millbank, he was sent to Norfolk Island,

  2115
  where, according to the evidence of Mr. Naylor, a magistrate in the colony, and Mr. Robinson, the senior superintendent of our convict establishment, he underwent a treatment which for cruelty exceeded that which was inflicted on the worst-conducted convicts. This treatment he endured, in spite of the degrading and disgusting society into which he was forced, with an uncomplaining submissiveness, conducting himself at the same time with so much rectitude of conduct as to gain the sympathy of the officers of our penal establishment. The civil commandant was remonstrated with for this treatment, but he only replied that he was carrying out his instructions. The only refuge, therefore, which Mr. Barber found for his sufferings was the hospital. He was naturally a robust man, but he could never hope to recover from the effects of his treatment. The consequence of his conviction and transportation was the loss of a valuable practice, one of the most promising at the time in London, and of every vestige of his property. It was true that when on his pardon a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and asked for compensation, he answered that had the prosecution been conducted by Government his claim would have stood on a distinct ground and been much stronger. He (Mr. Brady) would prove beyond a doubt that the prosecution was a Government one, and that the consequences of its being so were most detrimental to the prisoner. In the course of the trial, Mr. Freshfield, the solicitor to the Bank of England, stated he took no part in getting up the case; he merely reported the facts to the Treasury, and the prosecution was by the Treasury. On the 19th of April last the secretary to Mr. Barber's committee addressed a query to Messrs. Freshfield on this subject. The answer was that the prosecution of Mr. Barber in respect to the will forgeries was at the instance of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—a department of the Government. That was a sufficient proof that the prosecution was by the Government. If the prosecution had been at the instance of any private individual, or of the Bank of England, there was no doubt they would have made restitution when his innocence was established. Indeed there could be no doubt that the prosecution had been a Government one, and that the accused had to suffer serious detriment arising from that fact, in being
  2116
  deprived of the power of bringing forward exculpatory evidence. That being so, would the Government, which had done so much to rescue two of our countrymen from a Neapolitan dungeon, and insisted on their receiving compensation, allow it to be said that an innocent British subject, who had endured cruel wrongs through the action of the tribunals of his own country, was denied reasonable redress? Let the Government not imagine that the public mind was indifferent to the claims of this individual. The press, the organ of public opinion, had unanimously declared itself in favour of compensation to this much-injured man, and the Government could not safely refuse so just a demand. He might be told, indeed, that this application was novel and unprecedented, but the answer to this was that the sufferings which Mr. Barber had undergone were themselves unprecedented. The calendar of our criminal jurisprudence did not furnish a parallel to this case. It was a special case, the like of which was not likely to occur again for a century, and it ought to be dealt with upon its own merits. If, however, any unfortunate man should hereafter establish an equal claim to redress, why should not that claim be considered? The Chief Justice of New South Wales and the Judges of Sydney had instituted an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances connected with Mr. Barber's trial, and they arrived at the conclusion that his country was bound to grant him some reparation for the injustice that had been done to him. He trusted that the case would be taken upon its own merits, quite irrespective of anything which had happened before, or was likely to occur again. He hoped the House would grant a Committee, which was what common justice only required. On the part of the petitioner he would beg to return thanks to the Attorney General, who had, through good and evil report, contended for justice in this matter, and had made sacrifices of his time and his money for that end. This inquiry, however, would not necessarily be confined to the case of the petitioner; it might be extended to the whole state of the criminal law. In conclusion, he would appeal to the House, not as philanthropists, but as strict jurists, to grant the Committee which he asked.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the Petition of William Henry Barber, presented upon the

  2117
  27th day of April last, and to consider and report whether any and what redress should be afforded to the Petitioner; or whether any and what other steps should be taken in reference to the matters alleged."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he thought that the circumstances of this case were so peculiar that they might be considered exceptional. It might, of course, be argued that it was very dangerous to lay down anything approaching to a general rule, that where a person had been legally convicted he should have a claim upon the Government for compensation in case that conviction proved to be wrong. He was ready to admit, that as a general rule that was true, but every rule admitted au exception, and this case he thought was so exceptional and peculiar that the inquiry ought not to be refused. What the result of the Committee might be it was, of course, impossible to say, but there was great difficulty in introducing into the Vote a direct recognition, on the part of the House, of a claim for redress, such as might be considered to arise from the hon. Gentleman's Motion as it then stood on the paper. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not object to alter the terms of his Motion by striking out of it the last line but one, and allowing it to stand as he (Sir John Pakington) would suggest:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in a petition presented to the House by William Henry Barber on the 27th April last, and to consider and report whether any, and what, steps shall be taken in reference thereto."
  In conceding thus much, he was influenced by a very strong sense of the peculiar circumstances of this case, and of the dreadful sufferings to which, beyond all doubt, Mr. Barber was exposed—sufferings far beyond anything like a due punishment for the indiscretion and imprudence with which alone, according to the admission of the Secretary of State who was in office when his innocence was established, Mr. Barber could be charged. Under these circumstances, he was ready to accede to the Motion if it were amended as he had suggested.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion, or to offer the slightest objection to the Motion. He should recommend his hon. Friend to consent at once to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. After having gone through the whole case frequently, he (Mr. Bright)
  2118
  was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct would be sanctioned by every person in England who had studied the matter at all. He did not wish to establish a precedent, but if the law precedents and institutions of the courts of this country had committed so grievous a wrong against one of its citizens, any one who supposed that the people of this country would not be willing to make sonic compensation or the other, would commit a most grievous error with regard to the people of England, and would slander them in a way in which he would not wish to be guilty. Judging from the sentiments of the press of the country, he thought that the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken on behalf of his colleagues would receive commendation from every one who had considered this very painful case.
  MR. BRADYintimated his readiness to assent to the change in the Motion proposed by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he feared that an inquiry into the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. Barber, as stated in the Motion, would not be sufficiently wide to embrace the whole of that gentleman's case.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the allegations contained in. the Petition of William Henry Barber, presented upon the 27th day of April last, and to consider and report whether any or what steps should be taken in reference thereto."

UNDER, SECRETARY OF STATE (SCOTLAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to move the following Resolution:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, an Under Secretary for State for Scotland should be appointed to perform the political duties at present attached to the office of Lord Advocate."
He begged to assure the House that, in moving this Resolution, he was actuated by no personal or party motives. The question was not one of Whig or Tory, but was a question of administration which in the highest degree deserved the consideration of Parliament. He had the greatest admiration for the talent and high character of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff) and every one knew that the present Lord Advocate not only enjoyed an equally high reputation, but was the most distinguished ornament of the Scottish bar. Scotchmen had, indeed, good reason to be

2119
proud of the succession of distinguished men who bad filled the office of Lord Advocate, and of the ability—the successful ability—they had shown in adapting the law of Scotland to the present state of society. Hon. Gentlemen would be astonished when they heard the extent of his duties, not that the Lord Advocate did so little, but that he did so much. The system was so inconvenient, so anomalous, and so liable to be abused, that it was wonderful it was conducted with so little ground of complaint. He (Mr. Baxter) might enter into an historical statement on the question, but he would content himself with reminding hon. Gentlemen that Scotland possessed a Secretary of State of her own for more than thirty years after the legislative Union, and then the office rather fell into disuse than was regularly abolished. In 1828 the management of Scotch
business was transferred to the Home Office by Mr. Canning, at the request of the Scotch Members themselves, who were anxious to escape the dictatorship of the Dundas family. In 1832 so great were the complaints of the mode in which the legislative business of Scotland was conducted that Lord Althorp appointed a Scotch Lord of the Treasury, as a sort of assistant to the Lord Advocate, but the duties of that office were somewhat shadowy and mysterious. He (Mr. Baxter) had never been able to make out what they were, and he hoped that some hon. Member in the course of the discussion might explain them to the House. He would, however, proceed to state what were the duties of the Lord Advocate; but his description of them must necessarily be imperfect, because gentlemen who had themselves held that high office had frequently declared that they were unable to name all the functions of the office. The Lord Advocate was a member of the Faculty of Advocates, and was almost invariably the most distinguished man of his political party for the time being. Consequently he had the largest private practice before the Court in Edinburgh. He was Attorney General for Scotland, and public prosecutor for Scotland. Judging from the case of England hon. Members were little aware of the amount of business which that involved. The Scotch law discouraged private prosecutions, and practically speaking, they were almost unknown. All great offenders in that country were prosecuted by the Lord Advocate before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh,
2120
and minor offenders by his subordinates in the local courts. They had in Scotland no grand jury and no coroner's inquest. In short, the Lord Advocate had the sole right of deciding who was to be prosecuted for any offence. He might also dismiss any prosecution, as he might in some instances punish, without a trial. In an article contributed to the Edinburgh Review, by no less an authority than Lord Cockburn, it was stated that the Lord Advocate, in certain instances, could imprison a person for twenty years without being called to any account. The Lord Advocate had also a large practice in appeal cases before the House of Lords in London, and he was the Scotch law adviser of the Crown. Were these duties not quite sufficient to occupy the time of any one man? But, in addition, the Lord Advocate was the political monarch and dictator of Scotland; he had the entire charge of all the legislative business affecting Scotland, and he was the sole organ of his Administration in either House of Parliament. The late Lord Advocate publicly stated that his political duties alone were quite sufficient to occupy the whole of his time. When, six or seven years ago, the Convention of Royal Burghs memorialized the Crown to separate the political from the legal functions of the Lord Advocate, and appoint a Secretary of State for Scotland, the then Home Secretary reminded the memorialists that he was Secretary of State for Scotland. That was true in point of form, but every gentleman conversant with the manner in which Scotch business was conducted knew that it was not true in point of fact. The Home Secretary could do nothing without the Lord Advocate; but the question was where to find that indispensable functionary. [The Lord Advocate here entered the House, and was received with some cheering and laughter.] He was sorry that the hon. and learned Lord had not heard the opening part of his statement, but he was bound to admit, at the same time, that the constancy and regularity with which the hon. and learned Lord attended in his place deprived him of many of his best arguments in favour of his present motion. When a person called at the Scotch office in London, he was told that the Lord Advocate had been suddenly called down to attend an important trial in Edinburgh, and if he proceeded to Edinburgh he probably found that the Lord Advocate—that most erratic of mortals—had returned to London to

