Commons Sitting of 25 April 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Bankruptcy Act, nominated (see p. 1482).
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolution [April 21] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — Court of Chancery (Ireland).
First Reading—Court of Chancery (Ireland)* [Bill 78].
Second Reading — Customs and Inland Revenue [Bill 73]; Thames Conservancy [Bill 60]; Partnership Law Amendment [Bill 68].
Committed to Select Committee—Thames Conservancy.
Committee—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) re-committed [Bill 79]; Court of Chancery (Despatch of Business) (Lords)* [Bill 69]; Charitable Assurances Enrolments (Lords)* [Bill 72].
Report—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)*; Court of Chancery (Despatch of Business)*; Charitable Assurances Enrolments (Lords)*.
Withdrawn — Penal Servitude Acts Consolidation* [Bill 23].

ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Report of the Royal Commissioners with respect to the Irish Admiralty Court has been received by the Government; and, if so, when the promised Bill for the reconstitution of that Court will be introduced?
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Commissioners had not yet been laid before the Government, but there had been a final meeting of the Commissioners, and he hoped their Report would be such an one as might be acted upon.

MAIL PACKET CONTRACTS—THE WEST INDIA COLONIES.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the table, in order to complete the Papers already promised, the communication stated by him to have been sent from the Treasury to the West India Colonies two years ago, apprising them that they would be called upon to contribute to the new Mail Packet Contract, as well as any Replies received from them thereto; and whether similar notices were sent to those Foreign Countries and Colonies whose Mails are conveyed under the same Contract?
MR. PEELwas understood to state that he had no objection to the production of' any papers on the subject which might be required.

GENERAL GARIBALDI — MEETING ON PRIMROSE HILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he wished to put a question, of which he had given notice, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to a meeting held on Primrose Hill on Saturday last, which had been dispersed in a very summary manner. He wished to know, Whether the right hon. Baronet had given any and what instructions to the Police to disperse the meeting over which Mr. Edmund Beales presided; and, if he had not given such instructions, whether he has inquired into the circumstances, and will state the result of his inquiries to the House?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had to state, in answer to the Question of his hon. Friend, that neither he nor any Member of the Government, nor the Commissioner of Police, had given any special instructions to the Police to interfere with the meeting held on Primrose Hill on Saturday, Indeed, he never heard of such a meeting being held there till yesterday morning. but the facts he had ascertained to be these:—The First Commissioner of Works had given his sanction to the holding of a meeting in connection with the Shakspeare Commemoration, for planting a tree on Primrose Hill, and at his suggestion the Commissioner of Police had made arrangements for the attendance of a certain number of Police to prevent obstructions and; preserve order. After planting the tree, a person was moved into the chair, and another got upon a bench to address the meeting on a different subject; on which an Inspector of Police went up to him and requested to be allowed to speak to him. The person came down, when the Inspector told him he could not be allowed to hold the meeting there. A short conference took place. There was no violence whatever; the people quietly dispersed, and the meeting was adjourned till another time and place. He ought to state that, owing to the scenes which some time since had taken place owing to meetings held in Hyde Park, a notice was issued forbidding all assemblages of persons in any of the Parks for the purpose of delivering speeches or discussing exciting topics leading to disorder, such meetings being wholly incon-
1550
sistent with the object for which the Parks were thrown open to the public. The Inspector of Police, therefore, acted on no special instructions, but may have thought he was acting in the spirit of that notice when he requested the meeting to disperse. There was not the slightest appearance of tumult or disorder; and although, under the circumstances, it might have been as well to have allowed the meeting to have continued, yet the Inspector may have supposed he acted under general instructions in not allowing the meeting to be held without special authority.

GENERAL GARIBALDI AND ADMIRAL MUNDY.—EXPLANATION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he rose to make a personal explanation. In the observations which fell from him the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) he made a statement which might possibly do injustice to a distinguished and gallant officer, Admiral Mundy. On that occasion he stated that if General Garibaldi was to be believed his success in Sicily was owing to the material assistance which he received from Admiral Mundy. That was stated in the newspaper report, and it was a fair illustration of the argument that he used. However, as he had since ascertained that there was not a syllable of truth in the assertion of General Garibaldi, it was only right that he should state his sincere conviction that Admiral Mundy neither directly or indirectly interfered so as to commit a breach of neutrality, and that when he received General Garibaldi on; board his flag ship in the harbour of Palermo, he did so at the request of General Lanza, the royalist commander. Afterwards Admiral Mundy made prisoners of the Garibaldian pirates who had seized the British ship Orwell, and sent them to Malta, where they were released most illegally by the authorities there.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolution [April 21] reported.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose to put a Question—
MR. SPEAKERsaid that, according to the rules of the House, the Question must refer directly to the Resolution itself.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he proposed to make some observations with reference to Supply.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to know what the Resolution was about. He had not been able to hear a word of it as read, and he did not think any other Member had been able to collect its purport.
MR. SPEAKERread the Resolution—
"That, in lieu of the yearly per-centage Duty now chargeable for or in respect of any Insurance from loss or damage by Fire only, which shall be made or renewed on or after the 25th day of June, 1864, of or upon any Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, being stock in trade, or of or upon any Machinery, Fixtures, Implements, or Utensils used for the purpose of any manufacture or trade, there shall be charged and paid yearly a Duty at and after the rate of one shilling and sixpence per annum for every £100 insured; and when any such Insurance as aforesaid shall be made or renewed at any time between the 22nd day of April, 1864, and the said 25th day of June, for any period of time extending beyond the said last-mentioned day, there shall be charged and paid for and in respect of the time intervening between the making or renewing of the said Insurance and the said 25th day of June, the yearly per-centage Duty at and after the rate chargeable on the said 22nd day of April, and for and in respect of any subsequent period, including the said 25th day of June, the rate of Duty chargeable according to this Resolution; and no return or allowance of Duty, except at and after the last-mentioned rate, shall be made in respect of time unexpired, or otherwise, on any such Insurance as aforesaid, which shall have been made or renewed before the said 22nd day of April, 1864."
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to state what was the precise rule of the House to which he referred when he informed the hon. Baronet that he must confine himself to the Question that the Resolution be agreed to. It would be convenient to know whether they could not discuss grievances before they voted the money.
MR. SPEAKER: In order that every opportunity might he afforded to hon. Gentlemen to speak on the subject, I delayed in rather an unusual manner in putting the Question. The rule of the House is this:— On the Report of Supply, the Question is, "That this Resolution be read a first time." Then, "That it be read a second time." When the Question is put that the Resolution be read a second time, it is open to any hon. Member to make any observations he may think necessary. I do not know if any hon. Member observed it, but I rather paused in putting the Question that the Resolution be read a second time. No hon. Member rising to make any observations, the rule of the House is, that when the Resolution is read a second time, and the Question is that the House do agree
1552
to the said Resolution, no observations may be made of a general nature, but they must refer to the Resolution under discussion.
Resolution agreed to.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  [BILL 73.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time. He would take that opportunity of giving the information sought the other evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), with regard to the estimated value of the new assessment for Income Tax. The hon. Baronet was under the impression that no allowance was made for that new assessment; but that was not so. The new assessment under Schedules A and B, which took place in 1857, exhibited an increase of £12,000,000 over that for 1856 in the amount of property and profits charged to duty; the new assessment for 1861 exhibited an increase of £9,000,000 over that for 1860. It might fairly be presumed, therefore, that a new assessment for 1864 would result in an increase of at least £9,000,000 under those schedules over those for 1863, which at the rate of 6d. per pound would produce £210,000 on the year's assessment, and in the financial year 1864–5 about £140,000. To the increase under Schedules A and B was to be added the improvement that might be reckoned upon under Schedule D; and as the assessment for 1862 over that for 1861 at like rates showed an increase of £100,000, and the assessment for 1863 over that for 1862, corrected to 7d., an increase of £100,000, it had been assumed that the profits of trade in the assessment for 1864 would yield a further increase of £90,000, which would produce in the financial year 1864–5 about £50,000. The total estimated produce of the new assessment for 1864 was, therefore, £190,000. In Committee upon the Bill he should move to insert the Resolution which had been agreed to by the House relating to Fire Insurances, and he should also move to insert certain clauses referring to Fire Insurances which he would lay upon the table that evening. He should also move in the licences to be granted to the sellers of tea to strike out altogether the words, "and not being within the limits of any municipal or parliamentary borough." In

