Commons Sitting of 2 June 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Education (Inspectors' Reports), nomination—Debate adjourned.
SUPPLY—Resolutions [May 30] reported*.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — Fish (Freshwater Streams)*.
First Reading — Fish (Freshwater Streams) * [Bill 130]; Pilotage Order Confirmation * [Bill 131].
Second Reading — Court of Chancery (Ireland) [Bill 78]; Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland)* [Bill 123]; Married Women's Acknowledgments* [Bill 122].
Committee—Banking Co-Partnerships* [Bill 118]; Life Annuities and Life Assurances * [Bill 56]; College of Physicians * [Bill 98].
Report—Banking Co-Partnerships* [Bill 118]; Life Annuities and Life Assurances* [Bill 56]; College of Physicians* [Bill 98].
Withdrawn — Rivers Pollution (Scotland)* [Bill 106]; Public Works (Ireland) * [Bill 101].

THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any progress has been made in the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Hudson's Bay Company relative to the establishment of telegraphic communications with the Pacific through British North America, and whether arrangements for the future management of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company are still the subject of negotiation?
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government exercise at the present moment any control over the territory claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and stated in their Prospectus issued in July last to comprise 1,400,000 square miles; and, whether it is in contemplation to establish a Crown Colony in any portion of this territory?
  MR. CARDWELL,in reply, said, at the present moment no authority was exercised over the territory in question except by the Hudson's Bay Company. Negotiations for some time past had been going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Hudson's Bay Company, having for their object the transfer of a large portion of their territory to the Crown, and the establishment of a Colony in Rupert's Land, and a telegraphic communication with the Pacific. Negotiations had been commenced last Session, but no satisfactory answer had as yet been received.

MR. SERJEANT PAYNE.—QUESTION.
MR. CLAYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the sentence of ten years' penal servitude passed at the Middlesex Sessions on a man named White, for an act which, if an offence at all, appears to have been at most an attempt at a larceny; and whether also he has noticed unusual severity in the sentences passed not unfrequently at the Middlesex Sessions; and whether Mr. Payne's tenure of office was quamdiu se bene gesserit?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, my attention was called to this case by The Times newspaper of Saturday last. Immediately afterwards I received a letter from Mr. Payne, Deputy Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, stating the facts of the case as they appeared on the trial. The prisoner White was charged before him with stealing a roll of cloth, and from the evidence it appeared that he was acting in concert with another man who was not apprehended, and with a woman who was apprehended. Mr. Payne was of opinion that the verdict of the jury was fully justified by the evidence, and in passing his sentence he took into account the fact that the prisoner had been convicted in May, 1859, of a robbery of plate, and had been sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He had at that time been several times previously in custody and twice convicted of robbery. Under those circumstances, Mr. Payne, acting in exercise of the discretion vested in him by law, passed a sentence of ten years' penal servitude upon him. That sentence was subsequently respited until the next Sessions, in order that inquiries might be made as to the truth of the alle-
1062
gations made by the prisoner, of his having been persecuted by the police since his discharge from the sentence of penal servitude, and also as to his character and mode of gaining his living during that interval. In the meantime I had, before receiving Mr. Payne's letter, directed the same inquiries to be made, and the result has satisfied me that, as far as I can judge, the allegations of the prisoner are wholly without foundation. It appeared the prisoner was not known to the constable who apprehended him, and it was not known to the police of the division in which he resided that he had been previously sentenced to penal servitude. Nor was there the slightest foundation for the statement that the prisoner's brother had been discharged from his employment in consequence of the interference of the police, for his employer stated on inquiry, that he had discharged the prisoner's brother in consequence of gross misconduct. The result of the inquiry into the prisoner's conduct since his discharge from penal servitude has shown, what was not known to Mr. Payne at the time he sentenced him, that in November last, six months after his discharge, he was apprehended together with his brother on a charge of being found on private premises at Paddington at two o'clock in the morning for an unlawful purpose, and sentenced at the Marylebone Police Court to three months' imprisonment. In answer to the question, whether I have noticed any unusual severity in the sentences passed at the Middlesex Sessions I have to say, that I have not noticed any unusual severity in those sentences. It will be in the recollection of the House that frequent complaints have been made in this House of the lenity of the sentences passed at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, especially upon habitual offenders. No one can doubt that this man was an habitual offender. As to the tenure of Mr. Payne's office, I have to state that he holds no permanent office. Under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, Mr. Payne is appointed from Sessions to Sessions by Mr. Bodkin, as his deputy. The appointment was originally approved by the Secretary of State. I am bound to state that Mr. Payne informs me that he has filled that office for six years, and that during that time he has tried between 3,000 and 4,000, or 4,000 and 5,000 prisoners—I forget which. I am not aware that any just ground of complaint has ever been established against him.

ACCIDENT IN PLYMOUTH SOUND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident which has recently taken place from Artillery practice in Plymouth Sound; and what measures he proposes to recommend in order to preventt he repetition of so painful a disaster? The accident took place on Monday last in Plymouth Sound while the Artillery were practising. A boat had landed passengers from the Warrior, and was coming back to Devonport, when a shot struck the boat on the starboard side and shattered both the thighs and the spine of one of the boatmen, who lingered for six hours. Another of the boatmen was only saved from drowning by a boat putting out immediately to his assistance. Many other boats, he understood, had been struck in the same way.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that a Report of the accident had been supplied, but up to the present time no further details of the circumstances under which the boat had been struck had been received. A full Report had been called for as to the circumstances attending the accident, and also as to the precautions that ought to be taken to regulate the Artillery practice. In the meantime, orders had been sent by telegraph to suspend all further Artillery practice until that Report had been received.

DISCIPLINE AND DIETARY IN GAOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government be now prepared to give effect to the Recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords in reference to the discipline and dietary in Gaols, and whether the advice of the Visiting Justices of Prisons, which has been sought by Government, and any other inquiries in progress, were calculated to finally fix the dietary in County and Borough Gaols upon a sound and scientific basis; and who are the Gentlemen to whom the subject has been referred, and how has their inquiry been conducted?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that a Paper had been presented to Parliament giving the Correspondence between the Home Office and the Prison Inspectors in reference to the Report of the Lords Committee. A full and elaborate Report
  1064
  had also been received from the three medical men to whom the subject of the dietary of Gaols had been referred, which would shortly be laid on the table. The House would see in that Correspondence the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted and the measures taken by the Government.

MURDER OF MR. JAMES GREY ON BOARD THE "SAXON."—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received the Report of the Court of Inquiry held on Acting Master Danenhowen, or Donovan, of the United States ship Vanderbilt, for the murder of Mr. James Grey, mate of the ship Saxon, at Angra Pequina, held at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, with the finding thereof; also the Proceedings of the Court Martial subsequently held upon him, with the remarks of the Secretary to the Navy of the United States, and the Correspondence of Lord Lyons on the subject; and if so, whether he will lay the Papers upon the table of the House?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the Court of Inquiry held upon Acting Master Danenhowen or Donovan, of the United States' ship Vanderbilt, for the murder of Mr. Grey, mate of the ship Saxon, at Angra Pequina, was a private Court, and the Government had no official information as to what took place in it. The case was then submitted to a court-martial, but the verdict had not yet been sufficiently promulgated. All the information possessed by the Government was derived from the notes of a shorthand-writer who was engaged by our Consul. When the Government received information of the decision of the court-martial, he would see what papers could be produced.

ARMY—PERCUSSION CAPS FOR MILI- TARY PRACTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. MORRISONsaid, he wished to know, Whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the quality of the Percussion Caps issued for practice to the Army?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that complaints had been received of the Percussion Caps supplied to the Volunteers. No complaints had been received from the Army. An improved kind of Percussion Cap had been submitted to the War Office and was now undergoing experiment. Meanwhile, the Horse Guards

1065
had called for a Report on the quality of the present Percussion Caps.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Ordered, That the Orders of the day be postponed till after the notice of Motion relative to Education (Endowed Schools),— (Sir George Grey,)
EDUCATION (ENDOWED SCHOOLS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ADDERLEY: I rise, Sir, to move that this House, having considered the Minute of the Council of March 11, 1864, on Endowed Schools, is of opinion that it does not meet the objections made to the Minute of the 19th day of May, 1863. The House will remember that, about three months ago, I brought forward a Resolution condemnatory of the Minute of May, 1863, which proposed on the part of the Treasury to appropriate to its own credit every single endowment belonging to all the schools in England and Scotland which receive aid from the Government, whether those endowments were the gifts of living donors or vested in charitable trustees for educational objects, or whether they were the actual concession of living claimants amongst the poor for the benefit of the education of their children, or whether they were endowments expressly left for the payment of school fees. That Minute proposed to sweep into the Treasury indiscriminately, and treat as public money, all the endowments belonging to all the aided schools in England and Scotland; and it was not surprising that the House so strongly supported my condemnatory Resolution—indeed, with the exception of the hon. Members for Leeds and Sheffield, I was unanimously supported in the proposition which I made. The noble Lord at the head of the Government found himself obliged to intimate to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, the then Vice President of the Committee of Council, when in the middle of his defence, that he must instantly put about and beat a rapid and immediate retreat, which difficult operation the right hon. Gentleman executed in a manner worthy of his well-known ability.
  MR. LOWE: I beg to say the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
  MR. ADDERLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says I am mistaken, but I must repeat my proposition, and I do not think he will again contradict it, namely, that he came down to the House to oppose my Mo-
  1066
  tion, and the commencement of his speech was apparently in opposition to it, but an intimation being made to him—[Mr. LOWE: No, that is not so.] Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman denies that an intimation was given him, but at all events the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of that speech found the House was unanimously in favour of my Motion, and he was obliged to change his tactics—if he likes the expression better—and beat a rapid and immediate retreat. The Minute which I am now bringing under the notice of the House, and which I hope the House will condemn as heartily as they did the other, was issued a few days after. The new Minute so produced offers to exempt from a general and indiscriminate appropriation of their endowments the small rural schools of the country, which are defined by the document as schools of 1,200 square feet area, as if poverty was to be measured by the square foot, and injustice by the capacity of endurance. Absurd as this mode of meeting the Resolution of the House is, it does not represent to the full extent the right hon. Gentleman's mode of evasion; for there is a proviso in the middle of the Minute, from which he would seem half-way to have repented of what he was about to do—that the endowments of those small rural schools should, if not wholly, be at last so far appropriated by the Treasury, that the endowments and the grant together should not exceed 15 s, a head. Now I appeal to the House whether this is not a proposition for stultifying its former resolution, and whether it is not a cool proposition on the part of a Minister to set at naught the authority and rescind the decision of this House. Those who three months ago opposed the Minute of the 19th May of last year so unanimously cannot consistently accede to the Minute of March 11th. The host of petitions that was presented against the first Minute applies equally to the present one, and the patrons of schools throughout the country who asked their representatives to rally round their interests and defend them from the spoliation proposed in the first Minute can equally call upon them to defend them from the operations of the second. If there are any hon. Members who have schools near their own residences or amongst their constituencies which might escape the entire spoliation of their endowments under the new Minute, and are therefore content to allow the injustice which they hare averted from themselves to fall upon the rest of the kingdom, I tell them to