2121
conduct an important Bill through the House of Commons. Such was the system of which the people of Scotland complained, and he really wished it were possible to obtain a return of the number of London and North Western tickets which the Lord Advocate purchased during the course of a year, and he should be glad to know how many days in the last ten or fifteen years had been spent by Lords Advocate in the House of Commons. The Lord Advocate combined in his own proper person all the abolished offices of State which formerly existed in Scotland. He exercised the functions of Secretary of State for Scotland, grand jury, coroner's inquest, privy council, and he had been informed that the Lord Advocate even exercised a control over the movements of the military force in Scotland. Mr. Hope, who was Lord Advocate fifty years ago, expressed a strong opinion against the combination of so many offices and duties in one person, and he said that those persons who judged of the duties of the Lord Advocate of Scotland by the dry and formal duties of the Attorney General for England would make a great mistake, and he hoped an Act would be passed for the purpose of defining the duties of the office. The duties formerly performed by the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, and others, had devolved upon the Lord Advocate. Since the date when Mr. Hope spoke, Scotland, it should be remembered, had doubled her population, and far more than doubled her wealth and manufactures, and although, whereas Scotland had formerly had only a servant-of-all-work, she, now that she had increased in worldly substance, required a division of labour. Amongst the numerous petitions sent up to the House from Scotland was one from the town council of Inverness, and they represented that the public duties of the Lord Advocate, without the addition of his private business at the bar, were quite sufficient to engross the whole of his time and attention. The town council of Forfar stated in their memorial that the office of Lord Advocate, to which were added the duties formerly belonging to the Privy Council and the Secretary of Sate, was always represented by a lawyer who was generally totally unfit for such multifarious duties. Not only on the ground of multifariousness of duties was the present system objectionable, but it should be remembered that the Court of Session of Scotland sat in
2122
Edinburgh at the same time of the year as the courts of England and Parliament sat in London, and they must all see that it was totally impossible for the Lord Advocate, however industrious and learned, to be in both places at one time, although that was often found desirable. The present arrangement was very bad, and he asked the House not that Scotland should have the services of a Cabinet Minister, or that any great outlay of public money should be incurred on her account, but simply that she should receive the undivided attention of one Gentleman in the management of her political business. At present she had only half a man's time given to her affairs, while there was not a banking company or a commercial company that would permit such a system to exist in connection with their establishment. For England they had a Home Secretary and an Under Secretary, an Attorney and Solicitor General. For Ireland there was a Lord Lieutenant, a Chief Secretary, and an Attorney and Solicitor General, but for Scotland they had only a Lord Advocate. Why, England had more functionaries to represent her at sonic petty court in Germany than Scotland had in the national councils. He knew it would be objected to his Motion that Scotch law differed so much from English law that it was of the utmost importance to have a Gentleman of great Scotch legal attainment in the House to conduct Scotch law bills. But that was perfectly consistent with his Motion. He did not wish to abolish the office of Lord Advocate, nor to exclude him from the House of Commons; on the contrary, he should be always glad to see him in the House to render assistance and advice to the Secretary of State, but he desired that the Lord Advocate should be for Scotland what the Attorney General was for England or Ireland. He wanted an officer to be appointed who would be during the Session of Parliament always at hand to receive deputations from Scotland, and who would be constantly in his place in the House to attend to the business in the House, and see that Scotch Bills were not postponed, delayed, and abandoned—to see that the Scotch business was not brought on after midnight and then conducted in the manner it was so frequently, and which gave such great, though justifiable, dissatisfaction to the people of Scotland. In an article in the Edinburgh Review, written, he believed by Lord Cockburn, and published in 1824, it was mentioned that the

2123
very first change which seemed to be called for was, that the Lord Advocate's power in his political character should be infinitely less than it then was, and the town council of Dundee in 1858 concluded their memorial to the House by stating that the legislative business of Scotland had not been discharged to the satisfaction of the Scotch nation. In the course of a remarkable debate which occurred in "another place" in 1854, the Earl of Eglinton complained that the Administration of affairs for Scotland was placed in the hands of gentlemen who had generally quite enough of their own business at the bar to attend to. The Duke of Montrose had also stated that the affairs of Scotland were not sufficiently attended to. So much for the present Government, and of late Governments might be mentioned the Duke of Argyll and the Earl of Aberdeen, who had pointed out the great exertions which were required of one man, and the somewhat anomalous jurisdiction which he exercised. Lord Campbell had also pointed out evils arising from the present system. In 1853 the Lord Provost of Edinburgh showed, in the most conclusive manner, that not the same justice, so far as legislation was concerned, was granted to Scotland as to England, and he instanced the Acts passed for the extension of boundaries of boroughs. But, as an instance of hasty legislation, he (Mr. Baxter) would mention the more recent case of the Police Act and the Lunacy Act; for even hon. Members who were in favour of those measures would admit they were faulty in the extreme. But how was it the provisions of those Acts were not sufficiently well considered? and why would the House be called upon to amend them? Simply because the late Lord Advocate had not sufficient time to attend to
them while passing through that House. At the most critical period of the Session the late Lord Advocate was not present in the House for a fortnight, but was engaged during the whole of that time attending the trial at Edinburgh, of Miss Madeleine Smith, for murder. Both those Acts were passed through the House, as many other Acts had been passed, in an imperfect shape, simply because the Lord Advocate could not attend to his duties in connection with the legislation for Scotland. He also objected to the undue influence which the system gave the Parliament House interest—in other words, the lawyers of Edinburgh. The general sentiment of Scotland was against the present system, by which not
2124
only the legal but the whole civil and ecclesiastical patronage of Scotland was placed in the hands of practising lawyers. No man in the kingdom had so much power in that respect as the Lord Advocate, and it was impossible he could find time to exercise due discretion in the appointments which he made. At the Scotch bar, as well as elsewhere, there were many brief-less men, while in the article by Lord Cockburn, from which he lately quoted, it was calculated then—and things had not altered for the better since—that there were 374 names on the roll of Scotch advocates, that of these there were 150 who, from age, infirmity, or other causes, had renounced attendance in the law courts; that of the remaining 224 there were fifty-three who had entered under three years, and were, therefore, ineligible for most situations, leaving 171 barristers for whom there were seventy-eight offices, or nearly one for every second man. Another reason for the appointment of an Under Secretary for Scotland was that, in the event of the Lord Advocate failing to obtain a seat in Parliament, there was no one to take charge of Scotch legislation. That was no imaginary case; it happened under the Earl of Derby's last short Administration, and if that Government had continued in office, Scotland must have remained for that time without any legislation at all. The only other objection to his Motion he could think of related to expense, but if he had made out anything like a case, a salary of £1,500 a year for an Under Secretary ought not to be treated as an obstacle. He did not think that a Britiah House of Commons would allow a paltry pecuniary consideration to stand in the way of a measure which it believed was for the public good. But it was quite unnecessary to come to the public purse for an additional shilling. The Lord Advocate's secretary got £350 a year, and the Scotch solicitor to the Treasury, about whose duties something more ought to be known, £1,000 a year. He proposed to substitute for these an Under Secretary for Scotland, and he did so from the conviction that under such an arrangement the Scotch business would be far more efficiently done than it was at present. The appointment of the officer would be hailed as a boon by the people of Scotland of every opinion and every class.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That in the opinion of this House an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be ap-