  1553
  accordance with a suggestion from some other hon. Members, he would also move to enlarge the words to describe the bodies at whose meetings proxies might be used. He also intended to move a formal clause; relating to a standard of sugar. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had called his attention to a point connected with the stamp duties upon policies of insurance under settlement, and he had made a provision which he thought was a liberal one. In cases where the payment of the premiums upon a policy of insurance was secured by a covenant on the settlement, then the sum secured would be taken to be the property liable to the stamp duty.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time." — (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that upon the last point which he mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very properly make a further concession. It was a common thing for a husband to make a marriage settlement, a policy of insurance upon his life being the subject of the settlement. Supposing the case of a policy of insurance of £10,000 being so settled, upon which only one premium, amounting perhaps to £100, had been paid, it would be a hardship to call upon the settler to pay an ad valorem upon the whole amount as though it were £10,000 in money or Consols. The concession offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be but a little relief, as in nearly all marriage settlements conveying policies of insurance there were covenants to pay the premiums. It was generally felt that it was a hardship to enforce the ad valorem duty in cases of policies of insurance, and he therefore hoped that if he gave notice of a Motion to omit the words "policies of assurance" from the clause he should have the support of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the law stood, if a settlement contained a provision that after the death of the settler a given sum of money should be paid to a certain person, and if the sum of money so covenanted to be paid was settled, then it paid the stamp duty upon the amount settled. If in order to insure the payment of the sum by the Insurance Office a covenant to pay the premiums was inserted in the settlement, there was no difference in principle between the two cases.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, there
  1554
  was another important subject to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely—licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Of late years legislation upon that subject appeared to have diverged further and further from the principles which had been laid down by Committees which had considered the question. In 1850, twenty years after the passing of the Beer Bill of 1830, a Committee of the House of Lords, after an elaborate inquiry, recommended that beer licences and spirit licences should, as was formerly the case, be included in one form of licence. In 1854 a Committee of the House of Commons made a similar recommendation, and added that licences should be granted by the magistrates. All recent legislation had been in a diametrically opposite direction, and year by year had tended to put licences under the Excise, while the influence of the magistrates was becoming less and less; and in the Bill before them provision was made for occasional licences which were to be granted by the Excise authorities quite independent of the magistrates. From his own experience he could speak of a practice which especially prevailed in the counties adjoining the metropolis. When the beer licence was obtained the house for which it was granted was fitted up as a gin palace in a most expensive manner. That expense was incurred not solely for the purpose of attracting custom, but also with a view to influence the magistates when applied to for a spirit licence by an appeal to the excellent accommodation provided. Those houses were usually built by brewers and distillers, who spared no expense to obtain the licence, which would be of much benefit to them, as when a licence was granted the rent was immediately enhanced. If that system were to continue it would be as well to consider whether the State might not derive some advantage from it, and, therefore, he would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not deal with the whole subject of licences upon the consumption of intoxicating liquors, and establish a uniform licence whereby the State would be a gainer.
  SIR GEORGE GREYwas understood to say that the Bill merely recognized the existing licences, giving the owner power under certain restrictions of having occasional licences. But the points raised by the hon. Gentleman could be discussed with more advantage in Committee.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he thought that the stamp duty on marriage settlements ought not to be charged at the same rate upon realized property, and which would accrue from a Life Insurance policy.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, that there would be no extra duty imposed by the Bill under the consideration of the House. He found, however, that on orders of all kinds for receiving money, stocks, shares, or any property partaking of the character of stocks, there was to be a duty of 5s. He did not object to such a proposal, but merely called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it. At present he believed it was the practice with dock companies, some railways, and a great many public companies, to issue merely written letters authorizing parties to receive dividends on stocks. He believed that the arrangement proposed by the Bill would be fair, but he thought that the matter was hardly understood by the public.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had not carried out his promise, that under Schedules A and B the assessment was to be made by Inland Revenue officers, instead of by the local assessors. He thought that the burdens of the Income Tax would be considerably mitigated if the Government availed themselves of the services of the local assessors, instead of permitting the Inland Revenue officers to do the work.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not speak again, but he believed that he should be able to satisfy the hon. Baronet at a future stage of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2° accordingly, and committed for Thursday.

CIVIL BILLS COURT (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 79]—(re-committed)—COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)explained the nature of some changes that had been made in the Bill. They had intended to make the Sub Sheriffs the officers of the court, but on consulting with the grand juries it was considered by them and by the High She-
  1556
  riffs themselves that the duties should be performed by the High Sheriffs. They had altered the Bill, therefore, in that respect.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation of Terms).
  MR. TORRENSproposed to insert words for the purpose of re-constituting the Civil Bill Court in Carrickfergus.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, there was no necessity for the Amendment, because the Lord Lieutenant had already the power under the Civil Bill Act, 15 Vict. c. 57, of re-constituting the court of Carrickfergus.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, that he would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would represent to the Lord Lieutenant the hardship of the case of Carrickfergus.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Power to refer Matters of Account).
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he objected to the power proposed by the clause to be given to County Court Judges to force arbitration upon suitors. He should move the omission of the clause.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Remaining clauses agreed to:—Schedules agreed to.
  MR. LONGFIELDmoved, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
  The chairman shall have power to fine any of the bailiffs appointed to execute civil bill decrees for neglect or misconduct in a sum not exceeding five pounds, to be levied by distress on his goods and chattels.
  —agreed to.
  MR. BUTTmoved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause:—
  (Sheriff may issue a special warrant.)
  Provided always, That if at any time the sheriff shall in his discretion think fit that in any case any other person or persons besides the ordinary bailiff should be employed in the execution of any civil bill decree, then and in that case it shall be lawful for the sheriff, in addition to the warrant added to the civil bill decree, to issue under his hand and seal a special warrant addressed to any person or persons whom the sheriff may see fit to nominate, and inserting in such warrant the substance of the decree, and every such warrant shall be a sufficient authority to the persons named therein to proceed in the execution of such decree, and the sheriff shall be responsible for all the acts of such persons in the same manner as

  1557
  if they had been bailiffs duly appointed under this Act; and in case such special warrant shall have been issued at the request of the plaintiff or his attorney, the sheriff shall be entitled to demand and receive for every such warrant the sum of one pound, to be paid by the plaintiff or his attorney requiring the same, in addition to any fees to which he would be entitled under this Act.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, he could not accept the clause, which he thought would be a departure from the principle of the Bill.
  Clause negatived.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENmoved, after Clause 25, to insert the following clause: —
  (Interest in land not to be sold under civil bill execution.)
  It shall not be lawful to seize or sell under any civil bill execution any term for years, or any estate or interest in lands.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he did not see why, on the matter referred to, power should not be given to sell chattel interests under a Civil Bill execution.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he wished to propose a clause that all actions against the sheriff should be laid in the county for which such sheriff was appointed, and that the defendant might plead the general issue.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would not object to the clause if some Amendments were made upon it.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should oppose the clause. It was notorious that in Ireland it was the practice of the country for the sheriffs to pack the juries; and it would be monstrous to give those officers the privilege of having actions brought against them for wrong done to be tried in their own counties.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that because he desired to see the law assimilated in the two countries, he would support the clause with the restrictions proposed by the hon. Member for Clare. He denied that jury-packing was the practice in Ireland. He would, however, propose the omission of that part of the clause which limited the costs of a plaintiff recovering under £20.
  Clause withdrawn.
  (Cases above £20 removable by certiorari.)
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would move the insertion of £20. Many cases involving important principles and issues occurred in which the money claim was not greater
  1558
  than £20, and there ought to be a power of removing them to a superior court.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he thought the clause most objectionable. He regarded it as an endeavour, by a side wind, to limit the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts. If there were to be a certiorari clause, let it be a general one.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should support the clause, as the power given by it was only available under the discretion of a Judge.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he thought the clause too important to be decided without fuller discussion than could be then given to it; but it did not really belong to the objects of the present Bill, which were chiefly to regulate the execution of Civil Bill process.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, the clause was quite novel, and beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Clause withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.— [BILL 60.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hutt.)
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to say that he had expected some statement would have been made with regard to the provisions of the measure, that those persons who were deeply interested in it might know what ! they were to expect either for their benefit or injury. He believed that some of the clauses, though only those who were au fait in those matters could understand their scope and object, would directly destroy the rights of that excellent class of men the Thames watermen. At present, it was necessary that one of that body should be on every barge that went up or down the river. He apprehended that the Bill would take away the privileges of that body, but as the House usually dealt circumspectly with vested interests, he hoped that his right hon. Friend would agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought that the watermen were entitled to as much consideration as the proctors, who had compensation awarded to them; and he wished to know whether the Bill would be sent to a

  1559
  Select Committee, before which the rights of all parties could be gone into?
  MR. HUTTobserved, that the Bill was one of that description which was known by the term hybrid—that is, it partook of the nature both of a public and also of a private measure. The general course with regard to such Bills, was to send them to a Select Committee, and all parties who supposed themselves aggrieved, or who desired Amendments in the measure, might offer evidence, and be heard by counsel. Subsequently, the clauses would be again considered in a Committee of the Whole House, and every possible care would thus be taken to remedy any grievance which might be thought to exist.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he wished to draw attention to the fact that the corporation of London was very much interested in the Bill. The Conservancy Act had its origin in a protracted dispute between the corporation and the Crown regarding the right to the bed and soil of the Thames. That dispute was terminated by a compromise, and between £6,000 and £7,000 was paid to the Crown solicitor as part of the arrangement. He, therefore, thought it hard that only seven years after a compromise had been come to upon the subject, they were called upon again to consider the construction of the Conservancy Board. He must also say, that he concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Locke) in reference to the watermen, whom he should be sorry to see suffer by any change; but as they were assured by the right hon. Gentleman that all interests should be fully considered, he should not, at that stage, offer any opposition to the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.

PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 68.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its principle was identical with that of the Bill which he brought forward in the previous year, which was referred to a Select Committee, but was sent up to the House of Lords at too late a period of the year to allow of its passing into law. The difficulty which the Bill was intended to remove was this—If a capitalist wished to lend money to a
  1560
  private partnership he must do so either at a fixed rate of interest or by becoming a partner and thereby risking his entire property. That risk was so great that few persons were willing to incur it. The Bill therefore proposed that capitalists should in future be at liberty to join as what was called limited partners in any general partnership, on condition that, in a public register to be kept for that purpose, the sum he advanced, the time for which he advanced it, and other particulars, should be stated. In his opinion the Bill was emphatically a creditors' measure, for at present a loan to a partnership was a secret transaction. A firm might receive credit for ample capital, but if they became bankrupt it was often found that the capital had been borrowed, and that the lender had swept away the greater part of the available assets. Under the Bill, however, such a state of things would be impossible, as the capitalist who lent his money under it would practically inform the public of the conditions of the advance. Again, the Bill did not in the slightest interfere with the present law of partnership qua those who were held out to the public as being partners. The only persons who would be limited to the amount which they had put down were those who had no contract with the creditors, and whom the creditors did not know, excepting as far as they appeared on the registry for the amount for which they were liable. The Bill was not a new one. The principle of the measure had been recommended in the Report of a Committee in 1851, and had been affirmed in a Resolution brought forward in 1854 by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Mr. Scholefield.)
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield) would not think he impugned his motives in bringing forward the Bill, or that he wished to oppose all improvements in commercial legislation, because he felt obliged to move, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months. This Bill was not identical with any of the measures on the same subject which had been before presented to the House; nor was it entitled to the support which previous Bills had received from the great

  1561
  commercial bodies whose opinions were of much weight. The former Bill had received the support of many Chambers of Commerce, but those bodies were opposed to the Bill before the House. The Mercantile Law Society of London was composed of men who were admirably well-informed upon these subjects; and in remarks put forward by that association it was stated, that if a clerk or workman had an engagement with his master, by which in addition to his salary he was to receive a percentage on profits, there was no partnership; but if he was entirely paid by percentage that would constitute him a partner. From that statement it appeared that the difficulty which was intended to be provided for by the second section of the Bill might be altogether removed by payment being made in the shape of both salary and percentage. The strongest argument put forward in support of the Bill was that illustrated by the case of a young man exceedingly well disposed, intelligent, and industrious, but wanting capital. It was supposed that such a young man had a friend who would assist him, but who demurred to a low rate of interest, because the compensation would be insufficient, and who was afraid of imposing a high rate, from the fear that his debtor might not be able to pay it. But it must be remembered that, in reality, capital produced nothing but interest, and that the capitalist had no right to demand more on his advance of capital than the stipulated rate of interest, which rate of interest varied in proportion to the risk. If they granted to the capitalist more power to reap indefinite profits, they had no right to limit his responsibility. To upset that theory seemed utterly contrary to the whole nature of commercial equity and justice. He ventured to urge the rejection of the Bill in the interest of the creditor. Let the partnership be registered ever so carefully, practically not one man in ten would be able to keep himself au fait in the varying circumstances to which that partnership might be exposed. The object of these partnerships would be not to do business with the capital which they might acquire by these arrangements, but to do business on as extended a system of credit as possible. Only that morning a case had appeared in the papers, in which a shipowner who had commenced business on borrowed money had failed for forty times the extreme amount of his capital. If that was possible under the present
  1562
  system, what might not be done under the Bill? At present a person who lent money had his option. He might either go in as a capitalist and be content with a fixed interest; or he might go in as a trader with unlimited profits. If he chose the latter it was only right that his responsibility should also be unlimited. In what was now proposed by the Bill the interesting young man they had heard so much of vanished, and in his room they were asked to allow a capitalist to set up a man of straw as his creature and his agent. He would put into his hands a certain sum, but the business would be administered under his own eye, and he might obtain, unlimited credit. It was doubtless very true that no one would trust him beyond a certain amount, but then lie might obtain credit to that amount from each of forty persons. If the concern answered, the capitalist would pocket the profit; if it failed he would snap his fingers at the creditors, and walk out of the affair with impunity, beyond the loss of the sum he had invested. Such a system as the House was asked to institute would demoralize the trade of England. The scheme had been supported by reference to French and American experience. But the Committee of the Law Amendment Society distinctly stated that they did not desire to see partnerships established in this country on the same regulations as the partnerships en commandite in France, and the special partnerships in America. They objected to the commandite system because it did not secure the actual payment of the capital agreed to be subscribed. The registry simply represented a promise to pay a certain amount of capital; there was no security for its actually being paid down. The Bill, in the same way, stated that a partnership should be constituted, nut with reference to the money paid down, but with reference to the sum promised to be paid. The Committee also state that in France and America the capitalist was prohibited from interfering in the management of the business, even in the most trifling questions; but there was no such prohibition in the Bill. Therefore the argument in favour of the Bill drawn from foreign examples entirely failed. The object sought to be attained by the Bill could be obtained in a much less objectionable manner. Why should not a capitalist be permitted to make advances upon a bonded loan, certified and registered, for a certain period at a rate of interest sufficient

  1563
  to satisfy him, and under arrangements which would give his agent command of money for a certain time, securing him all the advantages which the Bill proposed to provide, but avoiding all the temptations to fraud and mismanagement? He was anxious to know for what reason Scotland was by the last clause exempted from the operation of this Bill. No doubt, the acute and sensible commercial men on the other side of the Tweed objected to having that mischievous principle introduced into their mode of doing business; and to avert their opposition this limitation had been consented to. If the Bill were good for England it was good for Scotland, but, believing it to be good for neither country, he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hubbard.)
  MR. MALINSsaid, it was impossible not to see that the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham was in favour of unlimited liability, but he thought the House would consider it was impossible for them to retrace their steps and adopt the principle which the hon. Gentleman advocated. Limited liability was a principle firmly established in the minds of commercial men, and it was being acted upon every day to a surprising extent. Joint-stock companies and banks were being carried on upon that principle, and experience showed that great commercial concerns could not be carried on so well by individuals as by companies, because, among other reasons, they were subject to changes inconsequence of deaths, which tended to interfere with their prosperity. What the Bill under these circumstances proposed to do was to extend the benefit of the limited liability principle to establishments comprising a smaller number of partners than legally constituted a company. That, however, the hon. Member for Buckingham contended was a course opposed to all commercial morality, but why it should be so, he, for one, could not understand. It was to the advantage of the public that young men who possessed skill and ability, though they might not have capital, should be able to enter into business; and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham desired to confer facilities for that purpose. But by the law, as it stood, a man of capital could not assist a
  1564
  deserving youth without becoming liable to his last farthing if he participated in the profits. If he lent the money on bond the consequence was that if the person he assisted failed he came into competition with the creditors, and had his dividend. By the Bill it would be different. The lender of the money would only be liable to the extent of the money he had advanced, or had promised to advance, and he did not come in as a competitor with the creditors. In those cases in which the principle of limited liability at present operated any one might ascertain from a public record who the members of a particular firm were, what was the amount of their capital, and how much of it was paid up; and it was a person's own fault if he did not take the proper precautions before investing his property in such hands. What, then, he should like to know, was the harm of proposing, as the hon. Member for Birmingham did, that A might carry on a business in the name of A and B, provided he gave notice that the person with whom he was in partnership was not a general partner? Could the creditor who gave credit to a concern complain when he was informed by a document to which he might refer, that the non-acting partner's was a limited liability only? It was well known in the case of even the best-conducted private banks that the partners put no capital in them — the capital being supplied by the deposits of the public; but it was also true that everything the principals possessed was at stake under the unlimited liability system. Under this Bill, if a man were a trader, and got another to join him with £10,000, of which £3,000 was paid up, and the remaining £7,000 liable to be called for as it was required, what objection, he should like to know, could the public have to a partnership of that description? In the event of a failure, how would the public suffer? The Bill provided that in that event the limited partner should pay up in favour of the creditor the difference between the sum he had paid and that which he had agreed to pay; so that, instead of anything being taken away from the creditors, they would have the advantage of a fund to which to resort. He recollected well having fought battles on the subject with eminent commercial men, such, for example, as Mr. Alexander Hartie, and the principle for which he contended had, he was glad to say, triumphed; nor could he conceive why it should stop short with companies consisting of seven

  1565
  members and not be made applicable to partnerships of two or three persons when hedged round, as in the case of the present Bill, by proper safeguards. The Bill, notwithstanding the opposition it met with during the last year in the Select Committee from the hon. Member for Huntingdon, was read a third time, and was not sent to the Lords because it was too late in the Session. It was not surprising to find that those who had flourished under a particular system should be opposed to any alteration, and that those eminently successful commercial men, whom the hon. Member for Buckingham so well represented, who had experience of establishments flourishing on the principle of unliraited liability, were slow to believe that any other system could be successful; but when his hon. Friend gave as an instance of the disadvantages of the opposite system the case of a gentleman who commenced trade without a penny, and lost forty times his capital, he was scarcely dealing fairly with the question. The man who had succeeded in inducing others to trust him to so large an extent was clearly no fool. He must, in short, have been a man of some capacity; and how much better would it be if, under the operation of such a measure as that under discussion, he had been enabled to go to a capitalist and say, "I have a knowledge of shipping, I know how to buy and sell, and if you supply me with £10,000 I think I can make a certain profit." Having that money, the gentleman in question, instead of causing the public to suffer, and losing forty times his capital, might have doubled it and been a successful man. If the Bill was imperfect in its details, its imperfections might be remedied in Committee. Its principle followed from that which had already been established in regard to limited liability companies; and, as he thought that it would remove an existing evil, he should give it his most strenuous support.
  MR. KIRKMAN HODGSONsaid, that he could see no objection to the principle of the Bill. If under its operation persons obtained credit to which they were not entitled, it could only be in consequence of want of prudence on the part of those who trusted them. The great evil of commerce at the present moment was that men gave credit to others without inquiring what was their property, or what right they had to be trusted. The hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to object to the Bill because it would compel persons to inquire what
  1566
  were the means of those to whom they gave credit; and he proposed as a remedy the advance of money at a high fixed rate of interest. But the Bill was intended for the benefit of persons who had acquired a character for prudence, and nothing could more clearly show that a man was unworthy of such a character than that, knowing the uncertainties of business, he should consent to pay a high fixed rate of interest, whether he made it or not. He could see no difficulty in the way of the adoption of the principle of the Bill. It had been admitted with regard to large matters; why should it not be extended to small ones? In his opinion legislation upon the subject had commenced at the wrong end. This was where it should have begun. Old houses generally came to grief either by the partners adhering to old-fashioned modes of doing business, or by their retaining the management after they had lost the energy and enterprize which were essential to the success of all commercial concerns. A business could not stand still, it must either go backward or forward; and nothing could be more justifiable than that persons who had made their fortunes, but wore anxious to keep up the name of the old house, should leave some portion of their property in the business under the management of young, energetic, and prudent men in whom they might have confidence. So far from the Bill injuring the tone of commercial morality, he believed that it would elevate it. It would give greater freedom to contract, which meant greater freedom to industry, and would confer upon honest, deserving, and excellent men opportunities of reaping the fruits of their industry which they had not hitherto enjoyed.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), seemed to be based on the principle that where there was unlimited profit there should be unlimited liability; but he was sure the House would say it was too late to go on a principle which had already received a negative by the decision of Parliament. Again, the hon. Member appeared to think that the Bill introduced a new principle destructive to the sound doctrines of commercial law and commercial morality. It was no new principle at all. It was a principle more than 2,000 years old; and they would find embodied in the civil law every possible variation and modification of the law of unlimited liability. If the question came

