[BILL NO. 43.] SECOND READING.

HL Deb 25 June 1862 vol 167 cc1030-73

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, it would be his duty to enter, in accordance with a pledge given to the Attorney General, into an exposition at some length of the facts and arguments upon which the measure was founded. It was necessary to give some account of the origin of the Inns of Court, because a great ignorance prevailed upon the subject. The common impression on the minds of several hon. Gentlemen with whom he had conversed on the subject was, that the Benchers of the Inns of Court were elected by the Bar. That impression was erroneous. There were four Inns of Court, namely, Lincoln's Inn, the Middle Temple, the" Inner Temple, and Gray's Inn. The origin of the four societies was somewhat obscure, and difficult to be traced; but of that it would be sufficient to state that, from the first, they were of the nature of voluntary societies, having never received charters of incorporation; nor, indeed, at the present day were they incorporated, their property being held through the intervention of trustees. It had, indeed, been argued that they were private societies, and that they ought therefore not to be interfered with by Parliament, being in the nature of clubs. The best answer to the argument was that they were now subject to the visitation of the judges, which would not be the case if they were merely private societies. But, moreover, they had of themselves submitted to inquiries by Royal Commissions, more especially in the year 1855. Further, they had many important public duties to perform—they held the keys to the legal profession, which was an avenue to the great offices of the State. The two Societies of the Temple stood on a peculiar ground, because their property had been confirmed to them by a charter of James I., which distinctly provided that it should be held for the benefit of the members of the legal profession, and the general advantage of those societies. The Inns of Court were governed by a sort of Committee, called "Benchers," or "Masters of the Bench." It did not appear how the Benchers were originally chosen; but at the present day they were self-elected, the body of the Bar having no share in their appointment. It was true that it had been usual to call to the Bench all those whom Her Majesty had made her counsel; but that practice was not invariably adhered to; and even if it were, that would not diminish the self-elected character of the governing body. He might illustrate his argument by referring to particular cases, although in doing so he had no desire to go into the merits of those cases. Some time ago a gentleman well known in London society, of considerable eminence in literature, and deservedly popular with all those who enjoyed his acquaintance, was made a Queen's Counsel. In accordance with usage, he sent his patent to the Benchers of the Inner Temple, expecting, of course, that he should receive the usual honour of being called to the Bench. That was not done; and as one or two other persons were called to the Bench, this gentleman wrote to the treasurer, and asked the reason of his omission. To that letter he received no answer, except an acknowledgment of its receipt and an intimation that it had been laid before the Benchers. Not satisfied, he wrote again, under the reign of a new treasurer, and as he obtained no explanation of his exclusion, which had then become notorious, he applied to the judges as visitors. The proceedings before the learned judges lasted a considerable time, and eventually those who had heard the case declared their unanimous opinion that the Benchers of the Inner Temple had a right to decide whether they would add to their number by any election, and which of the members of the Bar belonging to their society they would add to the Bench by such election. They said, however, that the mode of election by which a single black ball excluded was unreasonable, and strongly recommended the Benchers for the future to conduct their election on some more satisfactory principle. This decision fully established that the right of electing to the Bench was as arbitrary as that vested in the members of clubs. He was told that some change had been made in the mode of election in the Inner Temple, but both there and at the other Inns the power of exclusion had remained as arbitrary as at the time at which this decision was pronounced. The principles of the election were absolutely arbitrary self-election, perfect irresponsibility, and perfect secrecy. These were principles which were not admissible according to the doctrines of constitutional liberty, and such as ought not to be acted upon by bodies having public functions such as those discharged by the Benchers of the Inns of Court, who could refuse either to call a gentleman to the Bar, or to give him, by admitting him to the Bench, the promotion which was a fair object of ambition. Such powers ought not to be exercised in the dark and without responsibility. The duties which the Benchers had to perform might be divided into two classes—first, those which related to the management of property belonging to the Inns; and secondly, others—namely the admission of students and their call to the Bar, and the maintenance of the discipline of the Bar. With regard to the management of the property, he need hardly disclaim any intention of imputing anything like dishonesty or