  1067
  their faces that they do not know their duty or the constitutional principle of their functions in this House. [A laugh.] No hon. Member is sent here to represent his own private interests. I see a noble Lord opposite (Lord Henley) laughs at the proposition; but I hope he is not of those who, having protested against the first Minute, is ready to put up with the last Minute because his local school might come within it. No one, I say, is sent here to represent his private interests, or exclusively his own constituents, but to represent the interests of the kingdom at large, and therefore we are bound to discuss the Minutes by what their effect will be generally on the interests of the schools throughout the country. I was asked by the Government to delay taking the sense of the House on this Minute on the plea that a Return, moved for by the hon. Member for Berkshire, and likely to have a material effect in regard to it, was about to be presented; and I was thought by many to have acquiesced in that request too readily and almost too simply. I did, however, accede to the request, not on account of the alleged plea, but merely because I knew that the present Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education had barely entered into that office, and I therefore conceived that it would be only fair that that right hon. Gentleman, if he should be called on by his leaders to make his first essay in his new office by a Quixotic charge against all the endowments connected with the schools under his control, with a view to sweep them into the Treasury, should have time allowed him to get firmly seated in his saddle. That time has been allowed, and the Return I have adverted to is now before the House; and I confess I cannot conjecture what inference is intended to be drawn from it in favour of the new Minute. In the first place, the Return is most imperfect and most incorrect, and it is wholly inapplicable to the question before the House. It professes in three parallel columns to show the condition of the endowed schools receiving grants in 1862, as compared with 1863; that is to say, to give a comparative statement of their condition under the old and the revised codes. But, as the hon. Member for Berkshire must be aware, the revised code was not in full operation in 1863, and therefore the Return does not accurately represent the condition of the schools under that portion of the revised code in operation. In many particulars it will not come into operation for some years,
  1068
  as, for instance, in the payment of pupil-teachers, and, putting these special points out of the question, it will take some years for the revised code to get on a complete footing. It is well known that no schools received grants throughout the whole of 1863 upon the conditions of the revised code, and therefore the comparison is imperfect. If any information can be obtained from the Return, it is simply this—that even before the revised code came into operation a large reduction had already been made in 1863 in the income of the schools which relied upon grants from the Treasury. I do not condemn that reduction, but I say that schools that were suffering so great and sudden a reduction of income in the way of assistance from the State were unable to stand the second blow involved in the absolute confiscation of the whole of their endowments. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Berkshire is also incomplete in this way, that grants before the revised code were calculated on the income of the schools, and in a great number of instances that income is not given, it being stated in a note that there was no Return of it. How could the office have calculated the grant without knowing the income which measured it? 1 also have to complain of the Return because it affords no test to judge, in any case, of the grant or endowment. I have heard some people say, what a large endowment such and such a school has; but large is a relative term, and unless the number of children in the school be stated, it cannot be said whether any endowment or grant is large. There is another feature of inaccuracy about the Return, inasmuch as in a great number of instances the endowment of the schools is stated at different amounts for 1862 and for 1863. The fluctuations in the statements go to the extent of 100 per cent. Now, if these endowments are fluctuating quantities they are not such endowments as are properly contemplated in the Minute, and they do not justify this strong and violent proceeding on the ground that they are fixed and not precarious incomes. A further feature of inaccuracy is, that several of the largest endowments stated in the Return are endowments, within my own knowledge, not simply for education, but also for the clothing, food, and maintenance of the children. One of that kind is St. Clement's Dane's Schools, which is mentioned in the Report as an endowment for education solely. I think I have shown that the Return, for

  1069
  which my Motion was postponed, is valueless for its purpose. Supposing, however, the Return correct, and as complete in every respect as no doubt the hon. Member for Berkshire wished it to be, I still am at a loss to conjecture what inference he or the Government sought to draw from it in favour of the second Minute. I can judge of the question just as well from any one case as from all, and accumulating cases in an aggregate form did not affect the matter. The question is one of right, and can be illustrated as well from one instance as from a thousand. But, perhaps, the hon. Member for Berkshire, or the Government, thought that they would be able to fish out of the Return certain cases, one or two, justifying the Minute. It is difficult to draw up any scheme of public grants which will not be liable to some cases of abuse, and I will suppose the kind of abuse the hon. Gentleman was searching for—the case of a school possessed of an endowment almost equal to its expenditure; or up to the extreme limit which an endowment could reach, and yet not disentitle the school to a grant, there being certain subscriptions entitling it to some payment of money from the Treasury. I admit that that would be abuse, because it would put the school in possession of an income beyond its requirements; but that case might be met by laying down a rule that in no instance should a grant be given to a greater amount than would make the aggregate sum formed of fees, subscriptions, endowment, and grant, more than 30 s. per head in any school, which is the average expenditure. Such an arrangement would get rid of the abuse I have referred to, without any violent injustice, or the sweeping of endowments from schools into the Treasury; and the remedy I propose I feel confident would be agreed to by the House. This is not a matter of individual cases, for if the hon. Member for Berkshire can produce a few cases of abuse under the existing system, I can for every one he produces bring forward ten where much greater abuse would be certain to spring up under such violence and injustice as the Minute proposes. I will not repeat what I said on a former occasion, but I must remind the House that it is not a question of cases but of principle which is at issue. I and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne are at issue on principle, and I confess I was for some time utterly at a loss to conceive on what possible principle the right hon. Gentleman could have based
  1070
  these Minutes of which he was the author; but in his recent speech he for the first time gave a distinct enunciation of the principle upon which he based them, and upon which he based generally his conduct and by-legislation in his office. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech that he considered himself in his office as the trustee of an eleemosynary fund, in the distribution of which lie was bound to consider the means of the recipients. He said he had to perform the duties of a relieving officer. Now, I ask the House to-day, as I asked them in March last, to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that principle; for I conceive that the right principle on which he ought to act is very nearly the reverse of that which the right hon. Gentleman says he has acted upon. It is true that in the distribution of the public funds for the relief of poverty and destitution you ought to consider the means of the recipient. Whether his means of relief arise from endowments, from subscriptions, from donations, or from charities of any sort or kind, you have no business to distribute a public fund for the relief of destitution, to give out of such fund on the score of destitution, when you know the recipient is in possession of other means of any kind to live upon. But when you are distributing a public fund given in aid of voluntary efforts for the education of the poor, instead of reducing the amount of your assistance by the amount of aid coming from another quarter, you ought rather to increase the assistance in proportion to the voluntary exertion. Your action in the two cases is precisely the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman, in the capacity of a relieving officer, was relieving the Treasury out of the funds of the poor, and not relieving the poor out of the coffers of the Treasury. But let me point out to him that though the parallel of the poor law is false, yet that even supposing there was an analogy between poor relief and a subsidy for voluntary education, the analogy would not bear him out in the defence of this Minute; for in the distribution of poor relief, although you take into consideration the means and the conditions of the recipient, I ask whether any parish would be justified in taking the endowments of the parish in reduction of the poor rates? As a Charity Commissioner I recollect a case very much in point of a parish in Herefordshire, where the guardians of the poor happened to be trustees of an endowment for the relief of the poor. The parish being in debt the guar-

  1071
  dians and trustees took upon themselves to pay off the parish debt by means of the charity property, and for that purpose they cut down the timber on the estate from which the endowment was made. And what ensued? The Charity Commissioners proceeded against them, and the case was decided against them as a fraudulent transaction; and the thing was stopped. Exactly in the same way I ask the House to stop the Treasury from relieving its own disbursements by the appropriation of the endowments of private benevolence. One word more as to the avowed principle of the Minute. I say if you allow the education minister to assume the position of a relieving officer, and to treat the fund at his disposal as an eleemosynary fund, you will be most utterly disappointed. You will find that instead of tending to economy that it would tend to the grossest waste and the most profuse expenditure of the public money. It was against that very pauper system of dealing out as doles from the education fund that I struggled most when I was in that office. I find that the right hon. Member for Calne thinks it has already pauperized the country. He says it was once regarded as an honourable act to undertake the endowment of a school, but not so now. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am firmly of opinion that if we were to allow the Education Minister to take the post of relieving officer and treat the grant as an eleemosynary fund, we should find that the spirit of the country would be pauperized, and its voluntary zeal for the promotion of education would become gradually paralyzed. We see a tendency to this already. We find large districts in London calling themselves poor districts merely because the owners of property will not come forward and take their part in aid of the voluntary system. We find landlords in rural parishes trying to give a stigma of poverty to parishes, which poverty amounts only to poverty in their own zeal, or indicates a want of interest in parishes in which they possess much, but do not reside. But if the property of each parish is to maintain the education of the poor—and no doubt it is sufficient in every case to do so, with the aid of a subsidy from this House—let us not break down that system by turning the subsidy into a dole for destitution, or comparing the minister to a relieving officer. I have done with the principle of the right hon. Gentleman. But there are some who say, "Though it is true that these endowments should not be
  1072
  allowed to relieve the Treasury, yet neither should they be allowed to relieve your voluntary efforts." I think that was the main argument of the hon. Member for Leeds the other day; I think it is likely to be the argument of the hon. Member for Berkshire. The hon. Member for Leeds said,
  "Even allowing that these endowments ought not to be taken to relieve the Treasury, still, on the other hand, they should not be allowed to relieve voluntary efforts."
  The right hon. Member for Calne has never attempted to deny that an endowment during the life of the donor is a voluntary effort. The hon. Member for Berkshire will allow that endowments in the life of the donor have altogether the characteristics which the right hon. Member for Calne declared to be a test of voluntary effort, namely, that they are under the living superintendence of the donor, and are a proof of the stimulus which the education grant was intended to bring forth. But there is nothing that makes an endowment less a voluntary effort in the deed by which the donor binds his successor. He makes the donation during life. This shows that the stimulus has acted upon him in drawing out his money; and I suppose that the hon. Member for Leeds will not say that when a gentleman has made an endowment of £50 a year for a school in his parish that it would stimulate him to greater zeal if the Treasury pocketed the money, and asked him for another £50, in the form of subscription also; because it seems to be contemplated by the right hon. Member for Calne and others, that when the Treasury pockets a vested subsidy you will get the same amount repeated in donations and subscriptions. At all events, I have the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, that endowments in the life of the donor are equivalent to voluntary efforts. That is a very great admission. There is, therefore, a large class of endowments dealt with by these Minutes, who, according to their own showing, Ministers propose to treat with simple robbery, without any excuse or advantage whatever. Let me now proceed to endowments of another kind. The right hon. Gentleman will wish to get away from the consideration of living donors as soon as he can. He will get away from those living squires as he calls them, and from local endowments, and will ask us to consider his Minute with reference to dead squires, and old and not local endowments. He argued as if there was nothing really local in an endowment; and

  1073
  certainly a man in Australia may, from affection for his native county, endow a school in Staffordshire. This, however, is not generally the case. I admit at once that an old endowment, even of three generations, is not entitled to be treated in the same way by the Treasury as recent ones. I say they have not a similar claim, or a claim to the same amount. But at the same time I say the claim, whatever it may be, is on the credit side of the account, and that you cannot on the score of antiquity, or of the endowment being made at a distance, justify the Treasury in depriving the particular locality of all advantage from its endowment. The endowment is the property of the place. It is not public property. Will any one stand up and say that an endowment to a particular place is to be of no advantage to the locality above others? There may be different modes of treating different cases; but nobody will be bold enough to say that an endowment is simply public money, in which its specified object has no particular interest. Still less will any one say that it is just for the debtors of any place to seize on its endowments as a public property and then discharge with it their public debts. I wish to draw the attention of the House for one moment to a suggestion made to me by the hon. Member for Oxford yesterday. I will not appropriate the suggestion, because I hope the hon. Member will introduce it himself. I would deal with old endowments by taking them in account of contributions duly having claims for subsidy at a depreciated rate. The hon. Member for Oxford threw out this fresh suggestion. He said, "Why should not a public body, say the Charity Commissioners, appropriate such endowments to special extra prizes to the school endowed or for the masters, and then let the school receive grants on the same terms with other schools irrespectively of its endowments?" I think it well worthy of consideration whether by that means the locality might not have the advantage of its endowment, and yet all schools start fair for grants. And there would be this additional advantage—that there would be certain places possessing endowments whose schools would be looked to as prizes by the masters throughout the kingdom who would thus gain the stimulus of promotion. Well, now, I have completed my arguments. I will only ask the House to recollect how completely we made out in our last debate the entire failure of the advocates of the Minutes proposed, even to show their possible ap-
  1074
  plication throughout this country. We found that, even if we consented to the violation of justice that seems to pervade them, they could riot be carried out without great exceptions, great anomalies, and injurious consequences. As to the great exceptions, the greatest of all included the whole kingdom of Scotland, when the heritors' tax in every rural parish would have to be left out of the category of endowments; and that I consider to be a considerable deduction from any provision relating to school endowments which is meant to be impartial. As to the anomalies, we find them in the case of endowments for the payment of fees in schools—which the Minutes exclude as endowments, but recognize as school fees. As to the consequences, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not acknowledge this consequence to be injurious, that it would put a stop at once and for ever to the process by which the Charity Commissioners are turning many doles from charities notoriously abused, to the purpose of education? Would it not still further be an evil that this Minute would at once put a stop to all future school endowments? It is no use appealing to the Government in favour of any endowments. I am afraid they are prepared to see the extinction of endowments without regret; but at all events I have made out that the relative claims of schools, endowed and unendowed, may be reconciled to each other without any injustice to either, or the appropriation of the property of the one to assist the other. There is a Minute I would propose to substitute. When the right hon. Gentleman gave me a draft of this new Minute I ventured to give him also a counter draft of my own, which I thought would be preferable. He knows it, and I need not trouble the House by explaining it. I think I see my way of limiting the whole expenditure for education in this country in a satisfactory manner, without any such violent appropriation of the property of endowed schools. It is with no special views—not in the special interests of the Church, nor in the interests particularly of the poor, but merely because I think it is most desirable that the distribution of the education grant should be on fixed and fair conditions, that I propose to the House to cancel those two Minutes, and to substitute the one that I have prepared. I think we should pay most dearly for any little temporary relief the Treasury would gain by a plan for the appropriation in aid of