  1567
  to a division, he should certainly vote for the Bill.
  MR. GREGSQNsaid, he wished to point out that while under the measure there was to be a limit to the extent to which the non-active partner was to be liable, there was no limit as to the number of persons from whom credit might be obtained upon the strength of the sum which he advanced. Therefore, if a capitalist put £10,000 into a concern, and one man gave credit to the amount of £10,000 on the faith of the capital of £10,000 subscribed under the Act, a dozen other persons might do the same thing, and then where was the security for the creditor? In railways there was a limit on both sides; under the Bill there was not. He thought the hon. Gentleman might as well have gone a little further, and have applied the principle of limited liability to one as well as to two persons.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he thought that the Bill would supply a great public want, which was finding its expression in the creation of credit companies. In times of peace there was an extension of enterprise, and this rendered fresh capital necessary. It had been said, if the principle of limited liability was to be carried so far, any one man should be able to limit his responsibility; but he took it that the very principle of the Bill was, that the man actually carrying on trade should be liable to his last shilling, but that those persons who should be registered as partners, simply contributing capital, should be responsible only to the amount for which they were registered. The Bill had been described as a capitalists' measure. He contended, on the other hand, that it was a trader's measure. It would enable honest industrious tradesmen to procure the capital which at present was beyond their reach, and would assimilate the law of England in that respect to the laws existing in every other country in Europe. He saw no reason why in this commercial country, where we had free trade in so many things, there should not be free trade in capital, provided the party who contracted the debt was held responsible for it.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he held that the previous adoption of the principle of limited liability in favour of certain companies could not be advanced in support of the measure, as it extended the principle so far as virtually to create a new one. The statement that the question was vir-
  1568
  tually settled last year required this commentary, that the Select Committee refused to take any evidence, although the requisite powers had been conferred. There was no record of their opinions, which, he might state, were utterly at variance upon every point submitted to them, and the Bill might just as well never have gone upstairs at all. He would, therefore, propose that, in deference to the opinion of those commercial bodies who best understood what was suited for commercial interests, the measure should now be referred to a Select Committee, with the understanding that they would reconsider the whole question. In some respects the present Bill differed from that of last year—for instance, its application was not extended to Scotland. Of such an omission he did not approve, for if the measure were approved by the House, what was good for England would be equally good for Scotland. On the other hand, he was glad to perceive that there were some important improvements in the management clauses. ["Divide!"] He saw that the feeling of the House was against him, and therefore he would abstain from further protest against the measures.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he wished to explain that the Bill had been delivered to him in its then shape, and that he had only been able to read its principal clauses. He should be very glad to extend its operation to Scotland.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

BANKRUPTCY ACT — NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st April], "That The Lord Advocate be one other Member of the said Committee."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that with reference to what had passed on a previous night, he wished to explain that, in answer to an application from the hon. Member for Honiton, he had stated that he took a great interest in the subject of bankruptcy, but that if nominated on the

  1569
  Committee he could not promise to give an assiduous attendance. Understanding subsequently that the hon. Member for Sheffield was anxious to serve, he said he had no desire to stand in his way, but that having undertaken to act himself he could not withdraw without the consent of the hon. Member for Honiton, who had induced him to do so. He would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would move that the name of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), be also added.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he apprehended that it would be necessary, in the first instance, to move that the number of the Committee be enlarged to sixteen.
  MR. WHITESIDEexpressed a desire that the name of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Vance) might be added to the Committee.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that he would be glad to make way for the hon. Member, he himself being engaged upon another Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERheld that notice of the alteration must be given.
  Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. CAVE, and Mr. CRUM-EWING nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on April 26, Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. VANCE added, and Mr. HASSARD discharged.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND): Mr. Speaker, Sir, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to alter the constitution and amend the practice and course of proceeding of the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, I have to, crave the indulgence of the House while I state the circumstances under which the Bill was framed, and refer, as briefly as I can, to some of the details of the measure. And it will be convenient in the first place, with a view to understanding the necessity that exists for this measure, that I should state something of the circumstances which have produced in the system of Equity practice and procedure in the two countries a divergence of a very remarkable and, I think, a very unfortunate character. It is matter of common notoriety that, for a lengthened period, great dissatisfaction pre-
  1570
  vailed in this country, arising from the delay and expense attending proceedings in the Court of Chancery. That dissatisfaction continued for years; it culminated to a very great extent in the time of Lord Eldon; and in the year 1825 a Commission was appointed for the purpose of considering the amendments that should be made in the Equity proceedings in England. That Commission was followed by a Report in the year 1829, and upon that Report reforms in the Court of Chancery in this country were subsequently founded. The Act of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 94 extended the powers of the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor and of the Master of the Rolls to make General Orders for the regulation of the Courts of Equity in England; and, accordingly, in the years 1833, 1841, and 1845, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Lyndhurst framed orders which, to a great extent, carried out the reforms of the Court of Chancery, which were recommended by the Commissioners. But it is important to observe that they were not extended, nor was the statute under which they were made extended at all to Ireland. These General Orders were not, however, in their operation considered sufficient for the purpose for which they were framed, and in the year 1850 a Royal Commission was issued to consider further reforms in the Courts of Equity. In the same year, 1850, an Act was passed—Lord Justice Turner's Act —the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35. It was entitled an Act to diminish the expense and delay of proceedings in the High Court of Chancery in England; and by it very important Amendments were effected in the Equity system in this country. The Commission of 1850 continued to sit for a considerable period. It made three very important Reports, aud upon these Reports Parliament immediately acted in the two statutes, the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, and another of the same year—the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86. By the first of these statutes, the Masters in Chancery in England were abolished, and Vice Chancellors were added to those who before existed, with chief clerks, taking the place in certain instances and for certain purposes of the Masters, who ceased to exist. The second statute was aimed to amend the practice and procedure of the Courts of Equity in this country; and under it general orders of the Court have continued from time to time to be made, by very able Judges, and have carried forward Chancery reform in England to a

  1571
  very considerable extent indeed. It is, I am sorry to say, otherwise in Ireland. In Ireland, the Equity system was identical at its introduction with the Equity system in England, and it continued to be identical with it for hundreds of years. In point of fact, it continued to be identical with it substantially up to the year 1850, because, although there was no Commission leading to legislation for the Irish Court, an Act was passed in the 4 & 5 Will. IV., which gave to the Chancellor of Ireland and to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, powers to make general orders for the regulation of the practice in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and general orders under the provisions of this Act were made by Lord Plunket and by Lord St. Leonards, in the years 1834 and 1843, with the object and with the effect of identifying, as far as possible, the system in England with the system in Ireland. So it continued until the year 1850; but in that year a complete divergence of the systems began to be established. In that year a totally new system of practice and procedure was introduced in Ireland, by an Act called the Irish Chancery Regulation Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 89. It is important for the House to observe that that Act was not introduced by, and was not founded upon, the recommendation of any Royal Commission, or the Report of any Committee, or any preparatory inquiry such as that upon which, so far as England was concerned, all measures of the kind proceeded. That Act was passed, as I have said, in the year 1850, and it altered the practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland to a very great extent. It abolished the old system of Bill and Answer, and established a system of Cause Petitions, giving to Ireland a course of procedure which, I believe, and I think I shall prove before I go much further, has not worked satisfactorily. That system has not been satisfactory either to the practitioners or to the suitors of the Court; and however well designed, and however in some respects accompanied with substantial benefits, it has created considerable abuses. It has resulted in the multiplication of affidavit upon affidavit; there is under it no machinery for joining issue, or eliminating the issue from the pleadings, and the result has been exceedingly injurious in Ireland. The Act also vested a new jurisdiction in the Masters of the Court. It created what has been called the Fifteenth Section Petition. It threw into the Masters' offices mortgage causes, testamentary causes, foreclosure
  1572
  causes, and various others, with an enumeration of which I need not trouble the House. So matters went on until, in the year 1854—the Incumbered Estates Court having been established some years before, and having become a very important institution, indeed, in Ireland—a Royal Commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the working of that Court. Upon that Commission, some of the most distinguished men in England and in Ireland took their places. From Ireland we had the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland; we had the Lord Justice of Appeal, Mr. Blackburne; we had Chief Justice Monahan; Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, whose name is honourably known in this House; Judge Longfield, a very distinguished Judge of the Landed Estates Court; and Mr. Brewster, to whose eminence at the bar I need not refer. Upon the English side there were the present Lord Chancellor, then Sir Richard Bethel; Sir John Romilly, Master of the Rolls; and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, Sir Hugh Cairns. It was a very strong Commission, and the character of its Members, and the knowledge and experience they possessed, entitled their recommendations to the highest consideration. Well, that Commission recommended an assimilation of the system of Equity in England and in Ireland. Nothing, however, was done, and nothing has been done up to the present time upon the recommendations of that Commission. The Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland had very large powers for the making of rules and orders — general rules and general orders—very large powers indeed. These powers were extended by the statute which passed subsequently to the year 1850; but I am sorry to say that, from peculiar circumstances, those powers have not been acted upon. Differences of opinion between the learned Judges of the Court prevented action upon those powers—and the result has been, that they have not been used for the purpose of the assimilation of the systems of the two countries—or, very much, for any other purpose. The Commission to which I shall now immediately refer was appointed owing to representations made as to the unsatisfactory state of things which existed; and that Commission, I may state, before I communicate to the House its nature and constitution, has found that, at this moment, the practice and procedure of the two countries, originally similar, have by the effect of modern legislation become