2125
pointed to perform the political duties at present attached to the office of Lord Advocate."
MR. W. EWARTseconded the Motion. He was not one of those who took up the question of Scottish rights with so much ardour a few years ago and complained of the indignities done to Scotland. He wished to see the bonds of union between the two countries drawn closer and closer, and he believed that nothing would more tend to promote that object than the measure proposed by his hon. Friend. He did not see why England and Ireland should have so many functionaries for the discharge of the public business connected with those countries, and Scotland should only have the Lord Advocate. It was objected that the measure proposed would have a tendency to sever the union between the two countries, but the new Under Secretary of State would be subordinate to the Secretary of State, and there would be no new department, but a combined department acting harmoniously together. The change ho contended for was necessary, because the functions of the Lord Advocate were too numerous and weighty to be discharged by one person. It had been said by Sir Robert Walpole, or the Duke of Newcastle, that the once Secretary of State for Scotland was a public nuisance, but he (Mr. Ewart) hoped that public nuisance would be revived, and revived with effect. Legislation for Scotland must increase, and if it did, it was impossible the Lord Advocate, whose travels between the two countries under the present system were so erratic, could find time to give it due attention. For these reasons he cordially supported the Motion.
MR. E. BOUVERIEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had failed to prove that the political and other important duties of the Lord Advocate were inefficiently performed. He ought to have shown that that portion of the duties of the office which he wished to transfer to another person was either not performed at all or done very inadequately, and that therefore there was a loud call for the interference of the House; but he had not succeeded in doing so. He (Mr. Bouverie) bad sat in the House with four different Lords Advocate, and be must say, having as a Scotch Member taken much interest in Scotch questions, that the Legislative business of Scotland was performed in a way not inferior to that of England and Ireland. It would be a very inferior substitute for the
2126
learning, diligence, and ability brought to bear on the various questions connected with Scotland, to provide at hap-hazard some Member of that House who would be much less able to deal with those questions than the Lord Advocate invariably was. In fact by far the greater part of Scotch Legislation was of a legal character and could only be dealt with by a man of legal education, and further, while his hon. Friend wished an Under Secretary of State in that House, it appeared that he also expected the Lord Advocate to have a seat in the House, though one of his arguments was that his principal duties lay in Scotland. An objection had been raised to the present system upon the ground that Scotch business was shoved off until after twelve o'clock and then done unsatisfactorily; but he must dispute the correctness of that statement. He had heard the same remark from Irish Members as to Irish business, though there was an Irish Secretary and Attorney, and sometimes a Solicitor General in the House. The real fact was, that a great deal of the Scotch business was not of a nature to invite a full attendance, nor to excite an animated debate; but when any real matter of importance arose it was always discussed at an early hour of the evening. There was no injustice in that arrangement, for much of the business of Ireland, as of England was disposed of after twelve. The absence of the Lord Advocate from the House would be a most serious loss to the public and to Scotland, and a transference of his political functions to an Under Secretary of State would almost necessarily involve that consequence. The Lord Advocate was the law adviser of the Government, and the adviser as to the disposition of patronage. In fact, scarcely a particle of ordinary Scotch administrative business ever came to the Home Office. The greatest portion of the Scotch patronage administered by the Home Secretary consisted of legal appointments requiring the aid of a person who was well acquainted with the qualifications of those who should be appointed to the various Offices. That was a point upon which the Lord Advocate was an authority, and with which no Under Secretary, unless he were a Scotch lawyer, would be competent to deal. Then, with respect to circumstances, suddenly occurring, it was obvious that it would be more useful for the Home Secretary to consult the Lord Advocate, who was in constant communication with Scotland, and ac-

2127
quainted with the feelings and wishes of the people, then to refer to an Under Secretary constantly stationed in Whitehall. The proposal of the hon. Member for Montrose was to divide one well-filled office into two, and to intrust the most important functions to an officer who, in all probability, would be less fitted to fulfil them than the present Lord Advocate. Since he had been in the House he remembered many excellent measures passed by sucsessive Lord Advocates, which none but Scotch lawyers could have carried into law. Mr. M'Neill, the present Lord Justice General of Scotland, had passed the Scotch Poor Law Act—a measure of great importance to the country. The late Lord Rutherford passed an Act for altering the Scotch Law of entail, while the hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff) had carried important measures for regulating the procedure of Scottish Courts of law, and for consolidating the Scotch law of bankruptcy. While he admitted that many Scotch Members held a different opinion, he felt bound to say he did not think the proposal was one which would lead to the public benefit, and therefore he could not concur it it.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he would support the Motion, though its terms, taken by themselves, were somewhat unintelligible; and he hoped his hon. Friend would be induced to amend them. He was glad to learn that his hon. Friend did not propose to deprive the Lord Advocate of a seat in that House, though the Motion, strictly interpreted, would warrant that; for surely, to sit and vote in the House was one of the political functions of the whole of which his hon. Friend proposed to deprive that legal functionary. He thought the Motion would be more likely to meet with the general approval of the House if his hon. Friend would consent to alter the form by the substitution of the words, "That an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be appointed for the Home Office to perform a portion of the duties at present attached to the office of the Lord Advocate." The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, implied that the Lord Advocate and an Under Secretary, together, would be more inefficient than a Lord Advocate alone. It did not strike him that a strong man and a weak man, carrying a burden together, were less efficient than if the strong man were to carry the burden alone. On the contrary, there were many little jobs which the weak man
2128
might perform with advantage to the strong man. It had been also argued by the right hon. Gentleman, that an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, in order to be of any use, should be a Scotch lawyer. As well, in his opinion, might the right hon. Gentleman have argued that the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department should be an English lawyer. Experience, however, showed that it was not deemed necessary for the promotion of the public interests that such should be the case, for Lord Panmure, who was not a lawyer but a soldier, had, he believed, filled the office of Under Secretary of State for the Home Department with great credit to himself as well as with great advantage to the country. He therefore thought that neither the argument which he had just mentioned, nor the others which the right hon. Gentleman had urged against the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, ought to induce the House to reject it. He should support that proposition, because he was of opinion that the divided responsibility which at present existed in reference to the administration of the affairs of Scotland was incompatible with a due regard to the interests of that country. The relations between the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary were so ill-defined that—as every Scotch Member who had for any length of time held a seat in that House must be aware—it was impossible to know upon which of them the responsibility for the performance of a particular duty devolved. In illustration of his meaning he might refer to the question of patronage, and would confidently appeal to any Scotch representative to say, whether he knew how the important appointments in Scotland were made, whether by the Lord Advocate or by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the Home Secretary were appealed to, he would infallibly say that, before coming to a conclusion upon the matter, he must consult the Lord Advocate; and if the Lord Advocate were appealed to, he would say he was a subordinate, and was in the hands of the Home Secretary. It was, of course, but natural to suppose, that the opinion of such a man as the present Lord Advocate must have great weight in influencing the decision at which any Minister might in such a case arrive, but it was quite possible that the Home Secretary, who in the greater number of instances was not a Scotchman, might, instead of being guided by the advice of the Lord Advocate, con-

2129
suit some other Scotchman who happene to hold a higher position in the Govern, went, and who, under those circumstances would in reality be the Minister for Scotland. In support of his views upon the question of responsibility, he might be permitted to allude to an appointment which had been made in the Register House in Edinburgh, under the auspices of the late Government, which had been generally condemned, and which he felt assured any Under Secretary of State' who would be held responsible for his conduct, never would have made. The expression of public opinion in Edinburgh had been unanimous in condemning that appointment. He, of course, did not accuse the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) of being actuated by any but the best motives in the matter, but the result of making these appointments was, he believed, the perpetration of a job, which would have better suited the days of Dundas than those in which we live. As to the expense of making the proposed change, he could only say that it might be afforded by making retrenchments in other departments of the national outlay. There was for instance, more money expended in warming, lighting, and duly receiving his noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth in his position as Irish Secretary than would pay the whole salary of the officials whom his hon. Friend opposite asked the House to appoint, while Germany was absolutely studded with highly paid public servants whose occupation might, without any breach of charity, be said to correspond with that which a certain personage was supposed to find for idle hands to do, and portions of whose salaries might with advantage to the country be applied to the promotion of the object which his hon. Friend had in view. We had a Minister at Florence, too, whose salary of £5,000 or £6,000 per annum might very well be submitted to the process for that purpose. Everybody knew that that post was but a dignified position for invalid statesmen. Now as recent circumstances had shown it to be a had place for invalids, he thought that that saving might be readily accomplished. So that, so far as the question of expense was concerned, it might be very easily disposed of by the scheme of subtraction which he had just indicated. In conclusion, he had simply to observe that, although the duties which attached to his office might be performed in a mannor per-
2130
fectly satisfactory by a man possessing the great powers of the present Lord Advocate, yet a time might come when a person less competent to the discharge of those duties might hold that office, and when the proposed reform might be found to be absolutely necessary, while it could not be effected under the same favourable circumstances as those which at present existed. He should, for the reasons which he had stated, be happy to support the Motion of his hon. Friend if put in the form which he had suggested.
MR. E. ELLICE(St. Andrews) regretted that the late appointment of Mr. Dundas in the Register House at Edinburgh had been referred to in that debate, as it would hereafter come under the attention of the House when the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary would be in his place to state the grounds on which he made the appointment. As regarded the propriety of continuing the office in question he would say nothing; but he ventured to say, that if it were necessary to fill it up, there was no one in Scotland whose high character and great attainments so eminently qualified him for that particular office as the learned gentleman who had been appointed to it. Coming more particularly to the Motion before the House, he must say that he entertained a very strong opinion in opposition to it. He could understand the proposal to give to Scotland a Secretary of State as had been urged by the Society for the Vindication of Scottish Rights. He did not say that he should support such a proposition, because he viewed with great jealousy any attempt to transfer the administration of Scotland from Edinburgh to London; and he had a strong objection to the system of centralization to which our Government was now tending. But the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was, not that the proposed new officer should be a Member of the Cabinet or Secretary of State for Scotland, but to have a subordinate officer on whom the political duties of the Lord Advocate might devolve. If they were to have a Secretary of State or a Lord Advocate to manage the business, they had some security that the Crown would not appoint a person who was of no eminence; and, in either case, they would have a proper person to represent Scotch interests. But if they had an Under Secretary he could hardly be a person occupying a position sufficiently influential in that House. He thought the proposition would be used to degrade the