  1075
  public grants of the private endowments of schools.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, having considered the Minute of Council of the 11th day of March, 1864, on Endowed Schools, is of opinion that it does not meet the objections made to the Minute of the 19th day of May, 1863."—(Mr. Adderley.)
  MR. WALTERsaid, he should occupy the attention of the House but for a very few minutes, for the principle at issue between his right hon. Friend and himself was of so limited and narrow a character that it required only to be clearly stated to be understood, and hardly demanded so lengthy an explanation as that of his right hon. Friend. The question he took to be simply this, Were endowments to be considered in the nature of public property appropriated to certain purposes, and placed in the hands of trustees to see that it was so applied; or were they to be regarded as special subscriptions, and to be treated as such, and taken into account among the sources of income from which a school derived its funds? His right hon. Friend had held him responsible to a greater extent than was right for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Return which had been laid on the table on his Motion. At all events, his right hon. Friend had no right to complain that he had been obliged to postpone his Motion until that Return was produced, inasmuch as a considerable part of his speech was devoted to an exposure of its inaccuracies. Certainly there was another Return which would have rendered that one far more complete, and without which it was scarcely possible to do full justice to the subject. That was the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Newark, which would furnish the House with most valuable information, and would show the origin, history, and character of every school endowment, whence derived, the date, and how applied. That Return, with the Return already produced, would furnish the House with very valuable information. It really, however, was of very little consequence, as his right hon. Friend had truly said, whether the Return was strictly accurate or not. He did not rest his argument at all on the accuracy of the Return. He agreed entirely with his right hon. Friend that it was a question of principle, that it mattered little whether the endowment were £5 or £500, and many endowments, as they knew, went beyond even that large amount. When his right hon.
  1076
  Friend the late Vice President, at the conclusion of his speech, made that concession to the opposite party, waiving a large portion of his case and making an exception in favour of small schools, he felt then that the ground was so far cut from under his feet, for he admitted that if an exception were made in favour of small rural schools there was no logical ground for making a deduction from the larger schools. The real question they had to determine was, What was an endowment? He took the history of most of these school endowments to be this:—They were left by benevolent persons, not to go into the pockets of the parishioners, as they would do if the present system were carried out, but for the support of schools in particular places where otherwise these schools never would have existed. They were left at a time when the duty of supporting education was generally ignored. They were left by benevolent donors with the full conviction that if the money was not left in that form for the performance of the duty it would be altogether neglected. Circumstances, however, had completely altered since that time. The support of schools was becoming recognized as a general duty, and it was very liberally performed. When the Government offered its support to schools on the condition of the parishioners in particular places evincing their willingness to perform the duty, the grant ought to be measured by the display of that willingness on the part of the parishioners, and not by the possession of certain public property which they held as trustees, and from which they themselves ought to derive no benefit whatever. To use an illustration which would make his case clear. Suppose the State out of the public revenues were to undertake to do completely and entirely what it did partially, and were to support wholly and entirely all the schools throughout the country. Take then the case of half-a-dozen parishes which required each £100 a year to pay their expenses. Suppose one of these schools had an endowment of £50, another of £40, and another of £30, and so on, and that a certain proportion of them had no endowment at all—would his right hon. Friend contend that that £100 should be paid to every one of these schools, irrespective of their endowments? Of course not. It would be putting the endowments into the pockets of the parishioners. If that were so, what was it they were doing with regard to the present system? The State

  1077
  contributed a portion towards the expenses of these schools, and in proportion as the endowments were taken into account as a portion of the ordinary revenue of a school the pockets of the parishioners were relieved of a portion of the expenses. That principle was fully illustrated by the facts of the case. When the hon. Member for Leeds the other night read a long list showing the small proportion which subscription school fees bore to endowments, and the consequent benefit which parishioners derived from these endowments, the immediate answer was, "that was in 1860; things have been altered since then." The Return, however, showed what was the case in 1863, and he would cite one or two cases. There was no need to select any, for all over the country were scattered about schools with small endowments and large Government grants, and large endowments with small Government grants. He would take the case of Arundel. Arundel in 1862 had an endowment of £120 19 s. 2d.; the total income derived from other sources, including schools fees, was £35 2s. 8d., the amount of the grant £162 16 s.—making a total for that school of £318 17 s. 10 d. Now would any one tell him that that sum of £120 19 s. 2d. did not go into the pockets of the parishioners of Arundel? Again, Barnstaple Bluecoat School had in the same year, in the shape of endowment, £98 12 s, 5d.; from other sources, £29 3s. 11 d.; while the Government grant was £45 15 s.—making a total of £173 11 s. 4d. There was also the case of Accrington, in Lancashire, which, according to the Return, had in 1863 an endowment of £50, the entire amount derived from other sources being £192 4s. 6d.; the amount of the grant, I £194 14 s.; total, £336 18 s. 6d. In I Bridgenorth Bluecoat Schools the endowment was £251 7s. 4d., the funds from other sources, £49 3s. 1d.; the grant, £49 16 s. 6d.; total, £350 6s. 11 d. In the case of the Episcopal Charity School, Exeter, the endowment was £547 5s.; other funds, £230 6s.; grant£175 1s. 4d.; total, £952 12 s. 4d. The endowment in the case of Brereton, Staffordshire, was; £86 2s. 2d.; the receipts from other; sources, £43 1s. 2d.; amount of the grant, £19 3s. 4d.—not a very large grant, but what he should like to know was, why that amount of endowment should not be deducted. He should like also to call the attention of his right hon. Friend
  1078
  to another argument derived from those endowments. He held in his hand the petition of the managers of the Shirley Church of England Endowed School, and what was the argument used by those gentlemen in favour of those endowments being respected in the way which his right hon. Friend proposed? One great object was, they said, "to enable the managers, especially in rural districts, to rise to the pecuniary requirements of the Committee of Council and to obtain a portion of the educational grant and secure the services of a certificated and more efficient teacher than they could otherwise have engaged." That was to say, that those endowments were to be made a lever in the hands of those managers for extracting money out of the pockets of the public, which they must pay in the shape of grant, while managers who had no endowments and, therefore, not the same means of paying certificated teachers, enjoyed no such advantage. Was that, he would ask, fair? What right had the House to turn those endowments into an engine of that kind? The argument of those gentlemen was—"We will tax you by means of our endowments. We will compel the Government to respect those endowments, and we will put our hands into your pockets." Another argument urged by the managers in question was, that "to make an abatement of grant in proportion to endowment is in effect to deprive a school of any benefit from the liberality of its benefactors, and to confiscate the endowment to the public revenue." What was the meaning of that word "confiscate?" If the principle contended for were admitted, it was clear those endowments would not go for the support of the school but into the pockets of the parishioners. He recollected the case of a school in which the endowment was £130, the amount of the subscriptions £33, and the Government grant £120 or £130, Could there be any doubt as to where that endowment went? He could not understand how, if the argument of his right hon. Friend were admitted in the case of small endowments, it should not also be admitted in the case of large, which would be a reductio ad absurdum of the whole thing. He should not trouble the House further on the subject, because when the matter was once clearly stated he did not see how it could be misunderstood. A certain degree of courtesy might be required to be extended in the case of endowments for a man's life, but he did not think

  1079
  there was any necessity for carrying it beyond. The whole theory of the mortmain laws showed that we were not disposed to respect the endowments with which they dealt; and he saw no reason why precisely the same principle should not be applied to the endowments for schools. He regretted the Government had gone so far as they had in protecting those small endowments; and feeling as he did, that the question was one of principle, not of detail, he should oppose the whole principle of endowments being respected in the distribution of Government grants, whether their amount was large or small.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the distinction between endowments and local contributions was broad and intelligible. A local contribution implied personal sacrifice and a continuing interest in the welfare of the school on the part of the giver. If a school were ill-conducted the contributor would evince his dissatisfaction by withdrawing his subscription; whereas the endowment remained the same under every possible circumstance. The course which the Privy Council had taken up to that time with respect to endowments was, he must admit, somewhat inconsistent. Formerly grants in aid of schools were made under various heads—augmentation of masters, capitation grants, and payments to pupil-teachers. The augmentation to masters was never paid unless a certain sum was provided by the school, out of the fees or local contributions, and the endowment was left out of consideration. In the case of the capitation grant there was no such provision. It was made in every case where the funds of the school, created out of fees, local contributions, and endowments, reached the sum of 14 s. per head; and so with respect to the pupil-teachers, their grant was made quite irrespective of the sources from which the income of the school was drawn. At that moment they were under the compromise entered into between the Government and the House, paying to schools where pupil-teachers were maintained considerable sums of money, while those schools were receiving by way of endowment, £2, £3, and even £5 per head upon each child. The revised code dealt with the subject of endowments, but dealt with it but imperfectly. The attention of the Department did not seem to have been specially directed to that part of the question. It was occupied by topics of greater consequence. The regulations made on this subject in that
  1080
  code were that no grant should be given in any case where the endowment amounted to more than 30s. per head, on the average attendance of children. What was the result? That where a school in which the attendance averaged 200 had an endowment of £300, and that 10 s. was raised by means of local contributions, and 10 s., therefore, given in the shape of a grant, the school would actually be in the receipt of 50 s. per head. There was no reason to doubt that many schools were receiving more than they required; and, in some cases, considerable sums had been, by way of bonus, presented to masters, in others reserve funds had been created to extend the school buildings at a future time. The Privy Council having to deal with this state of things considered it thoroughly, and it was their opinion that the payment authorized by the House and made by the State was sufficient, with that amount of local aid which might fairly be expected, to give a proper education to the children of the poor. That calculation was founded on the assumption that all schools started on an equality, with no funds but those raised by means of local contributions. It was obvious that if the assessment committee for any union possessed the power of assisting out of the rates of the union the different parishes composing it, the assistance given would be proportionate to the actual means of the parish receiving aid. They would not give to a parish which had an endowment of £100 a year as much as to a parish which had none; and the same principle ought to guide the State in the distribution of its annual grants. The right hon. Gentleman had used hard words, and talked about "spoliation" and "confiscation," but he would ask him whether the contribution of the State was not given simply to supply a need. Where that need existed and the conditions imposed by the Privy Council and sanctioned by that House were complied with, the grant was made; but where the need did not exist there ought not to be any grant. Such, however, did not appear to be the opinion of the House when the subject was last before them, and his right hon. Friend and predecessor undertook to frame a Minute which should be in accordance with the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Staffordshire, and with the understanding which was then come to. That Resolution was vaguely worded, that no one could deny