  1573
  almost entirely different. I need not say that that is a condition of things which is very much to be regretted. It is very much to be regretted that the principles of our law being identical, that the system of our jurisprudence, so far as England and Ireland are concerned, being the same—there should be, in practice and in procedure, almost an absolute difference; a difference which results in great inconvenience to the profession, at all events so far as Ireland is concerned, by preventing the attainment of the advantage to be had from the authoritative decisions of the Courts on common principles. And further, in a united kingdom it certainly is a desirable thing that the practice and procedure of the respective Courts should be identical. Well, it was in the position of matters which I have described, that in the year 1862 a new Commission was appointed. That Commission had upon it several of the distinguished persons whose names I have mentioned in connection with the Commission of the year 1854. Others were added to them. I shall mention the names of the Commissioners, and the value of their recommendations will be at once patent to the House. Upon it sat the Master of the Rolls in England Sir John Romilly, Vice Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, my hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney General, the late Attorney General Sir William Atherton, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Justice Willes, and two gentlemen who wore very well acquainted with the practice and procedure of the Courts here—Mr. Gifford and Mr. Follett. The Irish Members of the Commission were the Lord Justice of Appeal, known in this House as a man who during his life has maintained a position of the highest eminence, who has passed through the great offices of the law with the greatest distinction, who has been successively Attorney General, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and is now Lord Justice of Appeal. With him were associated my right hon. Friend (Mr. Napier), who was late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and whose high position is also well known in this House; Mr. Brewster, of whom I have spoken before as a man of great eminence at the Irish bar; Chief Justice Monahan, who is certainly one of the most distinguished men on the Common Law Bench in either country; Baron
  1574
  Hughes, who was specially qualified to judge of every question relating to the Courts of Equity; my colleague, myself, and Mr. Orpen, who represented the Incorporated Society of Solicitors and Attorneys in Ireland. I need not say that a Commission more entitled to public respect and deference in any recommendation which it might make, could not by possibility have been arrayed by the Royal Authority. The Commission was issued for the purpose, as staled in its Report, of inquiring into the following matters, with a view to reduce costs to suitors and the expenditure of the public money, and to assimilate, so far as may be practicable, the administration of Justice in England and Ireland: —

  1. "The constitution, establishment, practice, procedure, and fees of the Superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland.

  2. The differences between the constitution and the forms of practice, procedure, and fees of the Courts of Chancery of England and of Ireland."

  That was the scope of the Commission; and I may state that, when the Commissioners assembled, they took the best means possible of securing the fullest and most reliable information which the profession could afford. They had that information collected, both as to the law and equity, by lawyers thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and furnished to them in Reports, showing the differences which existed upon the one side and upon the other. They appealed, not only to the members of the bar but to the members of the kindred profession of solicitors, and they received answers to elaborate queries upon all points connected with the management of the Courts of Equity in Ireland. And having done so, they stated their conclusions in the Report which I have before me, and which I had the honour to lay upon the table of the House on the last day of the last Session in these terms —
  "On the general question of assimilation of Equity practice and procedure, and the changes connected with it, we are of opinion—

  1. That it is expedient that the system of practice and procedure of the Courts of Chancery of England and of Ireland should be assimilated as far as practicable.

  2. That the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery of England are generally to be preferred to the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery of Ireland.

  3. That demurrers should be allowed for want of equity or for rnultifariousness only.

  4. That the Irish rule of not requiring an at tachment, and a return of non est inventus, in order to obtain a sequestration, should be extended to England.

  1575
  Our recommendations as to the changes in the constitution and fees of the Court of Chancery of Ireland, rendered necessary by the adoption of assimilation, are as follows:—
  We are of opinion—

  1. That the office of Master in Chancery in Ireland, other than that of the Receiver Master, should be abolished.

  2. That the existing Master should be retained so long as it may be found necessary that they may, as far as practicable, complete the business pending before them.

  3. That, having regard to the special statutable duties now discharged by the Receiver Master, that office should be retained.

  4. That the Master of the Rolls, with one Vice Chancellor, having each one chief clerk and two assistant clerks in addition to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice of Appeal, will be sufficient to dispose of the Equity business in Ireland.

  That it is desirable that power be given to the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and consent of the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellor in Ireland, or one of them, by order under their hands, to appoint an additional chief clerk or assistant clerks to the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellor, or either of them.
  That power should be given to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with the advice and consent of the Lord Justice of Appeal, Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellor in Ireland, or any two of them, to regulate the fees to be paid, so far as it shall be necessary to make any changes in the same in consequence of the alterations produced in Equity practice and procedure by carrying into effect the preceding recommendations."
  These are the recommendations of the Commissioners. They specify some particulars in which, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the country, the present system ought not to be changed, and they make a great many other recommendations; and, upon these recommendations, the Bill which I now introduce to the House has been based and framed. I can assure the House that, so far as I am able to judge, the Bill faithfully and carefully carries out the conclusions of the Commission and of the antecedent Commission of 1854; and that being so, I think I need not add that it has, at all events primâ facie, a very strong title to the consideration of Parliament. The Bill may be said to be divided into five parts: the first of these regards the appointment of a Vice Chancellor and Chief Clerks in Ireland; the second relates to the abolition of the Masters, three of the four Masters who at present exist in that country; the third division relates to the process and practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland; the fourth concerns stamps and fees payable in that Court; and the fifth relates to some miscellaneous matters of no great consequence, except in one respect—namely, as
  1576
  it touches unclaimed dividends. That Bill I may say in the inception is, with the necessary modifications which the Report suggests, a consolidation of the three great English statutes, the 13 & 14 Vict. c, 35, the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, and the 15 and 16 Vict. c. 86. The first division of the Bill, relating to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor and chief clerks, is founded upon a principle on which the Commission in England acted, and on which the Commission for Ireland has been disposed to act, and it is this: that it is of great importance in disposing of an Equity cause, that a single judicial mind should apply itself to the case from the beginning to the end; that in one judicial mind there should be complete control over the cause; that it ought not at one stage to be tossed into the Master's office, and at another tossed back again; one man thinking of this part of the cause, and another of that—but that the whole of the proceedings should be homogeneous; that there should be harmony throughout, and that in that way the proceedings of the Court might be made more beneficial. That being so, it has been considered by the Commissioners that there should be a Vice Chancellor appointed for Ireland, and that the disposal of the entire business should be committed to the Lord Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls. The Masters being abolished, two chief clerks will be required, a chief clerk for the Master of the Rolls, and a chief clerk for the Vice Chancellor; and it has been considered right and proper in that, as in other particulars, to follow the precedent set in England, and to provide that these two chief clerks shall be members of the profession of Solicitors, or be taken from the Examiners of the Masters who will be abolished. So far for the first part of the Bill, Then, as to the second, the abolition of the Masters. I believe no one who knows anything of legal affairs in Ireland will have a doubt that the Masters now in existence are able and conscientious men. I believe there is not one of them who would not hold his place with honour in any Court in the world; but, at the same time, the nature of the proceedings in these Courts has not been very satisfactory to the public. It has been considered, at all events, that they are not satisfactory—not from the Masters not doing their duty, but because the system which they had to administer was not satisfactory. Let

  1577
  me in this matter not be misunderstood. I am not making any imputation whatever upon the Masters. Quite the contrary; but as in England the machinery of Masters was not considered in reference to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor and chief clerks the best for the performance of the duty to be done, so in Ireland the same objection to the system has been started, and has been yielded to. There are, as the House may be aware, four Masters in Ireland. It is proposed by the Bill to abolish three of the four. The fourth Master is what is called a Receiver Master. He has peculiar duties to discharge—duties which could not be well discharged either by a Judge in the Courts of Equity, or by either of the chief clerks. He has to do with the accounts of guardians, of minors, and lunatics, and with the accounts of receivers over estates. He has also very extensive duties to perform in auditing the accounts of treasurers of grand juries in Ireland—and the county rate with which he has to deal amounts to something like a million sterling a year. He has also to audit the accounts of the collector general of taxes in Dublin — whose collection amounts to £190,000 a year, and it has accordingly been thought desirable and necessary that he should continue to discharge his peculiar duties when the other Masters have ceased to act. And I may say that even in that particular there has been no want of attention to the principle of assimilation recommended by the Commissioners, because while here in England the Masters generally were abolished, the Master in Lunacy continued to act, —and he continues to act with less extensive powers and less important duties than the Receiver Master will have to discharge in Ireland. While the Masters, according to the recommendation of the Commissioners, are to be abolished, it has been thought right and proper that the Cause Petitions presented under the fifteenth section to which I have referred, and which are now in their offices, shall be disposed of by themselves. The Master of the Rolls in Ireland, a very eminent Judge as we all know, and a man to whose opinion upon any subject great respect must be paid, protested against the transfer of that business to the Court, which will subsist upon the extinction of the Masters; and not only was deference paid to his opinion, but it was con-
  1578
  sidered that the mixing up of the old principle and the new would be attended with great difficulty and complication, and it was thought better that the old business in these offices should be disposed of by the Masters, and that the new business should be disposed of by the new Court. Again, in that instance, the English precedent has been followed, for the Masters here continued, in order to wind up their business, for a considerable time after the Act by which they were finally abolished had passed. I should state that, as to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor, and as to the abolition of the Masters and the creation of chief clerks, the opinion of the Commissioners was unanimous. And, indeed, I am not aware that there is any difference of opinion upon that subject, in either branch of the profession, or in the mind of the public. I will now go on to refer to the offices which it is proposed to create under this Bill, and the offices which it will abolish. I heard the other night some reference to this matter. Some anxiety was expressed to find out what offices were to be created and what offices were to be destroyed. And some allusion was also made which, I confess, I did not understand, to the intervention of the Treasury in this matter. I did not think at the time, nor do I now think, that the observation was called for, considering who the Commissioners were, upon whose authority and recommendation the measure is to be carried out. Now, I have to inform the House that by the Bill, following the recommendation of the Commissioners, the entire existing staff is to continue to be employed, that it is designed that there shall be no new offices created, none whatever—except the office of Vice Chancellor and the office of the two chief clerks — and that the officers, who at present do duty in the Master's offices, shall not be superannuated, but that, in so far as they are capable of doing duty at all, they are not to be relieved from duty, but shall be compelled to do in new offices work which will entitle them fairly to the salary they receive. The Assistant Registrars and Junior Clerks necessary in the new Court will be all taken from the old staff. So far as that staff is concerned, to some small extent there may be a want of employment for a very few men, but it is recommended by the Commissioners that, in order that the public may not be burdened with any expense for which they do not receive the fullest compensation, those persons who