2131
office of the Lord Advocate, as it would hand over the chief part of his duties to a subordinate person, sitting in an office in London. To that he objected, as be thought it would be injurious to Scottish interests. He would say, let there be a Lord Advocate, or else a Secretary of State; but was opposed to the modified proposition. What, then, were to be the duties of the Under Secretary? If he was not a lawyer he could not conduct the legal business, and most of the Scotch business must be transacted by somebody
conversant with Scotch law. He hardly knew of any other business but that connected with patronage which the Under Secretary could do. There was a Lord of the Treasury, who attended to the Scotch financial business, and those who had filled the office, of late years at any rate, had satisfactorily attended to the business; and, for himself, he had always received great attention at the Treasury. At present, then, the business was in the hands of the Lord Advocate and a Lord of the Treasury, and he did not see what they were to gain by having an Under Secretary of State. If they chose to transfer the Scotch Lord of the Treasury to the Home Office, he (Mr. E. Ellice) had no objection, except that the official would have nothing to do to occupy his leisure hours, for his attention, as Lord of the Treasury, was not confined exclusively to Scottish matters. Indeed, his belief was, that the Motion would only end in giving to Scotland a gentleman who would have a great deal of spare time upon his hands, and who would constantly be trying to carve out business for himself, which would be a great evil. It was now complained that they legislated too much for Scotland, and that the public burdens invariably increased with legislation as it went on. He objected, therefore, to the appointment of a fancy man of all work who should be perpetually cutting out work for himself and inventing new legislation for Scotland. He was quite sure, however popular the idea of having an Under Secretary of State for Scotland might be, that if such an officer were appointed, before two years were over his head he would be, by universal acclamation in Scotland, condemned as a public nuisance.
SIR J. OGILVYsaid, he should confine his observations to that portion of the Motion which related to the appointment of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland. If he could believe that such appointment would prove acceptable to the people
2132
of Scotland he should be the last person to offer any objection; but he thought, on the contrary, that it would neither prove useful nor acceptable, and, therefore, he should give it his opposition. This was not a new question. It had at various times attracted the attention of the people of Scotland, and, in 1824, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Cockburn wrote in the Edinburgh Reveview a series of articles, which had been referred to. Since that time, however, the representation of Scotland, then so defective as to render it impossible to bring public opinion to bear on the Lord Advocate, had been greatly amended. It was no longer a farce and a sham, and Scotch Members now, to a certain extent, presented a true reflection of the wishes and feelings of the people of Scotland. Again, there now existed an able and independent press in Scotland, while the communications between the two countries had been vastly improved. Mr. Cockburn, in the course of his articles, suggested many alterations; but had he suggested the appointment of a Secretary of State or an Under Secretary of State for Scotland? On the contrary, he had expressed his belief that such an appointment would be infinitely worse than the existing arrangement, and that a Secretary of State was no more required for Scotland than it was for Yorkshire or Wales. He (Sir J. Ogilvy) was of opinion that the Under Secretary of State, when first appointed, would have little or nothing to do, but would, by and by, carve out work for himself in order to justify the payment of his salary. Now, if there was one thing to which the people of Scotland attached more importance than another, it was that they should be left to manage their own affairs in their own way. They objected strongly to the centralizing system which seemed to have been the fashion in the House of late years, and if any portion of his Parliamentary career had met with more favour than another it was that of last year, when he opposed the passing of the Police Bill for Scotland. That measure was based upon the principle of centralization; and the town which he represented was so averse to it that it had refused to take advantage of an inspection which it authorised, whereby the locality would have saved a share of its police rates. This was strong proof that the people of Scotland would view very unfavourably the attempt of any new official to occupy himself with matters which they would prefer

2133
should be left to them to manage. Feeling, therefore, that the appointment proposed would not only be of no use, but would prove unacceptable to the people of Scotland, and would lead gradually to an intolerable interference with their affairs, he should deem it his duty to oppose the Motion.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he did not attach much weight to the arguments which had been urged against the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, such, for instance, as the fears expressed by one hon. Member that the creation of a new office in connection with the executive Government of Scotland would have the effect of inducing the Minister to carve out work for himself, or the centralization argument which had been put forward by another hon. Member. Reference had been made to the poor law of Scotland in support of the past legislation under the existing system. Now, a more unfortunate reference could not have been made. That law had, at the same time, destroyed the prudent and provident habits of the labouring classes, and trebled the rates, and he felt convinced that it would be found, on inquiry, to have been one of the main causes of increased drunkenness in Scotland; and if no more successful instance of legislation for Scotland than that could be pointed to, the sooner the present system was changed the better for Scotland. He confessed that, after listening attentively to the views expressed by the adversaries of the Motion, he thought they tended to establish the necessity for the very change against which they had been expressed. Now, although he was willing to admit that Scotch business had been as well transacted under the present system as was possible under the circumstances, he contended that the learned Lord Advocate ought to be assisted in his labours, in order to afford him more time and leisure for devoting himself to Scotch business, which he was so well fitted to transact; and that it was necessary that when the noble and learned Lord was absent, either upon official or legal business, the Scotch Members should have some responsible person to whom they could apply for advice, and who could carry on the business of the House in relation to Scotch affairs. The change contemplated in his hon. Friend's Motion had the cordial support of the great bulk of the Scotch constituencies, by whom it was regarded as a matter of vital importance to the country. He had himself laid numerous peti
2134
tions upon the table in its favour. He trusted, therefore, that to obviate the verbal objections and criticisms which some hon. Members had expressed, his hon. Friend would assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), and that ha would divide the House upon a Motion to which he, for one, would give his cordial support.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he should not have interposed in this discussion if the object of the Motion had not been to take money out of the public taxes. The hon. Member who made it had failed to convince him of the necessity for the new official. England and Ireland had both a Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State for Great Britain was as much the Secretary of State for Scotland as lie was for England and Wales. But if the gentlemen of Scotland were not satisfied with the assistance they got from the Secretary of State for Great Britain, surely there was the Secretary of State for Ireland open to them. A right hon. Gentleman who had filled that office had told them that the work of the office did not require more than two hours a day; well, then, could not that official fill up his time—say six hours a day—by devoting two to Ireland and four to Scotland? However, he saw no necessity whatever for this new office, and he warned the House that if it consented to its creation, there would very soon be a cry raised that the remuneration should be placed on a level with that of the other two Secretaries of State.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, no doubt the measure proposed to the House had emanated from a desire to relieve the Lord Advocate from some of the more laborious duties of his office, but before he could consistently accept it as a boon, he must be satisfied of two or three things. In the first place, it must be proved that the office was too laborious; in the second, that the measure proposed would relieve the holder of it of any portion of those laborious duties he at present performed; and thirdly, that that specific portion of his duties proposed to be transferred to the new officer would be performed as well as under the existing system, Now, he (the hon. Gentleman) was sorry to say that he could not see his way to assent to any one of these propositions. Far be it from him to say, for it would be perfectly inconsistent with the fact, that the office he had then the honour to fill was not a very laborious office, requiring a great deal of time and