  1081
  that it was satisfied by the Minute of March, 1864; hut the question between them really was, What was the fair interpretation of the understanding under which the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman had been withdrawn? Several hon. Members, among them the noble Lord the Member for Northampton (Lord Henley), the hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Mitford), and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), drew on that occasion a broad distinction between endowments in rural places and endowments in towns. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford pointed out that while in rural parishes the contributions would depend mainly upon the disposition of the principal proprietors, upon their liberality or niggardliness, in towns and populous districts, the average of numbers tended to remove their inequality. The distinction between populous and small rural parishes had already been recognized in the orders of the Privy Council, under which rural parishes were treated in certain cases more favourably than urban ones. The Minute of March, 1864, was in effect this. Any school the; average attendance of which did not exceed 100 children—and the House must remember that an average attendance of 100 implied that there were usually 150 names on the books—might enjoy an endowment to the extent of 6s. for each scholar, without any deduction being made from the grant. That in the case of a school having 100 children, amounted to an endowment of £30 a year. This exception met the case of some of the Scotch endowments, such as those of Mill and Dick, which were among the most useful that existed. Mill's bequest produced about £1,400 a year, which was divided in the proportion of £20 a piece among 70 out of 144 schools in the county of Aberdeen, Dick's bequest, which produced £4,000 a year, was distributed between Aberdeenshire and two neighbouring counties. He did not say that there would be no changes in the application of those bequests, but with the necessary alterations the whole of the funds of these two great endowments might be applied under the Minute in furtherance of popular education. Such being the effect of the Minute, he wished to call attention to the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Berkshire. He fully admitted that it was not a complete document, and that in order to guide the House it should have shown
  1082
  the average amount of the endowments over a series of years, because they were subject to great fluctuations. It appeared, however, by the Return, that out of 7,739 schools assisted by the State 1,631 were endowed schools. The average attendance in these 1,631 schools was 213,000 scholars, and the total value of their endowments was £52,495 a year. That sum divided among 213,000 scholars would give exactly 4s. 11 d. a head; so that if these endowments were equally distributed — which, however, was not the case — every rural school would obtain the full benefit of its endowment. It was impossible to draw in all cases an exact distinction between the rural and town schools, but he believed it could be done with sufficient accuracy for the information of the House. The number of schools which would be wholly relieved by the Minute would be 450, and the number partially relieved 674; the remainder were town schools, the endowments of which would in all cases be deducted from the grants. By far the greater number of endowments in the rural parishes were small, and the large towns which had sprung up in modern times rarely had any endowments. They were generally to be found in places of respectable antiquity, such as Shrewsbury, Hereford, Worcester, Bridgenorth, and towns of that character. That such schools could dispense with any exception being made in their favour could be shown by a recent example. At Hereford there were two schools, each having an endowment of about £120 a year. When the Minute was published, the trustees of one of them were about to protest and petition against it, but they thought better of the matter; they exerted themselves to supply the place of the grant which was to be withdrawn, and, after providing for the education of fifty children gratuitously, they had by a system of fees raised £130 more than the amount of that grant; and the Dean of Hereford said, that he had no doubt whatever that the managers of the other school, too, would be able to raise more than they formerly received from the Government. These schools had for a considerable time been, and under the revised code would have remained, in receipt of £250 a year, which was worse than wasted. He believed that in most other towns a similar result would follow the publication of the Minute. As a question of economy that was of but trifling consequence. The saving would

  1083
  be only about £30,000 a year, but it was of infinitely greater importance that the public money should not be uselessly squandered. Over and over again economies had been introduced which had at first excited objection and hostility, but the soundness of which had ultimately been universally admitted. The right hon. Gentleman himself caused some dissatisfaction among the managers of schools by reducing the amount of the building grant, yet the propriety of that reduction was not now disputed. He believed that the same would be the case with regard to this Minute, which he was confident would inflict no permanent injury upon the education of the country. Believing that the system adopted for the encouragement of popular education had conferred inestimable benefits on the country, and so far from dulling the edge of voluntary effort, as had been apprehended, had greatly stimulated it, he would not willingly be a party to any act which would impair its efficacy. He held that the interference of the Government with the education of the country had been fraught with the greatest blessings.
  The advice and assistance of the Inspectors had been of the greatest value in organizing the schools; and everyone who had lived in a populous district, as he had done, must have felt that, while the advantage of the Government aid to the present generation was very great, its benefit to the next generation would be incalculable. He believed that no money had been better expended than the £8,000,000 expended in education. Still, it was the bounden duty of the House to hold its hand whenever an injudicious outlay was pointed out, because a reckless expenditure brought discredit on those who administered the fund, and demoralized those who received it. For these reasons, he would ask the House not to assent to the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to know whether the Revised Minute would permit the revenue arising from the Mill bequests in Aberdeenshire to be distributed without deductions from the Government grant?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEobserved, that in that case as well as in those of all rural schools where the average of attendance was less than 100, no deduction would be made within the limits indicated by the Minute.
  Question put,
  "That this House having considered the Minute of Council of the 11th day of March, 1864, on Endowed Schools, is of opinion that it does not meet the objections made to the Minute of the 19th day of May, 1863."—(Mr. Adderley.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 119: Majority 8.

EDUCATION (INSPECTORS' REPORTS).

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [31st May],
  "That Mr. Bruce be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Education (Inspectors' Reports),"—(Viscount Palmerston,)—
  —and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Select Committee do consist of five Members, to be nominated by the General Committee of Elections,"—(Mr. Clay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he regretted he had not been present at the discussion of the previous evening, because the question raised was one of considerable importance, and it behoved the House to decide deliberately and calmly. His opinion was that questions involving imputations on the conduct and business of public departments could not be tried satisfactorily by Committees that were ordinarily appointed. Those Committees were composed of fifteen Gentlemen, who were selected, not because they were supposed to be impartial and unbiassed, but on the principle of taking half-a-dozen Members of strong opinions from one side of the House and balancing against them half-a-dozen from the opposite side. When the Committee came to decide, it was usually found that they were very evenly balanced, and perhaps the Chairman gave his casting vote in an inquiry in which a really judicial decision was required. He remembered a very analogous case which happened a few years ago—namely, the Committee appointed to consider the question of contracts. Upon that occasion he took objection to the construction of the Committee, and the same objection he still retained, which was this—that a Committee

  1085
  so constituted did not properly try questions of that kind or come to a satisfactory verdict; and he must say that the result of the inquiries and the evenly balanced divisions which took place showed that his objection was more or less well founded. The investigation proposed was of an analogous character. There was an accusation of maladministration brought against one of the great Departments of the State, and he was confident the inquiry could be carried on far more fairly, more impartially, and with more of a judicial spirit by five Gentlemen selected from Members of that House, who did not usually act from party motives, than by a Committee of fifteen Members. [Cries of "Divide!"] Those cries showed that all the hon. Members of that House were not really prepared to deal with the question in a fair and judicial spirit. It would be in the recollection of the House, with I regard to another case, with which the late Mr. Stafford was unfortunately mixed up, that the investigation was intrusted to a Committee of five Gentlemen, to whom all in that House looked up with respect, and their verdict was received with satisfaction as on the whole a fair decision. When the Committee was composed of a limited number the result was usually more satisfactory to the House and the country than where the decision might be a mere matter of balance in a larger Committee. The objection taken to a Committee of five, that the members would not be acquainted with the facts of the case, and would not be able to elicit the truth, did not really apply, because such Committees had more recently been appointed with two additional members, one to prosecute and the other to defend, but who had no votes, and whose business it was to bring out the facts. He had himself served on one of those Committees, of which the late Sir James Graham was Chairman, and the inquiry was conducted in a way which was perfectly satisfactory to the members of the Committee. The whole of the facts of the case were brought before them, and the result met with the approval of the House and the country. On these grounds he should give his hearty support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, one who had heard his right hon. Friend might have supposed that he was some ingenuous youth who had just got a seat in the House, and not a Member of that great experience of
  1086
  the proceedings of Parliament which they all knew him to possess. His right hon. Friend told them he wanted to have a perfectly impartial tribunal—[Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE: As impartial as can be got]—and he would wish it to be inferred that Election Committees were perfectly impartial, and therefore that this Committee should be formed upon that model. As far as his (Mr. Baillie's) experience went, he did not think there was any tribunal in this country that could be regarded as so partial and unjust as an Election Committee. That was the result of his experience in that House. Whenever an Election Committee was appointed he had always heard hon. Members ask who was to be the Chairman, and according to the Chairman they at once inferred what the decision of the Committee would be. Now, his impression was that the Committee which had been already moved for, selected, he believed, by the Government, was as impartial a tribunal as the case could be submitted to. Inasmuch as it was a public question, and not one with regard to the character of individuals, he thought it should be submitted to a large and numerous Committee of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will detain the House but a few moments. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) has introduced a new element into the subject. Undoubtedly, while it was felt on the one hand in the former discussion that there would be a considerable advantage in referring the matter to a Committee of five, it was felt on the other hand, and it was strongly urged, that there was this disadvantage, that among the five Members could not be included those who were best acquainted with the case, and most competent to conduct it. Now, the proposal of my right hon. Friend entirely removes that difficulty; and, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I have to say that we are willing to refer the matter to a Committee formed upon the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. [Cries of What is it?] The proposal is this, that a Committee of five should be appointed by the Committee of Selection, but together with those five, who alone should have a deliberative vote, there should be joined two Gentlemen, whose functions—following the precedent set upon former occasions—would be to act as assessors, and to assist the Committee, while not at all professing to

  1087
  be judges or perfectly impartial, like the five Members of the Committee. I confess I think that the fairest and most impartial mode of constituting the tribunal for this investigation.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is very important to bear in mind, whatever decision may be come to, that we are called upon to decide, without any previous notice whatever, upon the elements of a tribunal which were not before introduced. I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had made any suggestion for any alteration in the elements of the Committee, until I heard the interpretation which has been put upon his speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let the House consider its position. First of all, there is the leader of the House now absent proposing that there should be a regularly constituted Committee, and then an hon. Gentleman proposes by way of Amendment that there should be a Committee of five appointed by the Committee of Selection. Well, we are brought here to-night to decide that Question, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, a high authority in matters in his line, makes a speech without moving anything, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and says it never occurred to him before—it seemed a most admirable mode of proceeding, and he recommends it. Why, we have not the proposition before us; we hare not had any notice of it; and I myself have not heard what the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is. I know there was a great objection to the Motion of the noble Lord, on the ground that all kinds of personal motives would be introduced. But now, according as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this would be entirely a personal trial; there would be a prosecutor and a defender who would treat the whole question as if the character of an individual were involved. It is impossible to say that there are not some personal considerations involved in the matter. I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne did not consent to sit in the Committee, and I have no doubt that his honour would be in safe keeping. But, though there are personal questions involved, no one will for a moment pretend to say that the political are not greater than the personal considerations. The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock strikes at the very existence of the Committees of this House, and if the House does not defend them it
  1088
  will lose all the powers and privileges which characterize Parliament. I cannot say I entertain the same opinion of Election Committees as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie). I think, on the whole, the decisions of those Committees are influenced by a sense of justice, but if you lay down as a principle that no Committee can be trusted if men of decided political opinions on either side of the House are Members of it, that is opposed to the whole tendency and genius of Parliament; by acting upon it you will debar yourselves of the services of your ablest men, and you will end by striving, as you are now doing, to frame an institution which is not in harmony with the general tenour of your rule. My own opinion is that it is the best to follow the proposal of the leader of the House. The noble Lord, who is unfortunately absent, is not only from his position, but from his experience, of the highest authority. No doubt he consulted with his Colleagues before he made his proposal, and I have no doubt that it was the decided opinion of his Colleagues that a Committee, as usually constituted, was the fairest tribunal. Let us pay to the noble Lord in his absence the respect which we pay him in his presence. The noble Lord is now absent receiving a high distinction at the hands of an ancient University, and when in his absence the Chancellor of the Exchequer turns round and says that he prefers the raw suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman on the fourth bench to the deliberate and mature advice of his leader, I do not hesitate to say that that is a decision in which I, though an opponent of the noble Lord, am not prepared to share, and I shall, therefore, support the original Resolution.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the reduction which, in recent years, had taken place in the number of members on Election Committees was a great improvement, and he approved in the present instance the proposition to constitute the Committee of five Members only. Some hon. Gentlemen might call that a political question, but there was a great deal of personal consideration mixed up with it, and out of doors no one heard of the Resolution condemning the practice of the Education Department without feeling that it was either nothing at all or else a personal implication. There must be some one responsible for the Department, if it had broken faith with the House of Commons, and acted so discreditably as to de-