  1579
  may have time at their disposal are to be employed in arranging the records of the Master's offices, a duty which it is most important for the country should be done. [Mr. WHITESIDE: What about the chief clerks?] The chief clerks are to be taken from the profession of solicitors, or from the Examiners to the Masters; and I may inform my right hon. Friend that the appointments are, be far as I remember, to rest with the Judge of the Court—with the Lord Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor; and it is only right, and fair, and proper, that those who have the burden and responsibility of most important and onerous duties, under the new system, should have the appointment of those upon whom they must rely—whom they must trust—nay more, whom they must train to do their duty. Now, I must state further, that I believe it will appear very clearly, when the details of this measure are considered, that the ultimate result of the passing of the Bill will be, not the casting of a bduren upon the Treasury, not the creation of additional expense, but that at least some £4,000 or £5,000 a year will be saved by a reform of the greatest possible value. So far with regard to the first and second parts of the Bill. The third, as I have stated, relates to the practice and procedure of the Court, and the important portion of that third part unquestionably is this, that it abolishes the Irish Chancery Regulation Act, so far as that Act governs the procedure of the Court. An imposing array of testimony has been accumulated by the Commissioners upon that subject, and is presented by them. That evidence, if I could venture to trouble the House with it, but I shall not, would, I think, abundantly satisfy it, that a more wise proceeding than that which is proposed by the Bill could not well be conceived. In the 23rd page of their Report, the Commissioners Bay this—
  "The procedure introduced into Ireland by the Chancery Regulation Act of 1850, of petition, answering affidavit, and affidavits by way of evidence without proper limits to the filing of such affidavits, has not, in our opinion, worked satisfactorily.
  "The references to Masters are attended with all the disadvantages which led to the abolition of the office of Master in England.
  "The jurisdiction under the fifteenth section of the Irish Chancery Regulation Act of 1850, has generally failed in the objects for which it was intended, and has not been attended with the advantages experienced under the English system, based upon the recommendations of the English Chancery Commissioners of 1850. There are,
  1580
  however, some portions of the Irish procedure which we recommend to be retained."
  That opinion of the Commissioners—that judgment of the Commissioners—is founded upon the evidence of the ablest men connected with the bar and the Chancery Bench in Ireland. Master Brooke, who is a gentleman of the greatest ability, experience, and conscientiousness, in his answer to the Commissioners wrote thus—
  "Our greatest want has been the deficiency of information for the practitioner's guidance, and the most valuable of all reforms would be the adoption of the practice of the English Court of Chancery, with its precise rules and printed decisions. Since 1850 we have been like travellers without a chart. The Act of that year, see. 17, empowered the Master, without reference to any rule or course of practice of the Court, save as by the Act provided, to regulate the course of proceedings as he might think expedient for rendering the same speedy and inexpensive, so far as justice would admit. So vast a power exercised by five Judges, whose decisions are not reported, nor even known in the other Masters' offices, though hitherto exercised, I believe, with great caution and moderation, cannot but have led to much diversity of practice and caused great perplexity, of which both counsel and solicitors frequently and justly complain. The obvious remedy is to bring us under the control of English authorities, which are accessible to all; and if there be any particulars in which our system is superior to the English, we would gladly surrender the advantage, if we could thereby obtain the benefit of fixed and known rules of procedure."
  And Mr. Serjeant Sullivan, a very distinguished member of the Irish bar, speaks in these terms—
  "In my opinion, the working of the present system of proceeding by general cause petition and affidavits in Ireland, has been unsatisfactory. For a considerable period after the introduction of the system the utmost confusion and the loosest practice prevailed, and these continued long subsequently to the time at which they should have ceased, if they were to be regarded simply as the natural or unavoidable consequences of a new state of things; in fact, they have not yet been entirely removed, and they seem to me to exist as incident to the present system of Equity procedure."
  And Mr. Warren, whose name is also extremely well known at the Irish bar, and not the less honourably known by his connection with one who in his day and generation held a foremost place amongst the ablest lawyers in the empire, says—
  "Under the system which has obtained in the Equity Court of Ireland, since the passing of the Chancery Regulation Act, 1850, many useless technicalities have been abolished, and the costs of suits as regards pleadings and some other items

  1581
  of expense, have been diminished. These improvements have been effected, either by a limited application of the Irish statute, or (as in England) by reforms of the old practice. But, in fact, the new system has altogether superseded the old practice, an effect which I cannot think the Chancery Regulation Act was intended to produce (Glascock v. Ross, 1 Irish Ch. Rep., 55), and which, in my opinion, even in the Courts of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, has not been beneficial. The loose nature of the cause, petition, and respondent's affidavit (to which the name of pleadings has been denied), has promoted vagueness of statements on the part of professional gentlemen, and of testimony on the part of witnesses, has thrown an undue measure of responsibility on the discretion of Judges, and has tended to make results uncertain. I think speculative litigation has been encouraged by the present system, and has increased since 1850.
  "I entertain and desire respectfully to express the strongest opinion, that the change of procedure in the Irish Equity Courts which would be most beneficial to all parties interested, to the Judges, and to the bar, to solicitors and suitors, would be the simple substitution for it of the system of the English Equity Courts. If the English system were inferior to that of Ireland, I think compensation would be found in the advantages of uniformity in the administration of the same law in all the Courts of the United Kingdom, and in the aids which Judges and lawyers would derive from reported decisions on the rules of a common system. But if, as think, the English system on the whole, and in almost all its details, is superior to that of Ireland, the principles of public policy and justice to this country seem to call for the substitution which I have presumed to suggest."
  And Mr. Law — (I shall not trouble the House with any other extracts from this voluminous evidence)—Mr. Law, a friend of ray own and a very able man, says—
  "I think the present system of proceeding by cause petition and affidavits, in the Courts of the Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls in Ireland, under the Chancery Regulation Act of 1850, works unsatisfactorily in several respects. Thus, without noticing mere details, our procedure is, in my mind, highly objectionable in its combination, or rather confusion of pleading and evidence in the same document; in the indefinite allowance of alternate statements, instead of having fixed times for closing, first the pleadings and then the evidence; in the practical admission of hearsay, and other illegal evidence in affidavits; and in the absence of any efficient check on the manifest tendency to misstatement and suppression of material facts.
  "As to the other parts of the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, under the Irish Chancery Regulation Act of 1850,' besides those already observed upon, they are of comparatively small importance. In themselves they are, perhaps, for the most part, unobjectionable; but I would earnestly recommend that the system of procedure, as a whole, should be made identical with that of the English Courts of Chancery. There is nothing whatever to justify the maintenance of a distinct and different system here. Without insisting on the truth, that all needless
  1582
  distinctions between the two countries are mischievous in many other ways, I would submit, that even if our system of procedure were in itself as good as the English, it must be less satisfactory and efficient by the mere fact of its being different; for we are thus deprived of all the assistance which the English reports and text-books would otherwise afford us, and this is much more than enough to counterbalance any small merits our system may be supposed to possess. But, in truth, the English system of Chancery procedure appears to me to be, in all important points, greatly superior to ours; and, therefore, I would gladly see it entirely adopted here, and wait for such improvements in the common system as the experience of both countries may from time to time suggest."
  These are the opinions certainly of very eminent persons at the Irish bar, and they go with the other opinions in this report, which is, I presume, in the hands of hon. Members, to sustain the finding of the Commissioners in favour of the assimilation of the practice and procedure of the Courts of Equity in the two countries. Well, the Bill which I now lay upon the table of the House, is in all its parts framed to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners, as to the system of printing Bills which prevails in this country, as to the duty of the Vice Chancellors and the chief clerks, and as to a multitude of other matters, which, of course, I shall not now trouble the House with. The details of the measure are very large indeed; the number of clauses in the Bill is very numerous, but the principal objects which it has in view are those to which I have already referred. It, in fact, contains some eighty or ninety clauses, taken, I may say, in terms from the English Bills; and if the House shall see fit to adopt the measure, the English system substantially, and in all its parts, will be transferred to Ireland. Well, that being so, the system of Cause Petitions will cease; we will have, of necessity, to modify the system so as to bring into operation the general orders which exist in this country. I think there are only two matters as to which the Commissioners think that there ought to be a difference—not a difference exactly— but in which they think that the English system ought not to be introduced. They do not think that the system of pleas ought to be established in Ireland. They think, further, that the demurrer which has been abolished in Ireland, but exists in England, should be re-established in Ireland upon certain conditions. The Commissioners were of opinion that a demurrer for multifariousness, or for want of equity, might be a useful thing; and