2135
attention, and involving a great deal of anxiety. But he was by no means satisfied, that because the office was laborious, even eminently laborious, it followed as a necessary consequence that it was desirable to diminish the amount of its duties. He was not entitled to speak as a person of experience in public life, but in one way or other he had seen a good deal of hard work in his time, and had formed a very decided opinion, that if you want a man to do his work well you must give him plenty of it to do. It was just because they were going to diminish, or to attempt, rather, to diminish, unnecessarily, the labours of the existing office, and at the same time to create a new office, which would not have, he would not say, ample employment, but anything like employment at all, that he objected to both branches of the proposal. The duties of the office of Lord Advocate were not easily explained in detail, without detaining the House for a longer space of time than was desirable; but there was a peculiar feature of the office that distinguished it from all others, and which gave it a remarkable prominence in the business affairs of Scotland which some hon. Members did not appear well to understand. This distinction arose chiefly from his peculiar duties as a public prosecutor. The office of public prosecutor was an institution that did not exist either in England or in Ireland, and consequently they might not at first sight fully appreciate the precise effects of such an institution, and the value of such a public functionary. He might state, however, that in order to carry out the duties of that part of his office, it was indispensable that the Lord Advocate should have an extensive staff of subordinates throughout the country, by means of whom he could carry on the whole public prosecutions for crime, whether they were great or small. The consequence was, there was in existence throughout Scotland, not merely at headquarters in Edinburgh, but in every place of any importance, an organized machinery, by means of which the Lord Advocate could put himself in communication with every part of the country at the shortest possible notice, and obtain the most accurate information from the most available sources. Now, the existence of this machinery did in itself give him peculiar facilities for the performance of public business, which he apprehended could scarcely belong to any other office that might be created, and the consequence was,
2136
that in transacting those duties which the hon. Member for Montrose designated the political duties of his office, he called into requisition nothing more than the staff and machinery which was in existence for the purpose of conducting the public criminal procedure of the kingdom. This was a source of great convenience and economy in itself, and, at the same time, the performance of the one class of duties did not, in the least degree, interfere with the performance of another class by the same officials. Then the Lord Advocate was responsible, he would not say directly to Parliament, but he was responsible to the Home Office, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in his turn responsible to Parliament for the preservation of the public peace in Scotland. These were the two main features of his office as public prosecutor, in addition to his duties as legal adviser to the Crown, and beyond these three departments he (the Lord Advocate) knew of no other that fell within the scope of his office and authority, except those of legislation and patronage. He thought hon. Members would agree with him that he fairly stated the duties of this functionary's office when he defined and embraced them under these denominations. He supposed his hon. Friends who supported the proposition would agree with him that it was perfectly impossible for an Under Secretary of State to relieve the Lord Advocate of any portion of his duties as public prosecutor, or as being responsible for the peace of Scotland, or as law adviser to the Crown, and consequently it must be in the other two departments that it was proposed to relieve the Lord Advocate of a portion of his duties, and to have them performed by somebody else. But by what means was this to be done. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) proposed that there should be an Under Secretary of State for Scotland to perform the political duties of his office; and his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Stirling) not satisfied with that, proposed to have an Under Secretary of State for Scotland in the Home Office, to perform the Lord Advocate's duties in connection with that department. He (the Lord Advocate) did not think there was any great difference between the two, because he did not suppose that the hon. Member for Montrose, in suggesting the appointment of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, meant that he should be unattached to any great department, or that he should sit as an independent officer

2137
in some tribunal or department of his own, and if that was not so he must mean that he should be an Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, as regarded the administration of the Home Department with reference to the affairs of Scotland, so far as his experience went, he might say with perfect confidence and safety that he had not, since he came into office, had one communication on the affairs of Scotland from the Home Office, addressed to him by the Under Secretary of State for that department, which would not have been required equally to come to him if there had been a Scotch Under Secretary of State, and for this plain reason, because the correspondence between the Home Office and the Lord Advocate consisted of two classes of communications. One class required explanation with regard to the legal system of Scotland, and to its administration in its different departments; and the other had reference to the procuring returns, and things of that kind, which, after all, were mere matters of machinery and routine, and which were effected through a staff which he had already described as being under the command of the Lord Advocate himself. So far, then, as the ordinary business transactions in the Dome Department affecting Scotland were concerned it came to this, that if they were to appoint an Under Secretary in the Home Department, who should henceforth pass under the name of the Scottish Under Secretary of the Home Department, it would not, in the first place, relieve the Lord Advocate of any portion of his duties whatever; and, in the second place, it would not ensure the performance of those duties at the Home Office one whit better than before. He should be glad to see any of his hon. Friends who represented a Scotch constituency in the honourable position of Under Secretary of State for Scotland, but as regarded that part of the business that came from the Home Office, it did not in the least degree matter as regarded the efficiency of the way in which it was performed, whether it came from the hands of an Under Secretary of State, who was a Scotchman and understood Scotch affairs, or from the hands of any Under Secretary of State who might he there for the time duly qualified for the performance of the general duties of his office. But then it was said, that in regard to Scottish legislation there was much need of some ancillary assistance; that there was a great want of some one in the Government to take
2138
charge of Scottish Bills in that House; so that they might be advanced at a more rapid rate, and so that hon. Members interested in the discussion of those measures might not be driven into the midnight hours which were so justly and generally deprecated and objected to for the commencement of important debates. He (she Lord Advocate) could have wished that the hon. Member fur Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had explained by what means he intended to arm the Under Secretary of State with powers and facilities in that House for the introduction and discussion of Scottish legislative measures, so as to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whoever might be the leader of the House for the time being, to give him larger scope and convenience for bringing forward his Bills. How, he wished to know, were these midnight hours to be avoided? in what way were Bills to be expedited at a more rapid rate in consequence of the presence of this additional functionary who was to use his influence, in addition to that of the Lord Advocate, in accelerating the ratio of the progress of Scottish business? The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the absence of the Lord Advocate from the legislative duties of his office, occasioned by his professional duties in connection with the administration of the law. He (the Lord Advocate) laid no claim on the House for his own services in this respect; but it was within the knowledge of all present that Ins predecessor the hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff) was most punctual in his attendance on his duties, and he could not help thinking that a most extraordinary complaint was brought against him in reference to a single unexampled and unprecedented case of national importance and public interest, and having a bearing on the due administration of justice in Scotland that could not be exaggerated or overrated—that for the conduct of such a ease it should be deemed unreasonable or improper that he should desert his Parliamentary duties for one week. This appeared to him to be an extraordinary complaint to bring against his hon. Friend. It had been further argued in illustration of the unsatisfactory way in which Scottish legislation, even with respect to important subjects, was carried on, that the Lunacy Bill of last Session had been framed in a most imperfect way, and that, although it had passed the Legislature, it had since been found that it wanted mending here and there. Now, was that occasioned by the absence of the Lord Advocate? Was

2139
that hurried and inconsiderate legislation to be ascribed to him? He thought not. Was it not rather the result of a Resolution of that House, urging on the then Lord Advocate to bring in a Bill on this subject at a period of the Session when it was impossible to do it adequate justice? The House having determined that there should be legislation on the subject before Parliament was prorogued, his predecessor, the Lord Advocate, had endeavoured to grapple with the subject, and did so with some success, considering the time at his disposal, although the measure was marred by mistakes that required subsequent legislative rectification. It was a mistake to suppose that Scotch measures were hurried, postponed, or spoilt, by reason of the absence of the Lord Advocate. It was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding, so far as he had had an opportunity of observing. He did not think it could be said that Scotch legislation suffered more from this cause, or from delay in that House, than Irish, although there was a Chief Secretary for Ireland in existence. His noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth could bear him out in this; and if the existence of a Chief Secretary for Ireland did not prevent or diminish the misfortunes attending Irish legislation, it could hardly be expected that the appointment of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland would produce much improvement in the conduct of Scottish business in that House. In conclusion, he really thought that if this officer were appointed in connection with the Home Department, with his time to be devoted entirely to transaction of Scottish business, he really would not know what to do with his time. He (the Lord Advocate) felt bound to say so, because from the knowledge he had acquired of the duties of his office, he should be much puzzled to know what he could give him to do if he were placed under his (the Lord Advocate's) own and sole control. The fact was that the great preponderance of the subjects for legislation in Scotland were so much mixed up with the peculiarities of Scotch law, that although they might first send them to the Under Secretary of State, they would have, in the end, to revert to the Lord Advocate's department. If there were numerous Bills to be introduced of a nature affecting the people of Scotland, which did not partake of the nature of law reform, and were unconnected with the legal institutions of Scotland, he could
2140
better understand the proposition; but when, as during last Session, and as was generally the case, the Bills connected with Scotland were nearly all of a legal character, or closely connected with law, the case was altogether different, and what was chiefly required was the skill and experience of a practical lawyer, He had heard with pain some of the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, when he was adverting to a period in Scottish history when there existed a great many unnecessary offices, particularly connected with the law. He drew a striking picture of the state of things as they existed in 1824, and added that he supposed that they were much the same now; but his hon. Friend must have been totally ignorant of the history of Scotch legislation, not to know that the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Admiralty, and the Consistorial Court had since then been abolished, together with various other offices too tedious to enumerate, but by the abolition of which a vast saving had been effected to the country; and he (the Lord Advocate) would venture to say that there was not a man in any judicial office in Scotland, or connected with the courts in Scotland, that was not doing fair work for the pay that he received. He could not help feeling the greatest regret that there should be in the mind of hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies any desire to excite any jealousy with respect to that profession to which he belonged. He had thought, on the contrary, that Scotchmen had always been proud of the legal profession of their own country on account of its great reputation and illustrious achievements in times past. He thought his hon. Friend would not, on reflection, feel disposed to grudge to the members of the bar of Scotland the only distinguished legal and political prize that connected the Scottish bar with public life in England. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was no mean or sordid motive, no mere love of place, but only an honest and noble ambition that ever led any member of the Scotch bar to accept that office. The mere gilded bait of power and patronage would be no inducement to forego personal comfort, and to suffer great pecuniary loss, which was the inevitable consequence of undertaking the office of Lord Advocate. To induce any one to make such a sacrifice, he must be animated by the desire to serve his country, and the hope of having some claim upon its gratitude.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, it was re-