  1089
  serve censure, and that somebody had a fair right to defend himself. His impression was, that the best plan would be to have five fair and candid men, selected by the Committee of General Elections, to form the Committee. Nevertheless, in such n Committee, there would still be wanting the element necessary to bring out the case of the parties interested on the one side and on the other; but in many instances that difficulty had been met by the appointment of what were called assessors, having, no vote, but being well acquainted with the case and acting as counsel. In that way he believed that as honest a decision was arrived at as it was possible to obtain under the circumstances; and he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that even the subordinates in the Education Office, who possessed no advocates in that House, had a right to a fair trial before the Committee, and ought not lo be condemned without inquiry.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid, he very much regretted that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was not present on the evening when the Question was discussed, for if he had been he would not have supposed that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not adopted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hull. The noble Lord gave that proposition his cordial support; and, probably, if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he might have come to the same conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman described the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock as taking the House by surprise; but any man of his experience might have known that the plan there suggested was constantly adopted in respect to Committees like that under discussion, and the Chairman of Ways and Means the other night distinctly pointed out that mode of proceeding, which seemed to meet with the approval of the House. He dissented from the statement of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that the question of policy in that instance was of more importance than the personal question, for he thought that the personal honour of a Member of that House and of the servants of the Crown was certainly of greater importance than the question whether the Reports of the School Inspectors should be curtailed or not. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the individual expression of opinion which had taken place was a complete vindication of the right hon. Member for Calne, but he could
  1090
  still understand the right hon. Gentleman desired to obtain a more formal recognition of the accuracy of his statements. It should also be remembered that many of those hon. Members who exonerated him still maintained that the Resolution of the 12th of April was true. If so, somebody had been guilty of the grossest misconduct; and he claimed, on behalf of the servants of the Department, that a tribunal might he constituted which would carry out the principles of equity and justice. On the ground of fair play, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would deny that a Committee of five men selected for their impartiality and calm and dispassionate judgment would be a more satisfactory tribunal than a larger Committee composed in some measure of partisans. He, therefore, trusted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull would not be opposed.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I think the difficulty the House is in is that it has attempted to do something which everybody feels is unnecessary. I understand the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) makes no imputation upon the right hon. Member for Calne, and I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on one occasion say the same thing. I believe that the impression made upon the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his explanation was such that every Member of the House—I believe without an exception at that moment—wished that the Resolution of the 12th of April had not been passed. I think the general opinion of the House was, as regards him, that if that Resolution was an imputation on his character it was unfortunate and unjust. Well, I think the right hon. Gentleman is highly unfortunate, too, in the way he has been treated by the Government. I do not know how many weeks—some five or six at least—have passed since this unfortunate matter occurred, and the proper course for a powerful Minister defending a Colleague, whom he believed and knew to be innocent, would have been to ask the House to rescind the Resolution. The Government, however, did not take that course for reasons of its own, and after the Question is dragged on week after week in this manner, and in a way which must be excessively unpleasant to the right hon. Gentleman most concerned, there is now a question—What kind of Committee shall be formed? We all know that a Committee of fifteen is a most unsatisfactory tribunal in a matter of this kind—I

  1091
  think for the reason just stated. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will only try to put themselves into the position of the right hon. Member for Calne, there is not one of them who will go out of the House and vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull. I have had no communication with the right hon. Member for Calne; but I have heard from those who are likely to know his views in this case—in which, to some extent, his character arid reputation are involved—that the matter will he much better and more justly tried, and tried more to the satisfaction of himself and all those who feel an interest in what may become of him, by a Committee of five members than one of fifteen. Now, I believe that there is not an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House who, if he were placed in the position of the right hon. Member for Calne, would not feel when there is a proposition on the one hand to nominate a Committee of fifteen, and on the other to name a Committee of five, that the House would do him great injustice, if it refuses to appoint that tribunal which would be satisfactory to himself and his friends, and which has been appointed on many former occasions. I believe there is no necessity for a Committee, but if the House is to divide between the two propositions, I shall give my vote in favour of the hon. Member for Hull.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'the Select Committee do consist of five Members, to be nominated by the General Committee of Elections,' be added,"
  —instead thereof.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposed to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He might be wrong, but he certainly did not understand that suggestion had been made the other evening by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay); for, speaking after him, one objection he took to his proposal was, that in a Committee of five chosen by the Committee of Selection no one would be present to act the part of counsel, and considerable difficulty might therefore occur. Although he still thought that a Committee of fifteen would be the most just, yet after what he had just heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham he thought it would be hardly fair to the right hon. Member for Calne to insist on his own opinion.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the noble Lord was right in stating he did not absolutely make the suggestion that assessors should be appointed. He took it for granted, from the instances he had named, that as a matter of course two assessors would be named, one, the gentleman most interested in the attack, so far as it was an attack; and the other, probably, the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. The practice was to move for a Committee of five; and two assessors were afterwards added. In the case of Earl Granville, on whom an attack was made, only one assessor was appointed, that noble Lord declining to have one.
  MR. H. BAILLIEremarked that the position of prosecutor in such a case would be a very invidious one, whoever might be appointed.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he proposed to follow the course adopted in the case of Mr. Stonor some ten years ago. He should, therefore, now move That two other Members of the House be named by the General Committee of Elections, and appointed to serve on the Select Committee, to examine Witnesses, without the power of voting.
  Amendment proposed,
  To the said proposed Amendment, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "and that two other Members, to be named by the General Committee of Elections, be appointed to serve on the Select Committee to examine Witnesses, but without the power of voting."—(Mr. Edward Pleydell Bouverie.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was aware there had been instances of the kind; but he wished to know whether Gentlemen so named to serve in the capacity of assessors would have an option, or would be compelled to serve on being appointed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed the two assessors would be appointed only after communication was had with them.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Select Committee do consist of five Members, to be nominated by the General Committee of Elections, and that two other Members, to be named by the General Committee of Elections, be appointed to serve on the Select Com-

  1093
  mittee to examine Witnesses, but without the power of voting:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  And, on June 7, Committee nominated as follows: —
  John George Dodson, Esq., Sir Philip de Malpas Grey Egerton, Bart., Lord Hotham, the Hon. Charles Howard, Edward Howes, Esq.
  Also, The Lord Advocate, and Lord Robert Cecil, but without the power of voting.

COURT OF CHANCERY, IRELAND.
[BILL 78.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O'Hagan.)
MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he did not think the measure before the House, however important, was calculated to benefit the suitors in the Court of Chancery in Ireland. On the contrary, it would be attended with great expense, which was wholly unnecessary. Its introduction was altogether premature, and was founded on evidence not calculated to sustain such a measure. From the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend it might be supposed that his was the first effort that had been made to reform the Court of Chancery in Ireland; but such was by no means the case. Chancery reform was taken up in Ireland before it was discussed in this country. In 1850 great reforms were introduced. The Masters' Office had been for many years a reproach, not because Masters presided there, or on account of the mode of procedure, but because the Government of the day wished to make the courts self-supporting. Stamps were required at every stage of a suit, and, in fact, a system of abuse grew up, not so much from the mode of administering justice itself, as from the endeavour to sell justice and make the court self-supporting—an idea as absurd as it would be to attempt to make the police of London self-supporting. Well, an Act was passed by which the old practice of bills and answers was entirely discontinued, and a short and simple proceeding, by petition to the Chancellor and informal answer through affidavits, was substituted. By that measure the proceedings in administration suits, mortgage suits, trust suits, suits relating to the guardianship of infants, partnership suits, and some other cases, were greatly simplified and taken out of the general jurisdiction of the Chancellor.
1094
By the 15th section of the Act, immediate, absolute, and full jurisdiction was given to the Masters of the Irish Court of Chancery. It became no longer necessary to file a Bill and have an answer in these suits. A short petition was presented to the Chancellor, on which he made a summary order referring everything to the Master, who was made a complete judge of everything connected with the matter. The result of that was a general improvement in, and a great cheapening and facilitating of, Chancery procedure. From that time forward the Masters in Chancery in Ireland were, in truth, as much Vice Chancellors as the Vice Chancellors in England, with this difference, that a short and inexpensive proceeding was necessary to initiate their jurisdiction and give them possession of the whole suit. In 1854, after this great change had been effected in the Irish Court of Chancery, a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the practice of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. The Commissioners appointed were Mr. Brady, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir John Romilly, Chief Justice Monahan, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Brewgter, Sir Richard Bethell, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and Sir Hugh Cairns. In 1855 the Commission made a Report, and recommended the project of abolishing the Incumbered Estates Court and the Masters' Offices in Chancery, and appointing two Vice Chancellors, who should do the work in accordance with the English practice. The Report was received with much dissatisfaction, and although he had given evidence in favour of their project, he confessed that his first opinion was rather crude and premature, and had been corrected by subsequent experience. In Ireland the Report received the just condemnation which it afterwards received from the public, the profession, and a Committee of that House. A flight of competing Bills then made their appearance in that House, the professed object of some of them being to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. Others, introduced by the right hon. Member for Dublin University, aimed at simplifying the procedure of the Court of Chancery, correcting abuses, remedying defects, utilizing the existing staff, and improving the machinery generally. The advantages of the right hon. Member's (Mr. Whiteside's) plan were that it exonerated the public purse from the burden of new officers; that it introduced a new and amended code of

1095
procedure, to be carried out by men well accustomed to the improved machinery, who knew its defects, and were willing to do everything in their power to improve the administration of the law. The ability, integrity, and zeal of these men were well known; and although Vice Chancellors might have higher rank, what was wanted was men not above their business, and accessible to the practitioners with whom they are daily brought into contact. Moreover, men with the rank, the salary, and the unapproachable dignity of Vice Chancellors might be tempted to job to find situations for their sons and sons-in-law. However, the competing Bills to which he referred were all sent before a Select Committee of that House, as able as ever sat for such a purpose. That Committee included among its members the Solicitor General, Sir James Graham, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Henley, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Seymour FitzGerald, Mr. De Vere, and Sir Erskine Perry, The Committee took vivâ voce evidence as to the working of the Court of Chancery jurisdiction. Mr. Gibson, a gentleman of great ability and experience, stated that in the opinion of the Council of Attorneys in Ireland the existing system at the Masters' Office was nearly perfect; but he pointed out one or two small defects which might easily be removed. He also expressed his conviction that if Vice Chancellors were appointed the business would in effect be mainly conducted by clerks, and that the Vice Chancellors would be a sort of unapproachable personages. The Committee acted upon the evidence they received, and an Act was passed, under which, if a single abuse still remained in the Court of Chancery, it was not the fault of the system, but of the men. Saving and except the power of creating new offices, the jurisdiction of the Court was as large as that possessed by Parliament itself, and improvements were almost of daily occurrence in the procedure of the Court. The Lord Chancellor had never complained to the Government of the want of power, nor had any memorial been presented by the Bar or the Society of Solicitors. Moreover, the public were perfectly satisfied, and, on the whole, he had no hesitation in saying that the Chancery system was now in Ireland what it was intended to be in England, but what it certainly was not. It so happened, however, that in 1852 the Masters in England were abolished, and the Vice
1096
Chancellors got power to appoint chief clerks. Those chief clerks were simply Masters under another name, and the old system of references and reports still continued. Nevertheless, as it was believed that nothing Irish could be right, it was determined that the Chancery system in Ireland should he assimilated to that in England. In 1861 the Marquess of Clanricarde complained in another place of the continued waste of money and time to suitors in Ireland, and also of the extravagant expenditure of public funds for the Irish judicial establishment, which was out of all proportion, he said, to the work it had to perform. The objects of the noble Marquess were good objects, but, unfortunately, the noble Marquess did not state a single fact to show that his complaint was well founded. Yet, in the absence of everything like proof, the House of Lords yielded to the wish expressed by so ardent a supporter of the Government, and a Commission was issued. It was to be regretted that the Commissioners, led away by too great zeal, forgot altogether the main object for which they were appointed. The theoretical value of an assimilation between the English and Irish systems was quite a secondary matter. The main point to be considered was the public advantage. He could not help thinking that the choice of Commissioners was very unfortunate. Six of them, and those the highest in rank, were members of the Commission of 1854, and were pledged to the opinion that the Vice Chancellor system ought to be introduced into Ireland. To this view they clung all the more obstinately and passionately because it had already been universally condemned by the people of Ireland. Moreover, other members of the Commission were personally interested in the recommendations which they made. A body thus constituted must in the very nature of it be very far from a fair and impartial tribunal. Now, it seemed to him that it had always been the rule of the House to disregard the representations of Committees or Commissions which were known to have approached a subject with preconceived views. A Royal Commission was appointed under the government of the Earl of Derby to inquire into the subject of harbours of refuge. It so happened that some Gentlemen were on it who had previously made strong recommendations in favour of certain harbours of refuge. The House peremptorily refused to