  1583
  the Bill proposes to make that change. When I come to introduce another Bill, I will show you how very candidly and how very liberally the Commissioners have acted—how willing they have been to consider the question of assimilation, not in a narrow spirit, nor merely with a view to take that which exists here and apply it in Ireland, because it exists here and not there, but that they have considered carefully, and fully, and substantially what is good here and there, and have been willing and anxious to act with generous reciprocity; to take for England that which was good in Ireland, and to give to Ireland that which was good in England. So far I have gone—and as fully as I could at this hour of the night—through three parts of the Bill. The fourth part relates, as I have already stated, to fees and stamps—a very important though a very dry part of the subject. It is important, not only to the revenue, but for the proper management of the affairs of the Court. Very proper arrangements have been made in this respect in England, but in Ireland, unfortunately, the condition of things is not satisfactory.
  As the matter stands at present in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, there are not less than four separate systems of fees and stamps all existing together. The fees, which were formerly paid to the Masters in Chancery, were converted by a statute of Geo. IV. into Chancery Fund stamps, and they are so carried to the general taxation of the country. Formerly the Lord Chancellor had fees, and the fees are still collected in cash and accounted for to the Exchequer. The fees paid to the Deputy Keeper of the Rolls are paid in cash, and are also accounted for to the Exchequer; the Lord Chancellor's secretary also receives fees in cash, and those fees are accounted for to the Suitors Fee Fund. There are still some officers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, I am sorry to say, who are paid by fees—a system quite contrary to modern notions. By the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce, it is provided that in future no officer shall be paid by fees, and that all fees shall be received in stamps. The fifth part of the Bill, to which I have adverted, relates to some miscellaneous items to which I need not refer, except as to one of them. In the Court of Chancery in Ireland there are very many sums of small amount which have been unappropriated and unclaimed; and while in England such sums, unclaimed for
  1584
  fifteen years, are allocated to the Suitors Fee Fund, in Ireland there is no power to allocate them at all. There are 163,820 accounts of this description, and the sums represented by these accounts amount to £74,632 4s. 5d. cash, and £43,198 17 s. 5d. stock. The Bill, following the English precedent, provides that this large sum, and all other sums, after the lapse of a period of fifteen years shall be carried to the credit of the Suitors Fee Fund, and applied as they are applied in England. Such is the scope of the Bill which I now submit to the House, and I shall only add, that there is not a clause of the entire Bill, that there is not a line of it, which is not covered and sustained by the finding of some one of the English Commission to which I have referred. These Commissions were of the highest order, and statutes were founded upon their Reports; but, principally, the Bill is founded upon the recommendation of the two Commissions for Ireland, of the great authority of which I have already spoken. Taking this into account, taking into account that the men who conducted the inquiry were of the highest eminence upon the one side and upon the other; the English Commissioners represented by such persons as the Master of the Rolls, the present Attorney General, and Sir Hugh Cairns; and the Irish Commissioners by such men as Lord Chief Justice Monahan and Ex-Chancellor Napier; and that the recommendations in their Report are supported by the opinions of the oldest men in the profession of solicitors, men thoroughly and intimately acquainted with the working and management of the two systems; taking also into account that their recommendations are backed up by the earnest prayer of the bar of Ireland, I cannot but think that a Bill which is intended to give effect to those recommendations is entitled to the favourable consideration of this House. I beg, Sir, to move for leave to introduce the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the constitution and amend the practice and course of proceeding in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland." — (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought it must be admitted that the Irish Administration were at last approaching subjects of some importance. The Civil Bill Act had been amended that evening, and the House was then asked to plunge into Chancery;

  1585
  and, although the question appeared uninviting, he must own that his right hon. and learned Friend had given them a clear and able statement. Even poets had been known to write on a suit in Chancery, His right hon. and learned Friend had referred to what was done in regard to Chancery reform twenty years ago; but what had been accomplished in that respect had been accomplished by the House of Commons, whose labours his right hon. and learned Friend had entirely overlooked, and which labours the Commission had also strangely forgotten. His right hon. and learned Friend had complained that the attention of Chancery reformers had long been bestowed almost entirely upon England, and that nothing effectual was done in Ireland till 1850. But what was done in that year, and who did it? Sir John Romilly, then a Member of that House, desiring to improve the administration of justice in Ireland, passed an Act of Parliament which it was the purpose of the ruthless destroyer now to overturn. That was called the Chancery Regulation Act, and its author acted in some respects with common sense. In looking at the Court of Chancery, he found gentlemen there who had almost as good a right to be Superior Judges as some who had reached that rank, and he thought he would avail himself of the staff then existing, To the suitor he gave the choice of suing by bill, which it was now sought to restore, or by cause petition, which, as the cheaper and shorter method of the two, was preferred by the whole Irish community ever since, but which was, nevertheless, now to be abolished. That act of Sir John Romilly had been most successful. But how did Sir John Romilly deal with the Irish Masters? Because it might be thought that these gentlemen were gouty old men of eighty, as in England, whereas they were as full of vigour and animation when Sir John Romilly undertook the matter as any Judge in either kingdom. Sir John Romilly kept them in office and succeeded in saving £15,000 a year for fifteen years; for which he deserved a vote of censure from his right hon. and learned Friend; for, according to the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend, he ought to have abolished the Masters fifteen years ago. There were at present four of them, receiving, with their staff, £4,000 per annum, and if their offices were abolished, what could be more agreeable for them than to draw liberal pensions from that old friend, the Consolidated Fund? Sir John Romilly
  1586
  gave them jurisdiction over various important matters, and his right hon. and learned Friend had forgotten to point out what evils had resulted from that legislation. There never were four gentlemen who, ever since that complete jurisdiction was conferred on them, had more faithfully and efficiently discharged their duties. They had decided ten cases for every case decided by the Lord Chancellor, and he challenged his right hon. and learned Friend to show how many of their decrees had been reversed. He had taken the trouble to inquire, and he found that the proportion was not 3 per cent. What was to be the expense of the new system? That was the vital part of the Bill. The rest was all "leather and prunella." He would state to the House what they were to get. The whole business confided to the Masters was now done by four gentlemen and their staff at an expense not exceeding £14,000 a year. The present staff were all to be paid off handsomely and sent on their travels either to England or to Rome to revive their classical recollections. It was proposed that the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor should have each one chief clerk and two assistant clerks, but then came this clause, which was to be regarded with infinite attention—
  "Power, however, should be given to the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and consent of the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellor, or one of them, by order under their hands, to appoint an additional chief clerk or assistant clerk to the Master of the Rolls and Vice Chancellor, or either of them."
  The salary of the Vice Chancellor would be £4,000 a year. The salary of his first clerk, he heard it whispered, would be £1,500; of his second, £800; and the third, £600. The Master of the Rolls would have the same. That would make the sum £9,800. But then the staff might be doubled should that be thought necessary. That was done because it was known it would be necessary. From his knowledge of the habits of his country, he would say his impression was that the staff would be doubled forthwith. The staff would then cost £15,400. A noble Marquess in another place, whose talents he admired, and whose anxiety to economize was undoubted, had laid it down that economy was to be practised above all things; and the total of the economical advantages of the proposed arrangement stood thus, that whereas the work was now done for,£12,000 a year, it would

  1587
  under the Bill be done for £27,000. He admitted that in these days of liberality, when the country was suffering, £27,000 a year was a very moderate allowance to be given for the promotion of justice; but it raised the question, Was that a work off utility and necessity? If so, he would join heartily with his right hon. and learned Friend in passing the Bill; but it must be understood before they passed it. He would show the condition in which the question came before the House. His right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Incumbered Estates Court, and he said truly a Commission was issued to consider, in regard to the continuance of that Court, what was to be done. There was a report that two Vice Chancellors should be appointed, and that the Incumbered Estates Court would be thrown into Chancery, Now, the late Sir Robert Peel founded the Court, but he did not put it into Chancery; on the contrary, he took it out of Chancery. However, when that announcement got abroad, consternation took possession of the House. That recommendation was objected to; but his right hon. and learned Friend, who was, probably, not aware of what took place on that important occasion, made no reference to an important Committee. He quoted the appointment of the Commission; but why pause there? They sometimes had upon Irish questions a Commission to overturn a Committee, and then a Committee to upset a Commission. Public opinion was alarmed, and as soon as Mr. Justice Fitzgerald proposed his Bill to carry out the proposed alterations, and he (Mr. Whiteside) proposed his for the Amendment of the procedure of the Court of Chancery, it was said this Government Commission would never do; they must not give way to a lawyer's Commission; the House must have a Committee of their own. But not a word was said of that by his right hon. and learned Friend. He never noticed the elaborate, able, instructive Report which that Committee had made, founded on the evidence given before them, not upon questions cut and dry, young gentlemen sending in their essays in reply, and telling the Commissioners in reply what occurred in the reign of King John. The Committee consisted of whom? Of the best men they could get—of the late Sir James Graham, of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, of the late right hon. Member for Coventry, Mr. E. Ellice, of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, of
  1588
  Sir E. Perry, of the Member for Horsham, of the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Herbert), and several other eminent persons. How did they proceed? The Commission on whose Report they were now called upon to act and the Report of the Committee were in direct opposition. They must, therefore, choose between them. The Committee made a Report, founded upon evidence, filling 400 pages. His right hon. and learned Friend had made no observation upon it. He never referred to the fact that the whole subject had been probed and sifted to the very bottom by the members of that Committee. Never had a body of men, not interested in the question, and not connected with Ireland, devoted more time, ability, knowledge, and capacity in dealing with this subject than the members of that Committee. Whom did they examine? They said the witnesses should be few, but that one should be able to give the sense of a score. They examined the Master of the Rolls in England, because he was the author of the original Incumbered Estates Act and the Chancery Regulation Act; they examined the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, the Judges of the Incumbered Estates Court, two Masters in Chancery, and they summoned the Incorporated Society of Solicitors to send one or two to tell their opinions on the whole matter. His Bill was thrown over, and, although at the time he was dissatisfied, his regret had since diminished. The proposition then made was to take three of the Masters (not altering the salaries) and to call them Vice Chancellors. To that the Committee was directly opposed, because it was shown by the witnesses that nothing could be more satisfactory than the manner in which the Masters disposed of the business under Sir John Romilly's Bill, and the Committee, therefore, rather desired to see their humbler title preserved and their jurisdiction increased. The reason as given in evidence was, that business could be done quickly and efficaciously before a Master, while a Vice Chancellor would be unapproachable, to use the words of a solicitor who was examined. But then came a point not entirely to be lost sight of: the costs to the suitors, which he was afraid would be largely increased. Up to that time, although the Master had power to get in money, he had no power to pay it out. The Committee did not see any reason why complete jurisdiction should not be given. The recommendations of the Committee