2141
freshing to hear once more the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), in his place in that House, raising his voice in favour of economy, because it had been his (Lord Duncan's) fortune of late to sit there night after night, whilst grants of public money were made for metropolitan parks and bridges, and the hon. Member never broke silence upon the subject. The vote which the hon. Member proposed to give upon the present question, however, was not to be justified on the score of economy; and he believed that if so small a sum as £1,500 a year were absolutely necessary to create the office of Under Secretary of State for Scotland, few English Members would be found to vote against it. But he did not understand the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) to say that £1,500 a year additional should be granted for an Under Secretary of State; on the contrary, his hon. Friend proposed to abolish other offices connected with Scotland, and to apply the salaries appropriated to them to the new office he desired to create. Among these offices which his hon. Friend would abolish was the one he (Lord Duncan) had recently occupied—that of Scotch Lord of the Treasury—but it was not from any particular liking for his late office that he was new induced to come forward and oppose the Motion. His hon. Friend asked the House to say that in their opinion an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be appointed to perform the political duties at present attaching to the office of Lord Advocate; but he (Lord Duncan), would ask the House whether the duties of Lord Advocate had been adequately or inadequately performed; and when he remembered that the office had been filled by such men as Jeffreys, Murray, M'Neill, and a long succession of other distinguished men, he thought there was not the shadow of a pretence for saying that those duties had not been adequately performed. With regard to the conduct of Scotch business in that House, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member that it had not always been brought forward at the most convenient periods possible. True, it was almost impossible at certain periods of the Session, with every disposition on the part of a Government to give them facilities for Scottish Members to bring forward their Bills; and for that disease he was afraid there was no cure, except that the hon. Gentlemen interested in Scottish questions should occasionally sit up a little later than usual. For it could not be expected that great and important measures of Imperial
2142
interest should give way on all occasions to Scotch or Irish questions. Still he thought superfluous legislation not only useless, but injudicious. A friend of his one day asked him if he thought that there would be any more legislation for Scotland that Session, and on being answered in the negative, his friend rejoined, "Thank God, then there will be no further increase of rates and taxes in Scotland this year." Thus it did unfortunately happen that legislation for Scotland was generally accompanied with an additional burden in the shape of rates or taxes. At the same time some measures of legislation were occasionally absolutely necessary, and as allusion had been made to the late Lord Advocate in a way that might cause pain to that learned Gentleman he appealed to the House whether the Member for Leith, while occupying the office of Lord Advocate, had not sacrificed a large portion of his time, and considerable emoluments, in order to do his duty to his country? During the late Lord Advocate's tenure of office many useful measures of legislation were carried, and the Scotch had reason to be proud of the reputation he gained in that House. He might instance the Bill for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, and the Lunacy Bill especially, and any proposal therefore that would tend to deprive the House of his services, or of the services of the present Lord Advocate, he should feel it his duty to oppose. Still there was no use disguising the fact that there was a feeling on this subject in Scotland. This feeling probably came from the anomalous position of the Scotch Lord of the Treasury in the House. Still he thought it was of importance that that office should exist. If the duties of that office were a little better defined it would remove a good deal of the feeling to which he had alluded.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, as I filled fur sonic little time the office of Home Secretary, and therefore have some practical knowledge of the connection between the Lord Advocate and the Home Department, I think it right to state that I cannot concur in the Motion of my hon. Friend. I must also bear my testimony in favour of the reasons which have been assigned against the Motion, and more especially in the very able and clear statement of the present Lord Advocate. I do not object to this proposition simply because it creates a new office, and entails additional expense,— I say additional expense because I cannot agree that, if it is desirable to create a new office we should go foraging among

2143
the different departments of the State in order to find out some retrenchment that would be equivalent to the extra outlay. If any unnecessary offices exist let them be abolished, and the country will have the benefit of the saving. But do not abolish existing offices that are not unnecessary merely to provide for the cost of a new office, which I also humbly submit would in itself be very inexpedient. My hon. Friend, to judge from the language of his Resolution, has taken an erroneous view of this matter, and a proposal to appoint an Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, to undertake the political duties of the Lord Advocate of itself shows an imperfect knowledge of the relative positions of an Under Secretary of State on the one hand and the Lord Advocate on the other. The learned Lord has himself given a most lucid explanation of the duties he had to perform, and if those duties are at all to be transferred to any other Minister, that transfer ought to be to some Minister who is primarily responsible as the head of his department. Moreover, the functions discharged by the Lord Advocate in this House are legislative, not political in their nature; at least his only political duty is to vote with his party, and certainly that duty might be
shared by an Under Secretary of State. But his principal functions are to frame and assist in passing Bills connected with Scotland. The Lord Advocate, as the highest authority in this House on Scotch law, must be the person chiefly consulted on such questions just as the Attorney General for England and Ireland are the principal authorities on legislation relating to the laws of those two countries. You may create an additional Under Secretary for the Home Department, but he could not take the place of the Lord Advocate in the framing and passing of Bills with respect to Scotland. The proposal before us, then, comes to this, that the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, who is responsible for everything appertaining to the administration of the affairs of Scotland which is not of a local character,
instead of advising with the Lord Advocate, as he now does, should advise with his own Under Secretary. That, surely, would not be a wise arrangement, because the matters on which the Secretary of State would be guided by the opinion of the Lord Advocate are matters connected with the interpretation of Scotch law; and it is obvious that he could not attach the same value to the opinions of his own Under Secretary on
2144
such questions as he would to those of the man who is usually chosen for his eminence in the legal profession. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Lord Advocate is the ruler of Scotland in regard to patronage and appointments of all kinds. Now, it has been a matter of reproach in the early part of the debate that the Secretary of State does not often allow himself to be guided by the recommendations of the Lord Advocate, but goes in search of other advice. The fact is, that when any question arises as to an appointment in Scotland, in regard to which the opinion of a great legal authority would be useful, the Secretary of State consults the Lord Advocate, and any other persons whom he thinks competent to give him their advice; and after a careful comparison of the different opinions which are before him, he takes the course which as the Minister who is responsible for what is ultimately done, he believes it to be his duty to adopt. Responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State, and that responsibility cannot be transferred to an Under Secretary. A great deal of Scotch business never goes through the hands of the Lord Advocate at all, The business of the Home Office with regard to Scotland is of the same nature as that connected with England, and the Home Secretary decides with regard to it upon the same principles as he applies to English business of the same character. If a question arises which requires the interpretation of the peculiarities of Scotch law he appeals to the Lord Advocate, just as in a similar case in regard to English business he would appeal to the Attorney General, or any other high legal authority. The Lord Advocate, I beg the House to understand, is only consulted by the Home Secretary, and has no greater authority than the individual at the time filling that office is disposed to attribute to his authority and opinion. That would not be altered by the appointment of an Under Secretary, who would find it very difficult to discover occupation to fill up his days, and whose office would be so nearly a sinecure that it would soon attract the observation and censure of Parliament. You have already in the Home Secretary an officer directly responsible for every act of the Crown with regard to the administration of affairs in Scotland, and for every appointment made by the Crown in that country. If that Secretary of State is in the other House of Parliament, he is
represented in this by an Under Secretary, who is quite sufficient

2145
for the performance of all the duties of the office, and you would gain nothing by the appointment of an additional Under Secretary. My hon. Friend suggested that you should abolish the Scotch Lord of the Treasury, and transfer his duties to the Under Secretary of State; but that would be impossible, because you cannot transfer to the Home Office business which must be transacted at the Treasury. Certainly you might say that the English and Irish Lords of the Treasury shall decide on Scotch business, but you could not transfer the business of one department to another. It is said that the Scotch business is thrown over to the small hours of the morning. That is a complaint which we hear quite as much from Irish and English Members, and arises from the precedence necessarily given to important public business over matters which are not of great Imperial importance. The only remedy for such complaints would be, that the Session should be prolonged, and that a month should be devoted exclusively to Scotch business, a month to Irish, and a month to the Bills of English private Members. Then there would be no complaints except on the part of those who were detained against their inclinations by business in which they had no concern. Probably, indeed, those only would stay who were directly interested, and business would go on very smoothly and with great unanimity. I must, however, do the Scotch Members the justice to say, that they carry their business through Parliament in a manner which deserves the imitation of other Members. When a Scotch Bill comes before us which creates a difference of opinion they meet and discuss it freely and fully out of this House; and it usually happens that they come to some sort of agreement, and when the Bill comes to be discussed in this House the debate is not long, and the decision is generally in accordance with the opinions of the majority of Scotch Members. I think that that course of proceeding is not only attended with convenience to themselves, but is advantageous to the country which they represent, and of this I am quite sure, that the appointment of no number of Under Secretaries would facilitate the passing of Scotch or other measures through Parliament. Bills of importance, whether Scotch, Irish, or English, will have precedence, and those of minor importance, to whichever part of the United Kingdom
2146
they relate, must be thrown to a later hour. I think that the wording of the Motion implies a state of things which does not exist, and that its effect would not be that which my hon. Friend proposes, inasmuch as you could not by the appointment of an additional Under Secretary create a responsible officer. He must be subordinate to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is now fully responsible for all that is done in the name and by the authority of the Crown in Scotland.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that although his feeling as a member of the Scotch bar would lead him to support, as far as possible, almost the only high office which was open to Scotch lawyers, his experience since he came into Parliament had convinced him that the business of the country required that the change now proposed should be made. He did not seek to shear the office of the Lord Advocate of any one attribute that really belonged to it; but he was satisfied that the duties were so varied and so important as well to bear the curtailment proposed, and leave sufficient to satisfy the ambition of the Lord Advocate. No blame in respect of the conduct of Scotch business was due to recent Lord Advocates, whose assiduity and ability could not be denied. But it should be remembered that in addition to their public duties Lord Advocates had their own private business to attend to; and although, no doubt, they made great personal sacrifices, in order to attend to their public duties, yet there was a limit to such sacrifices, and it was necessary that they should retain their hold in their private business, in order to secure them against the casualties attendant on a change of Ministry. One method of obviating the difficulty would be to introduce Scotch Bills a little earlier in the Session. English Bills relating to English police and English Universities were brought in early in the Session; but why should Scotch Bills always be brought in by the Lord Advocate at a period of the Session when they could not be carried through? With all the advantages of transacting business for which the noble Lord had so handsomely given credit to Scotch Members, this was a great drawback. They did not seek to withdraw from the Lord Advocate any part of the business which was essential to his office; but a great share of business came to the Lord Advocate which did not pertain to him in