1097
adopt the recommendations of that Commission in consequence of the preconceived opinions of certain Gentlemen upon it. For the same reason the House ought not to attach weight to the recommendations of the Commission on the question now before them. The English Commissioners knew nothing of the Irish law system, and the Irish members knew nothing of the English system; the Secretary, no doubt, possessed the same acquaintance with both, Finding themselves in the difficulty, they thought the better way to proceed was to get two essays written, and a barrister of each country was instructed to draw up elaborate reports upon the practice of the Irish and English superior courts and then a series of interrogatories was circulated among selected members of the Irish bar. One gentleman to whom these queries were sent, was a man of truth and sagacity, and in extensive practice in the Masters' Courts in Ireland, and in replying he said that he would assume that the Masters were to be abolished, and one or more Vice Chancellors to be appointed in their stead. He stated it was rumoured that the Commissioners had already determined to advise the appointment of only one Judge in addition to one master and the Master of the Rolls—an arrangement which, in his opinion, would prove wholly insufficient, the object of it being to give more power and patronage into the hands of the Government. Throughout the whole of the inquiry of the Commission, there was not a single question asked any man as to what would be the effect of the projected change in regard to the expenditure of the public money and the cost to the suitor. That was either quite beneath the notice of the Commissioners, or else they discreetly avoided it, because they knew that their recommendations would involve an increase in the costs of suitors, and in the public expenditure for the sake of a new theoretical advantage. It was manifest from their first Report, that they had not considered the all-important question, whether the system they recommended would lead to a saving of money; neither had they asked any English gentleman how the system of chief clerk was working here, so that the Commissioners had left the House and the profession in darkness on that point. But it so happened that they had information on the subject from another source. Mr. Maul, a gentleman who had come into that paradise of suitors, the English Court of Chancery, had published the result of his
1098
experience. This gentleman said that in that camera obscura the chief clerk's chamber, which might be considered the very opposite of the camera lucida, the open Court of Chancery, property to an enormous amount was dealt with by the chief clerks, unknown to any one except to the parties interested, who might be unable to defend themselves, and who might be reduced to ruin and destitution as a result of the litigation carried on in that way. So much for the superior advantages of the procedure in the English Court. The recommendation of the Commissioners was not to distribute the business among the Judges now in Ireland—not to improve the Masters' officers or utilize them, but at once, contrary to the chief reason for which they had been appointed Commissioners, to create an enormous expenditure for the purpose of maintaining a Vice Chancellor and a chief clerk. The judicial staff in Ireland was twenty-two; the Commissioners wanted to make a grand jury of it by increasing it to twenty-three. The Vice Chancellor was to take rank after the Chief Baron, and thus have precedence over a number of eminent men now Judges on the Irish bench, and according to the evidence of Mr. Gibson and other attorneys of experience, that functionary would be unapproachable by solicitors for the transaction of business as they now discharged it with the Masters. The Irish Masters were most able and excellent men with salaries of £2,500 a year each. The Vice Chancellors were to have £4,000 a year. Now the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland was a most able and upright Judge, but it was utterly impossible that he should be able to discharge the additional duties that would be thrown upon him by the proposed change. According to the recommendations of the Commissioners, there would be an addition made to the already large judicial staff of Ireland of at least ten officers, and an augmentation of the public expenditure of £12,000 a year. It was also calculated by the best legal authorities in the country, that there would be at least 33 per cent additional cost to the suitors. The whole project was premature; it was the result of an investigation most inefficiently conducted, it was quite unnecessary, and would lead to increased expense both to the suitors and the public. For these reasons he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
MR. VANCE,in seconding the Amend-

1099
ment, pointed out that no complaint against the present system had been made by the Bar or the suitors. The Masters in Chancery were four of the ablest men in the legal profession in Ireland. Their tribunal was approachable by the junior Bar, by the solicitors, and by the suitors themselves, and in their place it was proposed to substitute a tribunal of greater dignity — of greater ability was not possible — which could only be approached by the senior Bar, of course at a much greater cost to the public. That was in direct opposition to the recommendation of a Committee, on which were men like Mr. Henley, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Ellice, and Sir James Graham, who all highly approved the jurisdiction of the Masters in original suits. Justice at present was efficiently administered, and at a small expense, and no portion of the Irish public required the change.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Longfield.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."
MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, that having on a previous occasion entered into an elaborate statement of the character of the measure, he thought he should not be justified now in going through the whole question at the same length. There were, however, a few observations, some of a general and some of a particular character, which he wished to address to the House. He would, however, remark that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Mallow was not a discussion of the question before the House, or a criticism of the principles of the Bill, but an indulgence in suggestions with reference to persons whose characters did not render them proper subjects for such imputations. He rejoiced to find so long a time had elapsed between the introduction of the Bill and its second reading, because it had given an opportunity for considering and examining its details, and the result had been the adoption of the principles of the Bill by the incorporated solicitors of Ireland, and by the great majority of persons in that country who were most competent to give an opinion. From the Incorporated Society of Solicitors of Ireland he had received suggestions upon details which they opposed; and as to those details, he believed that he should have very little difficulty in meeting all the
1100
views presented by this very important and influential body. He was not aware that there had been any expression of opinion in Ireland against the Bill; and, taking that fact in connection with the evidence on which the measure was founded, he thought he might say that it came before the House very much the reverse of discredited by the opinion of the country. It had been said that the Bill would involve much expense to the country, that it was wholly unnecessary, and that it would be very mischievous. Now, considering that the Bill was in all its parts sustained by the solemn recommendations of a Commission of the very highest authority, that it was a consolidation of statutes framed in England upon the authority of successive Commissions from 1824 downwards, and that the Acts thus consolidated were at the present moment in operation in England, to the satisfaction of the Bar and of the public, he felt some surprise that such a statement should be ventured upon in this House. It was represented as a conflict between the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Report of a former Committee of that House. He could not deny that there was a material difference between the opinions expressed by the Committee and the Royal Commissioners. The Committee, however, was formed with a special object at a particular time, and the question merely left to them was, whether the Encumbered Estates Court should be abolished, whereas the Royal Commissioners were directed to address themselves to a consideration of the benefit and advantage of assimilating the law of the two countries. They would find that on almost every particular point the Committee were divided, and the matter was agreed to by a narrow majority only; whereas he presented a Bill to the House, founded upon the unanimous opinion of the two Royal Commissions which satin 1856 and 1861, composed of men as able, learned, and honest as ever sat on a Commission or a Committee. Even in the Committee some Resolutions were proposed by his right hon. Friend opposite which really embodied the principle of the Bill before the House — namely, that it was of the last importance that a Judge in equity who heard a cause should hear it to its conclusion, and should not make references to Masters, thus introducing confusion and causing delay and expense. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, a most persuasive witness in defence of the mea-

1101
sure which he came there that night to oppose. It was said that the Commission issued questions for the purpose of obtaining answers in accordance with preconceived notions. Now, it was only necessary to read the questions in order to be assured of the injustice of such a charge, for which, indeed, there was not a shadow of foundation. He denied also the allegation that the object of the Commissioners was by jobbing to create a place which might be useful for a friend. That was not the way to argue such a question, and the names of the Commissioners were alone an answer to the charge. The Commission originated upon an address of the House of Lords, moved by the Marquess of Clanricarde, in opposition to the wish of the Government. The Commissioners were the Master of the Rolls in England and Vice Chancellor Page Wood, two of the most distinguished Judges who ever adorned the equity bench; Mr. Justice Willes; the Attorney General, of whom he could not say in his presence what he might have said if he had been absent; the late Attorney General for Ireland, the late Solicitor General, Mr. Giffard, Mr. Follett, the Judge of Appeal in Ireland, a most distinguished man, far advanced in years, who had held with honour many high offices, Mr. Napier, Chief Justice Monahan, Baron Hughes, and Mr. Brewster. Could men have been selected by the Government who were more competent, more trustworthy, or less open to such imputations as had been made against them? There were, it was true, two Members whom the hon. and learned Gentleman said ought not to have been upon the Commission—himself and his Colleague, the Solicitor General. The reason that the hon. and learned Member urged against their being Members of the Commission was that they were interested in its result. All he would say in answer to that suggestion was, that no man who was worthy to fill the post which he now occupied could for a moment be influenced towards a conclusion by a consideration of that kind, and that this was a suggestion which ought not to have been made, at all events, by a member of his own profession. In the appointment of the Committee upon which such reliance was placed by his hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) the very same course was taken by that House. His two predecessors in office were both Members of that Committee. There was also added to the Commission the head of
1102
the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, Mr. Orpen. A Commission so constituted was certainly not likely to depart from their duty to serve their friends, or to manipulate a question with the miserable object of maintaining a foregone conclusion. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that this Commission had not thoroughly investigated the question which was submitted to their decision. Why, the Members of the Commission were themselves the most competent persons to decide as to the value of the English and Irish systems respectively. If witnesses had been examined they would have been the persons who could have given the best evidence. Never, however, did a Commission proceed more cautiously, carefully, and temperately than did this one. Notwithstanding the knowledge which the Commissioners themselves possessed upon the subject, they selected two well qualified barristers from England and two from Ireland to inform them upon the details and differences of the laws of the two countries. His hon. and learned Friend had quoted a letter in support of his views, but he did not regard its contents as any material substantiation of his hon. and learned Friend's arguments, because he himself had received letter after letter from disappointed suitors, each of whom represented his own case as having been treated in a more shameful manner than any other. His hon. and learned Friend had urged upon the House that the effect of the measure would be to increase expense, and that the number of Judges would be as great as in England, with far less work to be performed. The statement was entirely without foundation. On the contrary, both the expenses and the number of Judges would be reduced. He did not believe that so useful and comprehensive a reform, involving at the same time so great a reduction in expenditure, had been passed for some time. Of the four Masters of Chancery at present in Ireland the Bill proposed to retain but one, a single Vice Chancellor being appointed in place of the remaining three. The only new offices contemplated were those of the Vice Chancellor and two chief clerks, although his hon. and learned Friend had stated that there would be ten new offices created. The Bill provided that there should be no superannuation of men who were still competent for the performance of their duties, and that every single individual at present engaged in the Masters' Office should be employed in the

1103
new courts to be created by the measure. He had made a calculation as to the pecuniary results of the Act. One Master had been in his office about twenty-four years, and two others about eighteen or nineteen years, and these gentlemen could, of course, retire on their superannuation allowance. The saving to the country, however, when all the proposed changes were carried out, would be about £4,500 a year. His hon. and learned Friend had complained that the Vice Chancellor was to be an officer of high rank but it was right that such should be the case, because the salary of the English. Vice Chancellors was £5,000 a year, and the duties attached to the Vice Chancellorships of England and Ireland were identical. They would not, therefore, be able to obtain the services of an officer of sufficient ability unless his salary were made proportionate to the responsibility which he incurred. It had been urged that the choice of the chief clerk ought not to be placed in the hands of the Judge, but if his hon. and learned Friend would take the trouble of reading the Report of the Committee, he would find that all the witnesses whose opinion was of the smallest value had concurred in the desirability of that arrangement. It would be difficult to conceive how the Judge and the chief clerk would be able to work harmoniously together unless that arrangement were adopted. The Bill might be divided into five parts:—1. It created a Vice Chancellor. 2. It abolished the Masters. 3. It changed the procedure. 4. It turned fees into stamps. 5. It arranged various matters respecting fees which were at present derelict and useless to the public. As regarded procedure, the system was practically the same in the two countries till 1850, when an alteration was made in the Irish practice by the introduction of the cause petition system, with regard to which they had a great deal of evidence in the Report of the Committee. By that system the parties went on piling affidavit upon affidavit up to the hearing of the cause, the consequences being looseness and disorder of pleading, very great expense, and much injury to the morals of the community. The Master of the Rolls in Ireland was not examined before the Committee, but he sent in a statement of his opinion in regard to the affidavit system prevailing in Ireland. He described its manifold evils and its tendency to cause each party to try and outswear the other. The learned Judge concluded by express-
1104
ing himself strongly in favour of an uniform system between the two countries. Very high authorities might also be quoted in favour of the proposal to abolish the Masters of the Court, who now acted as Vice Chancellors. Great delay and expense were thereby occasioned, and proceedings were pending in their offices for a number of years which would soon be decided if they could be dealt with by a Judge sitting in chambers. Master Murphy, who had been eighteen or nineteen years in his office, stated that he approved the proposal to substitute for the Masters a Vice Chancellor and his clerks, as the plan had worked well in England. He added that they were quite at sea in Ireland at present, for want of uniformity in the practice of the law. The system of Masters had been condemned by the Bar of Ireland, and there was the very highest English authority for saying that the English system had realized the highest hopes that had been entertained of it. The whole of the provisions of the Bill, except twenty or thirty clauses, were in operation in England to the satisfaction of the profession and the public. He trusted that the House would adopt a measure which, instead of causing additional expense, would be attended with a substantial annual saving, which would effect a reform of the greatest value and importance in the law of Ireland, and which would be a great boon to the people of that country.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had one advantage over Members like himself. He came to that discussion fresh and young, whereas he and others around him had been poring for the last fourteen or fifteen years over matters which had been considered and dealt with by the foremost men within those walls. The right hon. and learned' Gentleman talked a great deal of the blessings which the Bill would confer upon the people of Ireland, but, speaking in their name, he (Mr. Whiteside) would say they had to thank him for very little. There was no redeeming point in this Bill either as regards the public money or the private suitor. A great deal was said of assimilation; but it filled him with surprise that learned persons in this country, such as the Lord Chancellor, did not deem the legal institutions of Ireland worthy of notice. What the Lord Chancellor had proposed in his Bill with regard to the arrest of the suitor in the County Courts had