  1589
  were that a tribunal should exist in which unencumbered properties could be disposed of. They also held that Masters in ordinary should have in a large class of cases original jurisdiction. The Report of the Commissioners was opposed to that view. The next recommendation of the Committee was that the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls should make general orders and give power to the Masters to obtain the assistance of scientific persons, to enable such Court to decide the matters in issue. At present the only persons who disposed of matters without reference wore the Masters, and yet they were to be abolished, while it was contemplated to establish a reference to chief clerks, or a kind of inferior Masters, to do what the present Masters who had been well trained to the work did perfectly. It was extraordinary to hear stated as a reason why the orders which, if made, would have obviated the necessity for the Bill—that those orders had not been made because there was a difference of opinion among the Judges. No words could be more distinct than those which gave the power of making general orders and of distributing the business; and if those powers had been properly exercised there would have been no necessity for applying again to Parliament, as he had no idea of the Judges declining to exercise powers conferred upon them for the benefit of the suitor. It was clear that what could be done in England could in point of economy, simplicity, and expedition be equally well done in Ireland. If the Master of the Rolls had been asked courteously he would have told them his opinion in one moment. The number of references during the past year made by the Master of the Rolls was very small; that learned individual was careful to make as few references as possible. The Bill recommended by the Committee was introduced to carry out the object of enabling the Masters to deal with monies in court. If the Master of the Rolls had been asked what staff he would require to carry on the work in his own court with out reference, he would have replied that all the powers needed to reform the court would be the exercise of the powers conferred by the statute, and giving to the Master of the Rolls the aid of such chief clerks as he might require, capable of carrying out the objects specified in the Report of the Committee. It was not within the power of the Committee to frame rules, and the reason why more specific provision had not been made
  1590
  in the Act of Parliament was, that the House considered it unadvisable to incorporate general orders in a statute. In looking over the evidence of the Master of the Rolls before the Commission, he (Mr. Whiteside) observed that he stated that the carrying out of certain objects alluded to might have been accomplished by general orders, but if such orders had not been made it was not the fault of Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in support of his plan to the evidence of the profession, but it was a curious fact that the professional evidence was equally balanced on either side. Promotion was now so rapid that there was no knowing how soon his right hon. and learned Friend might have a successor in that House, and there might be proposals for the creation of a second Vice Chancellor and a second chief clerk to take the place of the Masters. What was the evidence upon the point? Mr. Pilkington, a very sensible gentleman in the profession, said—
  "In my opinion the working of the jurisdiction which the Masters exercise in Ireland, under the 15th section of the Irish Chancery Regulation. Act, is satisfactory,"
  Mr. William Smith, who was said to have more practice in the court than any other junior, said the result of his experience of the working of the jurisdiction which the Masters exercised was strongly in its favour; and so said two other juniors. The Incorporated Society of Solicitors declared that in its general bearings the Irish Chancery Regulation Act had worked well for the public, and that there had been a great saving of expense, particularly in suits for the administration of real estates. The body of solicitors in Belfast stated that
  "The system of proceeding by cause petitions and affidavits in the courts of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, as affected by the Irish Chancery Regulation Act, is a vast improvement upon the present system, though capable of being still further modified."
  He admitted that amendment was necessary, but had no hesitation in saying that the Attorney General might suggest all that was required without either commission or statute. If the Attorney General had bestowed only two hours in drawing up a code of rules which would apply to; the existing machinery, adding any improvement that might be found in the English system, the result might have been satisfactory; but instead of that the proposal was to substitute an inferior system for one that had worked

  1591
  well in all respects. When the Report of the Committee was made there were four Masters, but subsequently one died, and the vacancy was not filled up. If one of the three retired, of which there was a hint in the Report of the Commission, they might try whether the work could not be done with two. The simple way to economize was not to fill up vacancies and not to create new places. When the Bill came on for a second reading he would appeal to the English Members to say whether the system of chief clerks had been successful. If some difficult cases had got before the Irish Masters, that was because no order was made for the distribution of the business, and, certainly, nobody could pretend that the decisions of the Masters were not sound. Did the right hon. Gentleman really adhere to his opinion that the examiners of the Masters would be fit persons for chief clerks under the new system? He had been informed that the Master of the Rolls in this country and the Vice Chancellors got the most experienced and able men they could find to discharge the important duties of that office. The question of expense was a most important one, and he trusted the House would look carefully at the proposed table of fees, in order to ascertain whether the costs of a suit, which were not now extravagant, might not be magnified instead of being diminished. He hoped the second reading would be put off till a distant day, so that the opinion of the public and the profession might be expressed upon the principle and details of the Bill.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, it was hardly fair of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) to oppose the introduction of a Bill founded upon the Report of a Commission. He was also surprised at some of his observations, especially with reference to the Incumbered Estates question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had always been ready to appoint his own friends to offices when he had the opportunity, and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) did not blame him for doing so; but he was astonished to see him, the head of the legal profession in Ireland, come down here and oppose the introduction of a measure of the kind before them upon such grounds as he had given.
  MR. WHITESIDEexplained that he had brought in the Bill to limit the Judges in the Incumbered Estates Court of Ireland to two, but was forced to allow three Judges to continue.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have permitted the Bill to be printed before entering into a discussion upon its merits. At the same time, he should be happy to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any assistance in his power to oppose the perpetration of any job, or the addition of any new burdens to the Consolidated Fund. He (Mr. Scully) would be glad to avail himself of the present staff, and to make one of the Masters a Vice Chancellor; for that gentleman had no more right to be pensioned off than any clerk in the office. It might be that the Irish Vice Chancellor would be unapproachable; certainly the English was such. It was true that the Irish Judges were the aristocracy of Dublin, while the English Judges were scarcely of the middle classes of England. He believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be mistaken in his estimate of the speed with which business was transacted in the Master's Office. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would find it rather difficult to extricate himself if he were unfortunate enough ever to become involved in legal proceedings in the Master's Office. A system of great delay existed, especially in connection with suits for the sale of property. Under the old method, suits had lasted thirty, sixty, and even eighty years, and though that state of things had been improved, he was sorry to say that of late years there had been a tendency to relapse. The affairs of Mr. John Sadleir, as a case in point, were not set free for nine years. It was necessary that some of the existing evils should be removed, but the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls could not agree in framing the necessary rules, and for that reason he approved of the Bill, because it would make the necessary changes effectual by Act of Parliament.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he saw no necessity for the violent changes proposed in the Bill. It could not be defended on the ground of economy, for it would pay off the present officers only for the purpose of creating others. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Dublin Chamber of Commerce approved the measure, and the Report of the Commission on which it was based was more than counterbalanced by the Report of the very able Committee, which came to quite a different conclusion. There was great alarm and dissatisfaction among his constituents as to these continual changes in the administration of the

  1593
  law and removal of officials. There was no ground of complaint against cause petitions, which, in his own experience, were cheap and expeditious. The great objection to the Bill was that it did not utilize the present officials, as was done in the case of the English Bankruptcy Act. He hoped the Attorney General would give ample time for the consideration of the measure, which, if read a second time, it would be well to send to a Select Committee.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he should offer no factious opposition to the bringing in of the Bill, but he had to remark that what had occurred that night was a sufficient justification of the course taken by his right hon. and learned Friend and others in preventing the introduction of the Bill on a former occasion without any statement. When the Reports of the Committee and of the Commission came to be examined, there would, he thought, be found reasons for doubting whether the Bill would become the law of the land. He hoped the second reading would not be taken till after Whitsuntide.
  MR. HENNESSYdesired the Attorney General to state distinctly whether he would agree to postpone the next stage of the Bill till after Whitsuntide. It was not right that these important measures should be brought on so late at night, when there were not half a dozen Members present, when the Ministers had all retired, and even the Chief Secretary had gone to bed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give him an answer, he knew what would happen.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hennessy.)
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, he thought the manner in which the Question had been put to him quite unjustifiable. He was quite willing to allow reasonable time for considering the Bill—say a fortnight or so—but hoped it would be read a second time before Whitsuntide.
  MR. WHITESIDEsuggested that it would be better to postpone it till after that period.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that to delay the Bill so long would be to lose it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 78.]

SEAT OF UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE.
Ordered,
That the Marquess of Hartington be at liberty to appear, by his Counsel and Agents, before the Select Committee appointed to inquire whether the Under Secretary of State who was last appointed to that office thereby vacated his Seat.
House adjourned at One o'clock.