2147
his legal character, but only as the representative of the Crown. They had no desire for a separate establishment for Scotland to supersede the Home Secretary, but they only wished that a proper officer should be appointed in the Imperial Government for the purpose of administering the affairs of Scotland.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there is one point to be noticed before the House divides. It has been urged that opposition to this Motion may arise from a feeling of economy. I understand that this Motion concerns the administration of Scotland, and I cannot suppose for a moment that the House would entertain the question of economy with regard to a Motion of such paramount importance, or that they would think that a question of £1,500 or £15,000 a year ought to be allowed to enter into their consideration when they have to decide upon the good or bad administration of a considerable portion of Her Majesty's dominions. What we have to consider is this—whether the present mode by which the administration of Scotland is carried on, especially in this House, is wanting in responsibility or efficiency. With regard to responsibility I have not heard that any act can be pointed out in which there has been a difficulty in tracing to the proper officer the responsibility which the spirit, if not the form, of the constitution imposes, and I think all will agree that if anything occurred in the administration of Scotland which demanded the notice of Parliament immediately, means would be found of answering the critical inquiry which-might be addressed to the Administration of the day. Is it then inefficient? I have had some experience in this House, and I must say my experience leads me to this conviction, that of all public offices none have been sustained during the last twenty years with such continuous ability and sound intelligence as the office of Lord Advocate of Scotland. I do not remember the period in which it has been filled by a man of inferior ability, or in which the service of the State, so far as that office is concerned, has not been efficiently conducted. I do not remember a period in which it
has not been represented in all its attributes by men entitled to respect and often to admiration. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) in noticing three of the predecessors of the learned Lord near me, mentioned the remarkable legislative feats which they have
2148
accomplished. One introduced the Poor Law into Scotland, which was once thought an impossible event; another reformed Scotch entails—a system of law which acted very injuriously on that country, but which it was denied could ever be dealt with. The late Lord Advocate improved the law of lunacy, and the learned Lord who now fills the office, during the brief period he has occupied a seat in this House, has introduced an important measure with regard to the Universities of Scotland which must tend very much to elevate those institutions. That is a complete answer to the objection made respecting midnight legislation, and I think that, upon reflection, those who made it must feel they have no ground whatever for that charge. It is said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, that if the Administration of Scotland were represented in another manner good Bills might be introduced the moment Parliament meets. The same thing is said of every branch of Her Majesty's service in this House, but the reason that good Bills are not prepared in good time is that we find every department, whether under a Secretary of State or a Lord Advocate, or an Under Secretary of State, very much in the same condition. The labours of this House are so heavy and so continued, the period of relaxation is generally so limited, that one is not inclined the moment Parliament terminates immediately to commence preparations for the coming Session, and when the Session arrives the public departments are not so prepared as, theoretically, they ought to be, but, practically, they never will be. That legislation upon subjects not of paramount importance is brought on at midnight, or after midnight, is a necessary consequence of the manner in which the public business of this country is conducted, and I do not think the Scotch Members have any peculiar cause of complaint in that respect more than the English or the Irish Members. I believe an hon. Member, who was a staunch supporter of the Government, and who was endeared to me by every sympathy, has lately withdrawn his confidence from Her Majesty's Government, because I allowed the Public Health Bill to be brought on at so late an hour of the night. After all, what is the matter before us? The hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke complains that functions of great importance which used to be filled by the Secretary of State for Scotland are not ful-

2149
filled now by the Lord Advocate. But what is the reason? It is because for many years it has been considered a great advance and improvement to endeavour to assimilate the legislation of the two countries, and to make Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department a Secretary of State for Scotland as well as for England. That is a matter which has always been considered one worthy of public praise and approbation. We have had great complaints of late of maintaining the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and Motions have been brought forward, the tendency and, in some instances, the avowed object of which has been to make the Secretary of State for the Home Department Secretary of State for Ireland. It is proposed to pursue a course with regard to Scotland exactly the reverse of that which is recommended for Ireland. The tendency of the present Motion is to bring us back to a state of provincial administration. With respect to Scotland and Ireland there is no doubt a great difference. The population of Ireland is much larger. The union between England and Ireland is of more recent date. There is greater variety of contrast in the habits and customs of England and Ireland than in those of England and Scotland. There is a considerable difference in geographical connection, and many reasons which make us view with considerable scruple any proposition which should terminate the existing machinery by which the administration of Ireland is conducted. But, so far as England and Scotland are concerned, we have now for a long series of years been assimilating the administration of the two countries, and I have always thought until to-night that it was rather a mark of advance to have that administration placed under the same high officer of State. The only exception on the part of Scotland to this view is, that Scotland has one peculiarity which redounds to its honour, that notwithstanding all changes, social and political, it has preserved its own law and a body representing that law, which is celebrated throughout the world for its eloquence and ability. Under those circumstances I am surprised that Scotch Members should come forward, and, as it seems to me, level a blow against that profession of which they taught to be proud; against that national system of jurisprudence which ought always to be deemed an ornament of their country. I should have thought they would have been
2150
proud that at this moment the administration of Scotland is conducted by the most eminent lawyer they possess, rather than by a subordinate political officer. But I think the great objection to this Motion is, that we have really had no evidence whatever placed before us that the people of Scotland have suffered in any degree from the system which exists, or that they have offered any probable means by which the administration of that country can be improved. As far as I can form an opinion it seems to me that with regard to administration Scotland is that part of Her Majesty's dominions which has the least cause of complaint, and I cannot but feel that we shall be deteriorating and lessening the position of Scotland if we follow the policy and principles which have been suggested and advocated by the hon. Member for Montrose, and the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us.
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he would merely express a hope that the Government would appoint a Scotch Lord of the Treasury.
MR. BAXTERreplied, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was great dissatisfaction in Scotland with the manner in which Scotch business was conducted, and he also called his attention to the fact that no Scotch Lord of the Treasury had been appointed by the present Government. He willingly accepted the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), and would withdraw his Resolution, in order that it might be put in the amended form to the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That, in the opinion of this House an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be appointed in the Home Office to perform the political duties at present attached to the office of Lord Advocate."
The House divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 174: Majority, 127.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the subject of the provision now made for the religious wants of Roman Catholic soldiers, but after the statement of the gallant General at the head of the War Department, he should not press his Motion, believing that the manner in which the subject had been dealt with was most creditable to the Government.
POLICE FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD NAAS, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to make better provision for the police force in Dublin and other towns in Ireland, said that there had been for a considerable number of years a police force existing in many of the towns in Ireland. The present force in Dublin dated from the year 1836, when the metropolitan district was enlarged, and the police of Dublin, which until then had been a municipal force, under the control of the corporation, and paid out of the corporate funds, was placed under the immediate control of the Lord Lieutenant, and a considerable part of the expense was charged on the Consolidated Fund. The present force in Dublin amounted, including officers and men, to 1025; and the cost, including the salaries of the stipendiary magistrates and of the Recorder, was £77,000 per annum, a moiety of this being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He thought it only due to the force to say that he believed that, on the whole, it was a fine and well-trained body of men. But one principal objection to the force was its great number and expense. The population of Dublin metropolitan police district amounted to about 300,000 persons; but although the district was large the duties of the police force were not heavy. On making a comparison between the police force of Dublin and that of the large commercial towns in England, he found that while in Manchester there was only one constable to 520 inhabitants; in Liverpool, one to 328; in Birmingham, one to 648; in Bristol, one to 457; and in the metropolitan police district, one to 384; the proportion in the Dublin metropolitan district, was one constable to 272 inhabitants. The fact that there was this larger proportion of police to inhabitants in Dublin than in the large towns of England was in itself sufficient to show that the system required alteration. The Dublin force was more expensive than need be, because it was an isolated force, and it was therefore necessary to keep up a reserve in addition to the men required for duty on beat, in order to meet extraordinary circumstances. Great inconvenience also arose from the necessity of issuing concurrent warrants to the Dublin force and to the general constabulary of the country in cases where it was uncertain whether they might have to be served in the metropolitan district or in the adjoining county. The late Lord Lieu-
  2152
  tenant, he might observe, had expressed his intention of dealing with this subject had he continued in office. The Belfast force differed from that of Dublin, inasmuch as it was a purely local and municipal force, under the direction of the corporation. In that case also, there was the same objection to the force, that its duties were performed in Belfast concurrently with a large body of the general constabulary, and this led to continual misapprehensions as to their duty on the part of the two forces. The consequence of this had been that a fixed number—sixty—of the general constabulary had been quartered in Belfast; sixty more were quartered there in consequence of the riots of last year; and a considerable additional force had been sent there after the recent events. The local force now consisted of fifty-five men, a superintendent, and five inspectors, for day duty; and 104 men for night duty; and the total annual cost was £5,700. The Commissioners who inquired into the riots at Belfast last year had commented upon the inefficient way in which the police were armed (they had only a walking-stick), and had recommended that there should be a total change in the management and appointment of the force. Both the Belfast and Dublin police forces were open to the grave objection of containing an undue proportion of men of the same religion, which was particularly objectionable in a country like Ireland, where the population was divided between two religions, because it gave a sectarian character to the force, which it was most desirable to avoid. In the Dublin police force there were, for instance, only fifty Protestants, while there were not more than six or seven Catholics in the Belfast force. These facts would show the necessity of some change. The greater portion of the cost of the general constabulary of the country, which amounted to 12,000 men, was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. A redistribution of that force had been made by an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament. It had been divided amongst the several counties of Ireland, and a Parliamentary quota had been fixed for seven great towns. Ten other towns, under the Municipal Act, the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108, had the power to call for a force of constabulary, provided that they paid a moiety of the cost. But then there was a third class of towns, which came under the "Towns Improvement Act" of last Session, which were subject to a totally dif-