1105
been the law in Ireland for many years, but such was official vanity that persons in high position never condescended to look into the laws of any other than their own country, or to take notice of them, Then it was said that County Courts should have the power of winding up small estates, to the extent of £400 or £500; but many years ago that power was given to the County Courts in Ireland to the extent of £200. He would, however, proceed to consider this ponderous Bill of 170 clauses. Its objects were three. The first, and most material, related to the demolition of useful offices and the creation of new ones. That was perfectly intelligible. The second part of the Bill related to procedure, and that part of the Bill had been drawn, in his opinion, clumsily and carelessly. The third part related to costs, which, as the right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill said, was untouched by the Commissioners, there not being a word from beginning to end of their judgment relating to the subject, The history of the Commissions relating to law in Ireland was remarkable. Long before an attempt was made in this country to facilitate the transfer of land cheaply with a secure title, the Encumbered Estates Court had been established in Ireland. An attempt was however made to undo the good work which Parliament had effected. The period of the Act for the Encumbered Estates Court was about to expire, and after the usual manner a Commission was issued to several most respectable gentlemen—he had not one word to say against any one who signed that or any other Report which had not been acted on. There was, for instance, the Commission on the Dublin Society, on which sat the Lord Justice of Appeal; but his recommendations were set aside when it suited the purpose of the Government, and adopted on the other Commission when it answered their purposes. It would be infinitely better to postpone the present Bill. The Master of the Rolls did not approve this Bill as it was drawn, and he might venture to say he never would. In 1854 what happened? Here was a curious lesson in legislation. A Commission was issued to inform Parliament what was to be done as to the Parliamentary title for the transfer of land in Ireland, and they made their Report. There were 900 suits clogging the court, and the Commission recommended that the whole of these should be preserved for the Court
1106
of Chancery. A tribunal had been established which was effectual, short, cheap, approved and satisfactory to the public, and that was to be got rid of—how? They were to remove all the Masters in Chancery, and give to the Judge the entire conduct of the case. The former Commissioners recommended that the jurisdiction relating to the Landed Estates Court should be vested in the Court of Chancery, and that all business then I pending should be plunged into Chancery; but nobody complained of the existing tribunals of the country; every; one, as as far he could discover, was satisfied with them, and for this very obvious reason—they were cheap, quick, and good. It was also remarkable that, at that time, it was proposed to create a Vice Chancellor—the very thing that was proposed to be done under the present Bill; and this was in order to give the Judge the entire control of the case in all its stages. Hon. Members most not suppose that Masters in Chancery in Ireland were in the same position as the Masters in England. Ten Masters in England formerly sat in Southampton Buildings, in the dark, and never proceeded promptly with anything. They were very old and very odd personages. He (Mr. Whiteside) had occasion to visit the office of Master Fitzgibbon, in Dublin lately, and found him in a comfortable court, with barristers arguing and conducting their suits in full day light. He regretted to see the name of Mr. Brewster appended to this Commission, because if justice had prevailed in the legal promotions in Ireland that eminent barrister would, fifteen years ago, have been upon the Bench. He (Mr. Whiteside) had suggested that they should have a Committee of the longest-headed men in Parliament, and try what they thought of the Report of that Commission. The Committee was appointed, and the fate of the Commission was precisely what he thought it would be. The Committee summoned two of the Masters before them, and many eminent and competent witnesses; and when a mass of evidence had been taken, the Committee refused to recommend the abolition of the Masters. There was a total delusion on the subject of the Masters in Ireland, as if they resembled the same officials in England; and he remembered that Mr. Ellice and Sir Erskine Perry, who, with Sir James Graham and others, sat upon that Committee, having heard the evi-

1107
dence, remarked that the system in England should be abolished, and the Irish system adopted in its stead. The vote was taken upon the direct point whether all those officers should he abolished and Vice Chancellors appointed or not; and the Committee decided, not that they should be abolished, but that they should have original jurisdiction and all the powers of a Court of Equity over foreclosure suits, administration suits, and other matters, under the 15th section of Sir John Romilly's Act. With regard to the mode of taking evidence, the recommendation of the Committee was that vivâ voce testimony was to be encouraged and maintained in the Court of Chancery; but the present Bill enacted at section 93, except as thereinafter provided, that the examinations to be taken for the purpose of being used in the hearing of a case should be taken ex parte, and that no person should have a right to be present except the party who produced the witness, his counsel, solicitor, and agents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had quoted the opinion of the Master of the Rolls, but he could inform him that the Master of the Rolls had the very strongest objection to this kind of written evidence. To attempt to force upon the Irish courts against their will a bad system of taking evidence—a system condemned by the Committee, by learned authorities in Ireland, and by common sense and experience—was a thing which he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England would not sanction. The Committee referred to also directed that a Bill should be brought in, and it was brought in, by the predecessor of the present Attorney General for Ireland, giving power to the Chancery Judges to make general orders for the regulation of the procedure of their courts; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman in bringing in the Bill stated, as an apology for introducing clause after clause of general orders, that these Judges in Ireland would not agree about them, but the real reason was that it was necessary that the Lord Chancellor should be one of the three Judges. And what did the Attorney General for England think of a scheme which ignored the existence of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? The Lord Chancellor had not introduced those orders, because he conscientiously believed that many of them would not be applicable to Ireland. Neither was he on the Commission. It was
1108
a censure on the Commission, on the Bill, on the Attorney General himself, if the procedure proposed was so inapplicable that the Lord Chancellor would not introduce it. The head of the law in Ireland was not supposed to be in favour of the measure, and would the House at that period of the Session rashly adopt it? When he (Mr. Whiteside) asked the Master of the Rolls in Dublin, where were his chambers, where were his chambers for carrying out the provisions of the Bill, he said he had none, and it would be difficult to find space to build them. He (Mr. Whiteside) asked, then, whether the criticism of his hon. and learned Friend was not just, that the real reason for introducing the Bill at that period of the year was—and he did not say it unkindly — because the Ministry was not strong. On a similar occasion the late Sir Robert Peel had said the same, and that for many reasons he said he would make them name the Vice Chancellors before they passed the Bill. He (Mr. Whiteside) did not go on that principle, but they could not remove the Masters until the Lord Chancellor was satisfied they ought to be dismissed, and until a new court was built for the new officials. The building clause was, in fact, fatal to the scheme. They refused ten years ago to abolish those four Masters and their staffs, the expense of which was about £15,000 a year, thereby saving £150,000 to the country. All but one of those gentlemen were now alive and full of work, having done it perfectly well from that day to this, and therefore he called upon the Attorney General for Ireland to say who were to be the new Judges who would do the work as well. The Attorney General knew that he would find the names of those Masters in almost all the difficult cases that occurred in their time at the Irish Bar—the names of Master Litton and Master Brooke—and that they were perfectly competent to their work. What was done with these officials in 1850? Sir John Romilly gave them at that time some powers, but not full powers. They were to have all powers in certain classes of suits except that of paying out money. The Attorney General for Ireland had referred to the evidence of the Master of the Rolls, who said that the decrees of the Masters came before him in order that he might direct payment of the monies. By one of the Resolutions of the Committee that proceeding was changed, and those gentlemen obtained complete power over the monies involved in the

1109
suits before them. The mode of conducting business before the Masters might appear to be rather loose, but it was simple. There was in a large class of cases no bill or answer but simply a short petition asking a reference to the Master. Supposing the case of a small farmer who died leaving a property of £400 involved under an obscure will, a short petition was presented and the Master heard a junior counsel once on each side, placed his own construction on the will, and handed over the fund. Now, it was proposed to abolish that simple mode of procedure and to begin every suit by a bill and answer, and after hearing two silk gowns the balance remaining to be handed over in such a case as he had instanced would be very small indeed. He had recently inquired of an experienced officer of the Court of Chancery what additional expense would be cast upon suitors by the proposed scheme, and the answer was that the expense would be increased by one-third or one-half. The most triumphant vindication of the recommendations of the Committee was to be found in the labours of the Masters. He found from the Return that had been made to the House, that from the 1st of January, 1851, when the existing system commenced, to the 8th of May, 1864, Master Litton had heard 6,133 short and long causes, had heard 31,508 motions and meetings in short causes, and 7,932 in long causes. In Master Brooke's office, during a similar period, there had been 7,124 long and short cause proceedings, 430 decrees and decretal orders made final, and 3,118 interlocutory orders. Master Murphy, in the same period, had heard upwards of 30,000 applications, and Master Lyle 22,020 motions and short causes and 5,025 long causes. Then as to reversals, he found that from 1851 to the 1st of April, 1864, there had been a total of 134 appeals from the Masters, and only forty-two reversals. It was well known that the Master of the Rolls in Ireland was most critical in reviewing the decisions of the Masters, and yet that almost hypercritical Judge, out of eleven appeals in 1863, only found cause to reverse the decisions in two of them. He, therefore, asked with confidence whether there was any other tribunal in the country which could show such a result of their labours, and whether it was possible that the House would sanction the doing away with the services of these gentlemen? After the Committee of 1856 had concluded its labours, it had fallen to his lot to carry out the scheme of the Landed
1110
Estates Court, and he thought that it ought to be a self-supporting establishment, with which view he proposed to exact a small poundage upon the properties brought into Court. The very plan by which the Judges of the Landed Estates Court had distributed about twenty-eight millions of money, the plan of a permanent amicable tribunal, was that which it was now sought to get rid of, and to substitute chief clerks to do work which individual Judges now performed without such assistance. Would any one say that an attorney, with a salary of £800, in company with two other attorneys, would form a better tribunal than that which now existed? In the Landed Estates Court there were Judges, examiners, and all necessary officials. He wanted to see the Irish system of the Masters' office and the Landed Estates Court introduced into England. The examiner was not allowed to summon any witness, but a schedule was placed before the Judge, and each claimant stated his case—one person, perhaps, claiming £1,000 on mortgage. The examiner had merely to see that all that was stated in the schedule was true, and on the day appointed the case went before the Judge, who decided every question, even summed up the interest, and fixed the day up to which the interest was due, and so he went through the schedule. Would the chief clerk proposed by the Bill be found to perform the work in the same satisfactory manner, and was the Attorney General serious in thinking that he could pass the Bill? One claimant, for example, No. 3, said that he ought to be No. 1, because the first claimant was a judgment creditor, claiming by a judgment improperly registered. Was a chief clerk to decide on that nice question? The Estates Court decided on it there and then, but was it to be supposed that an attorney, appointed as chief clerk with a salary of £800 or £900, sitting in his chamber and prohibited from hearing counsel, would be superior to one of those learned and competent Judges? He impeached the whole principle of the Bill in reference to the introduction into Ireland of the system of chief clerks, for he thought it was the duty of the Government rather to incorporate the Irish system on the English system. He again called on the Attorney General to convince the House that the dear mode of proceeding was more advantageous than the cheap; and that the short and inexpensive process by summary petition was inferior to that by bill and answer. He