  2153
  erent regulation. They had to pay the whole cost of the constabulary allotted to them. But as the Act to which he had referred had repealed the 9th Geo. IV., they had no power to levy a watch rate, and they had, therefore, no means of meeting the expense of the police they might require. These defects of the police system, as regarded the towns in Ireland, were so great, that it seemed to the Government to be expedient that some remedy for them should be provided. A reorganization of the local force in Dublin and Belfast might with that view have been proposed, but, looking to all the bearings of the question and keeping in mind the difficulties which such a reorganization would involve, the Government had deemed it their duty entirely to abolish these local forces, and, amalgamating them with the general constabulary, to place by that means the whole police force of the country upon the same footing. They had the less hesitation in adopting that plan as the constabulary force of Ireland had for many years performed its duties with admirable efficiency and with great advantage to the country. He was, therefore, of opinion that no danger could arise from the establishment of that force in the towns as well as in the country districts. Following the principle of the Act which had. been passed last year, it was proposed that the Parliamentary quota for Dublin should be 400 men, and that for Belfast 100 men, it being provided in the case of Dublin that the number of men should be as nearly as possible that of the present metropolitan police force, so that no extra charge would in consequence of the proposed change be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. In addition to the quota which he had just mentioned, it was proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power in the case of the two towns of Dublin and Belfast of fixing such an increased force as he might deem necessary; one half of the cost of maintaining that force being charged upon the towns themselves and the remitting half upon the Consolidated Fund. By that means they would be placing the whole of the police force throughout Ireland upon a uniform footing, while increased efficacy would he secured. The Chief Commissioners of the Dublin force were at present paid out of the Consolidated Fund; and the Government proposed that they should retire on that full allowance, to which they were indeed entitled by the length of their services,
  2154
  while the other officers should be dealt with as the Lord Lieutenant might think proper. But as under that scheme the charge on the local rates would be diminished, it was intended that any compensation or allowances that might be made to those officers should fall on those rates. The Dublin force now consisted altogether—commissioners, inspectors, and other officers and constables—of 1,030 men, and the force that would replace it would consist of 650 men. The expense of the present force was, exclusive of the police courts, £65,550; and that of the new force would be about £50,000 a year when the whole thing came into operation, which could not be immediately, but would take four or five years. The revenue now derived from the police courts for fees, &c., was something like £13,500 a year, from the police rate £11,000 a year, and the Parliament grant £36,000. When the plan came into full operation there would be a considerable reduction in the local rates of Dublin. It was also proposed that the offices of the divisional magistrates in Dublin should be reduced from three to two, and that the number of divisional magistrates should be reduced from seven to five. In Belfast the quota was fixed at 100, and every member of the old force would be, as in Dublin, admitted to the constabulary if they were fit for service. The cost of the present local force in Belfast was £5,700 a year, and the cost of the new force would be about £3,800. The small towns throughout Ireland would be allowed an extra constabulary force wherever the inhabitants might think such a force was required on the condition that they should defray one half of the charge which would thus be created, while the other half would be fixed on the Consolidated Fund. In these small towns the constabulary would be required to parade the streets in the same way in which the streets of Dublin were paraded by the metropolitan force, and he believed that such an arrangement would give much satisfaction to the quiet and orderly inhabitants. He had detailed the principal provisions of the plan he had to submit to the consideration of the House. It had been most carefully prepared, a d he confidently believed that it would be found calculated to remove the evils of the existing system, and to produce much good in Ireland. It gave to every town in Ireland an efficient police force; it diminished in some cases the local rates, and it did not add a sixpence to the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. The noble

  2155
  Lord concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he did not mean to offer any opposition to the Motion for the introduction of the Bill; but he could not help observing that the 15th of June was an advanced period of the Session to bring forward a measure of so much importance. Without expressing any decided opinion upon the measure, he could not forget that they had had in Dublin for many years a most admirable force framed upon the basis of the London police, and that during the time it had been in existence there had been a remarkable absence of great and minute crimes in that city. It was true the police were most of them of one religion, which was a disadvantage which Colonel Brown had endeavoured to avert, by enlisting a greater number of Protestants in the force, but he was unable to procure them. He also entertained very serious doubts whether the discipline and efficiency of the force could be maintained in their present high condition under a system by which it would be amalgamated with the ordinary constabulary of the country. He hoped that the second reading of the Bill would be fixed for a day sufficiently distant to allow the people of Ireland maturely to consider its provisions.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could with a safe conscience defend his noble Friend from the charge of dilatoriness in having brought forward this measure. Lord Eglinton and his noble Friend, during the brief period they had been in office, had been actively employed in consulting those who were competent to give an opinion on the question, and he was happy to say that though the right hon. Gentleman (M. J. D. FitzGerald) anticipated failure, yet this was not the opinion of the parties to whom he referred, who considered it a sensible, practical, simple, and economical scheme. Among other things it would improve the police of Belfast, which he believed required some improvements, though he must say that the riots that had taken place there had been greatly exaggerated, for it was to be remenbered that no lives were lost.
  MR. GROGANsaid, it could hardly be expected he could give a decided opinion at the first blush of a question so wide and extended as this Bill. One thing he was glad of, however, and that was that they were to get rid of the Dublin metropolitan police force, of which he had already complained in that House for their arbitrary and overbearing conduct. As the Dublin police force were to be so greatly reduced
  2156
  he thought that the inhabitants ought to have the benefit of the reduction of the expense. He hoped the noble Lord would not send this Bill to a Committee, for then it would be shelved for the remainder of the Session. At the same time, he hoped that it would not be pressed forward before the inhabitants of Dublin had time to consider it.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that as representing the city of Dublin, he would give his adherence to the general principles of the Bill. The enormous expense of the present police force in Dublin had excited great dissatisfaction in that city.
  Leave given.
  Bill to make better provision for the Police Force in Dublin and other towns in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

LEGITIMACY DECLARATION BILL— LEAVE—FIRST READING.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable persons to establish legitimacy and the validity of marriages, and the right to be deemed natural-born subjects, said the measure was intended to remedy a very great defect in the law of England, of which complaint had often been made by persons of high authority. As the law now stood, unless some question of property had arisen, a man could not by any suit or judgment establish his legitimacy or the validity of a marriage. His parents might be living, having solemnized their marriage under circumstances capable of proof while they were alive, though not afterwards; but still there were no means by which he could then come before a court and prove his legitimacy. The object of the Bill was to enable any British subject thus circumstanced to institute a suit in the new Court of Divorce, giving due notice to the persons interested and to the Attorney General, in order to insure the bonâ fides of the proceeding, and prevent collusion; and then upon full inquiry, and after due proof, such individual might establish his legitimacy, and the judgment of the Court would remain upon the record and be available in all time to come. The Bill, by a somewhat analogous machinery, would enable a man to establish his status as a natural-born British subject.
Bill to enable persons to establish Legitimacy and the validity of Marriages, and the right to be

2157
deemed natural-born Subjects, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. MACAULAY, and Mr. BOVILL.
Bill presented, and read 1°.

GALWAY FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th June], "That the Order for the Committee be discharged."
Question again proposed.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would move that the debate be adjourned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, a few evenings ago, suggested that no Bill likely to lead to discussion should be taken after twelve o'clock, and he did not think they would find one more likely to lead to a debate than this.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he objected to an adjournment to a distant day.
MR. CLAYprotested against this Bill being put off day after day. When the Chairman of a Select Committee introduced such a Bill, the Government were bound to support and assist him. The present Government, however, were throwing every obstacle in his way, no doubt with the sole object of catching a few stray votes of Irish Members. If the debate was adjourned, the Government ought to undertake to give some morning for the discussion.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think the Government were liable to the imputations of the hon. Member. He trusted the House would have no objection to the adjournment of the debate, and would suggest that it be resumed on Thursday or Friday next.
Motion put and agreed to.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.