1111
should like to be told where there was in the Report a particle of evidence that one Vice Chancellor would do the work now done by the four Masters. Nobody believed that one Vice Chancellor could do it, and the only proper course to pursue would be, when one Master died, to see whether three could do the work, and when another died to see whether two could do it, or if the Government wanted an additional Chancery Judge let them try and seduce into the Court of Chancery one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, who were now lightly worked, and so save the money of the country. With respect to the cost of the proposed scheme, he begged to tell the Attorney General for Ireland that he thoroughly knew that part of the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the places would be properly filled. Assuredly other places might he filled. Certainly every place that could be filled would be filled. If the present Secretary for the Colonies were in office in Ireland he would, without doubt, be called upon to fill up every place. The recommendation that the office of Masters in Chancery in Ireland should be abolished had already been twice negatived by the House. Then there was another recommendation, that the existing Masters should be retained as long as might be found necessary, which, he supposed, meant that they were to continue to do the work while the new officials played. He hoped the House would also observe that power was taken to double the staff of clerks at any future time. His estimate of the bill which the country would have to pay for these very questionable reforms was as follows:—The salary of one Vice Chancellor would be £4,000; chief clerk, £1,000; two junior clerks, £700; tipstaff, £100; crier, £120; total, £5,920. Then there would be the assistant registrar, £1,250; and the staff of clerks of the Master of the Rolls would bring the amount up to £8,870. That calculation proceeded on the assumption that one set of clerks would he sufficient, and if they were doubled, which the Bill contemplated as a possible necessity, that would involve an additional £5,000, giving a total of £13,870. That was, it must be owned, a very fair, respectable beginning; and it was more than probable that the Chancellor, who was not favourable to the Bill, would, if it were carried, be loth to lose the services of the good old working bands, trained by many years' experience, and would retain
1112
the Masters to save his court from falling into confusion. What security was there that it would be possible for one Vice Chancellor, even with a double staff of clerks, to get through the work of the four Masters? Further aid might be necessary, and thus there was the prospect of a possible addition to the expenses, which would bring them up to nearly £22,000. He had observed this curious fact, that in Ireland persons who were pensioned off never died. There were some who got pensions at the time of the Union, and who were alive and hearty still, although that was sixty-four years since. It was certain that when the Masters got retiring allowances the last thing they would ever think of doing would be to die. Then, there were claims for compensations from the other officials, who refused to serve except in their present capacity, and maintained that they were engaged during good behaviour. The proposal to make the young gentlemen who were now examiners chief clerks was preposterous, and he did not suppose it was seriously intended. He had no objection to attorneys getting places for which they were qualified; but he was satisfied they would not get men in that profession of high attainments and experience to accept the situations under this Bill at the salaries proposed. However, all the Government wanted was to have the Bill passed, and then they would come to the House in a year or two and ask that the salaries should be doubled. Although the title of Vice Chancellors had been refused to the Masters, they exercised complete jurisdiction on every question save one, and the Chancellor sent them very difficult cases to try. They performed their work admirably; and there were no other Judges in either country from whose decisions there were so few appeals. But because Masters had been abolished in England for the sake of uniformity, it was proposed by the Bill to abolish them in Ireland. He submitted that the eminent men who had signed the Commission rested their arguments on a mistake—a mistake arising altogether from the fact that they examined no person in this country to prove what was the working of the system of chief clerks. Sir James Graham had stated that that was a system which ought to be watched with the greatest carefulness, otherwise the evils of the old system under another name would spring up. On those grounds he hoped the House would not allow the Report of their Committee to be overthrown by the opinion of

1113
those gentlemen—however respectable they were—who had signed this Commission. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn, and that the Attorney General for Ireland would send the Bill to those persons who had not seen it, and allow the general orders of this country to be considered by the Judges during the long vacation, so as to ascertain whether they were applicable to Ireland. If they were, he had no doubt the Lord Chancellor would adopt them without the formality of legislation. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be of opinion that it was not advisable to proceed with that ponderous Bill during the Session.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mixed up almost everything in the world in his speech must have rendered many of his remarks unintelligible to everybody but himself. The way in which he had jumbled together clauses and details of this Bill and that Bill, with recommendations of one Commission and recommendations of another Commission, interspersing the whole with comments on the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery, had produced on his own mind only one impression, namely, admiration at the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary skill in mystifying a very simple subject. The course taken by the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the custom adopted in another country on the canonization of saints. One advocate pleaded elaborately all the virtues of the person to be canonized, and on another devolved the less agreeable and more invidious office of putting forward all his vices and faults. The right hon. Gentleman undertook the more agreeable of these tasks. There was no legal institution in regard to which any alteration or improvement was recommended but he was sure to be found its most able and courageous champion. Under his magic touch it assumed the aspect and wore the colours of the most delightful perfection. It was the model for all the world, and the astonishing thing was that anybody could think it capable of the least improvement. Even the right hon. Gentleman's former opinions were sacrificed upon the altar of his country. He had gone into the proceedings that were adopted on this subject in 1856, and certainly his remarks were comforting and encouraging. As the right hon. Gentleman had yielded to the opinions of others on that occasion, and now came
1114
forward as the champion of the opinions which then prevailed over his own, so they might venture to hope that when his present opinions should have been overruled and this measure had taken root and worked successfully, no one would be found more forward to stand up in that House as its champion than the right hon. Gentleman. In the month of February, 1856, two Bills were introduced, on the back of which were the names of Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Napier. One of them, sought to make provision for the more speedy and effectual despatch of business in the Irish Court of Chancery. And this was the description of the procedure of that Court contained in the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill—
"Whereas the present mode of proceeding in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, by orders of reference, reports, and exceptions, is attended; with delay, expense, and other inconvenience, and it is expedient that every cause or matter should be prosecuted through all its stages before and under the direction of the same Judge or I judicial officer, &c."
And what did the right hon. Gentleman then propose to enact? Why, the abolition of those Masters in Chancery of whom he was now the strenuous advocate, and the substitution for men with salaries of some £500 a year of three Vice Chancellors with £3,500 a year each, and each with a chief clerk at £800 a year and two junior clerks at a somewhat smaller salary. Then, by the right hon. Gentleman's other Bill, the English chief clerk's practice in chambers was sought to be introduced in all respects. [Mr. WHITESIDE: These were Bills that went before a Committee.] He was aware of that, and the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of that Committee, which sat taking evidence from the 6th of March to the 22nd of May. On the 5th of June, 1856, the right hon. Gentleman, after brooding over the subject and giving his best energies to it during the labours of the Committee, proposed Resolutions stating, among other things, that it was expedient that the High Court of Chancery in Ireland should undergo a thorough revision both in its constitution and procedure; that the constitution of the Court should be altered by the abolition of the office of Master in Ordinary with the present system of references and reports, and by the appointment of Vice Chancellors, who, with the Master of the Rolls, should severally hear cases and matters which should eventuate in further inquiries, so

1115
that the same Judge should conduct the entire proceedings from their commencement to their termination. It was true the right hon. Gentleman proposed also that the first Vice Chancellors should be appointed from the existing Masters. The Committee adopted in preference a plan recommended by Sir E. Perry, retaining the name of Masters, but giving them the functions of Vice Chancellors. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced, without dividing in favour of his own plan, in the views of the majority of that Committee; but it was somewhat too much for the right hon. Gentleman to come forward now, and eloquently denounce, as a thing unheard of and utterly subversive of the proper administration of justice in Ireland, the plan which he himself recommended and persevered in so late as the 5th of June, in 1856. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that an assimilation of practice between the two countries was not to be desired, as recommended by the Commissioners? Such an assimilation was the principle of the Bill, and to that principle the right hon. Gentleman had not addressed one word of his speech. The evidence given by the Masters themselves supported the principle of this measure. Master Murphy stated that the most valuable of all reforms would be the adoption of the practice of the English Court of Chancery. He would not trouble the House with figures, but he could produce in detail proofs of the extraordinary diminution of expense and acceleration of business which had resulted from the new system in England. Very large estates were now distributed at an almost nominal cost in comparison with that which was incurred before. Lord St. Leonards speaking in 1858 said that he had personally examined into the system of the chief clerks' offices, and he declared that, with the exception of one or two suggestions he had made, which were adopted, the system was as nearly perfect as possible. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University was wrong in supposing that the present Bill would compel suitors in the Irish Court of Chancery to commence the simplest administration suits concerning the most trifling estates by the expensive process of bills and answers. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Bill, he would have seen that it introduced into Ireland the short, inexpensive, and summary method of taking out summonses in chambers in administration suits. Chief clerks, it had been said, would not be competent
1116
to determine important questions of law. They never did so in England, except when the parties were perfectly satisfied with their decision, and at any time such questions might be readily brought before the Judge himself. He trusted the House would not be led away by the eloquence of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, but would remember that they were now engaged only in considering whether they should give a second reading to a Bill which was the result of the recommendations of a highly competent Commission, and which aimed at the assimilation of the practice in England and Ireland. Objections to clauses would doubtless be fully and fairly discussed in Committee; but the Amendment to the second reading of the Bill simply meant that the system of the Court of Chancery in Ireland was so perfect that it should not be altered at all.
MR. GEORGEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, had endeavoured to divert attention from the real arguments used by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, and with having unintentionally misrepresented the course taken by that Gentleman in 1856. For his own part, he was as great an advocate for the assimilation of the practice of England and Ireland as any man living. He hoped, indeed, the time would soon come when no Act would be passed for one country that would not be binding on the other. What he complained of in the present Bill was that it carried out only a portion of the recommendations which had been made, and that it left untouched many differences between the two countries. A mixed Commission of English and Irish barristers might be able to prepare the heads of a real assimilation Bill, but it was a perfect mockery to call the measure now under discussion by that name. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had pursued a consistent course, and if defects still existed in the system of the Irish Court of Chancery, it was not his fault or that of the Legislature. It was remarkable that throughout the whole Report of 1860 no reference was made to the Report of 1856, and in many of the most important points the two Reports were quite opposed to each other. When a Bill of this kind was brought forward, it was incumbent upon the House to consider how the Masters in Chancery had conducted themselves. It was an extraordinary fact that during the last fourteen years the four Masters had made 14,400

1117
decretal orders, and only 137 appeals took place out of that number. Then, again, out of these 137 appeals, only forty of these orders were reversed! And that was the jurisdiction which it was now proposed to abolish. If they abolished those Masters and appointed one Vice Chancellor, the result would be that next year they would have to come down and appoint one or two more Vice Chancellors, and additional chief and under clerks. From statements made on good authority, it would seem that in this country the system which it was proposed to extend to Ireland had produced confusion and disorder, which never could have arisen if a competent authority had decided on the judicial and legal difficulties as they arose. He thought it would be legal suicide to destroy a system which had worked so well in Ireland, and on those grounds he should vote against the second reading.
MR. SCULLYsaid, it had at one time been his misfortune to practise in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland; and he must say that though the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. George) were very high authorities in the Courts of Common Law, he had never met either of them in the High Court of Chancery. The Bill the House had to consider that night contained only 192 clauses, with attendant schedules; but he hoped they would not go into those clauses on that occasion, for he really did not know but that he would be compelled to oppose every single one of them. All that they ought to do at that late hour was to discuss the principle of the measure only. The Report which had been so much condemned that evening was signed by Mr. Napier, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), and other eminent Chancery barristers. The Commissioners were unanimously in favour of assimilation, and their authority ought to have great weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not undertake to support the Bill in all its details, but to the principle of the Bill he did give his support.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee, he naturally took a great interest in this subject. It was one on which laymen might be permitted to express their opinions, and, in fact, the Report of the Commission lost much of its value in his estimation by the fact that it was composed
1118
of professional men. Remembering the part which the late Sir James Graham took in those proceedings he could only say that if Sir James Graham had been amongst them during this discussion they would not have heard many of the arguments that had been advanced that evening. Many legal reforms had been carried in opposition to the profession. The Attorney General had entirely mistaken the position of his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University. His right hon. Friend might at one time have been all in favour of Vice Chancellors, but he had changed his opinion, seeing how well the present system of Masters worked in Ireland. He should suggest that his hon. and learned Friend behind him should allow the Bill to be read a second time, and that he should afterwards move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. MALINSsaid, the opponents of the Bill had failed in satisfying him that the Bill ought to be opposed at this stage. He had practised in the English Court of Chancery under the old and new systems, and the result of the new system was that suits which before 1852 would have lasted five years were disposed of in twelve or eighteen months. The Masters under the Irish system were totally different from what they were in England; for in this country there never was known such a thing as a cause originated before a Master; whereas in Ireland a suit went at once before the Master on a cause petition; he pronounced a decision upon it, and then worked out his own decree. That system he (Mr. Malins) regarded as very objectionable. He thought the Government had done right in introducing a Bill for assimilating the laws of Chancery of the two countries, and he approved of the principles of the measure. No doubt some of the details of the measure were open to objection, but the best way of meeting them would be by referring it to a Select Committee. The English system was by no means perfect, and what required alteration in this country might be guarded against with regard to Ireland. Instead of abolishing the Masters and substituting a Vice Chancellor and a chief clerk, he thought the Masters might be retained to act with the Vice Chancellor with great advantage to the suitors. He recommended the hon. and learned Gentleman not to persevere with his Amendment.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that after the expression of opinion of the hon. Member

1119
for Horsham, he would not press the Motion to a division, but at the proper time he should move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday next.

FISH (FRESHWATER STREAMS) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. NEATE, Bill for the better preservation of Fish in Freshwater Streams in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEATE and Mr. MALINS.
Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 130.]

PILOTAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Bill for confirming a Provisional Order concerning Pilotage made by the Board of Trade, under "The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862," relating to Hartlepool, presented, and read 1°. [Bill 131.]
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.