corruption, but he was convinced that the property might have been better administered than it had been. No doubt, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), who appeared on that occasion like Cicero, pro domo suâ, would quote from the Report of the Commission of 1855 an eloquent eulogium pronounced by the Commissioners upon the Benchers; but it ought to be remembered that the Commissioners were, with one or two exceptions, either Benchers or persons entirely sympathizing with them in feeling and opinion. In the year 1854 the rents of the Inner Temple amounted to £15,227, that Inn not being in the receipt of any dividends; while in the Middle Temple there were dividends to the extent of £1,644 a year. In the Inner Temple the payments from members amounted to £5,941; and in the Middle Temple to £2,875. At that time it appeared that the total annual income of the Inner Temple was £21,168, of the Middle Temple £10,192, of Lincoln's Inn £18,242, and of Gray's Inn £8,343. Now, all that property, though honestly managed, was not managed to the greatest advantage, and to that opinion the Commissioners themselves leant; for they said— It is impossible not to feel some disappointment that such a large amount of gross revenue as arises from the other three Inns of Court should leave so small an available net revenue; and having regard to the great value of the site of these institutions, a doubt arises whether some mode might not be devised of rendering their property more productive, without departing from the purposes for which these societies were formed. That was a clear intimation that there was room for improvement. The new buildings of the Temple had been erected in a manner which to some persons appeared to be very extravagant and quite unnecessary for the purposes of the society. The Temple Church had been so renovated, and so bedizened and bedecked that it had now very little interest for persons who were fond of historical, antiquarian, and artistic researches. The paintings inside contained most monstrous errors in history, because in them certain Kings of England were represented as the protectors of the Church and of the Templars, whom every one knew to have been the greatest antagonists of both Church and Templars. The tiles on the floor of the church represented what was supposed to be a Knight Templar, but the figure was holding his bridle in his right hand and flourishing his sword in his left. It seemed almost impossible that on such a small building the sum of £70,000 could have been expended. [Mr. BOVILL dissented.] Well, he should be very glad to hear that was not so; but certainly, at the period of the alterations, it was generally believed that that amount had been expended. At any rate, it was quite clear, that had the church been allowed to remain as it was, it would have been an interesting monument of antiquity instead of a specimen of the modern antique. Under the charter of King James the property was intended for the general benefit of the society, but the Benchers were the only persons who benefited by it. The barristers, it was true, might dine in the hall, but that privilege was not in any way an incident of residence in the Temple, and, practically, they were as much strangers as any shopkeepers in Fleet Street who might come in and take chambers. The Commissioners had recommended that the Inns of Court should be converted into a legal university; but that had not been done. Ordinary members of the Inns knew nothing as to their management. They saw buildings arise, and a vast expenditure going on; but if they asked any questions on the subject, they would be told to mind their own business. A very costly library had been lately erected in the Middle Temple, notwithstanding the declaration of the Benchers that they had very little money at their disposal; and that library, though much larger than the old one, did not afford accommodation for the books which the former edifice had contained. Hon. Members as they passed up or down the river must have noticed the building, which was a very tall one, entirely out of proportion, with an angel standing on its front holding a paper. Opinions were divided as to whether the figure was reading a brief or consulting an Act of Parliament; but some of the public had expressed an opinion, that regard being had to the site, the angel ought to be one of a different description. In honour of its principal promoter, the new library had acquired the name of "Little Bethel." It appeared to him that the great body of barristers from whom the principal resources of those societies came in the shape of rents and other ways had a fair right to some control over the expenditure, and one of the objects of his Bill was to give them that control, by enabling them to elect a certain number of Benchers, and to elect auditors, who should make a public audit of the accounts, and publish a balance-sheet showing the receipts and expenditure for the year; and he also proposed that the balance-sheet should be suspended in the hall for the information of all the members of the society. With regard to the preliminary education for the profession, he believed that the Benchers were entitled to credit for the measures they had already taken, but a great deal still remained to be done. There was, moreover, a want of unity in the system which could not be remedied till the Benchers agreed among themselves upon making the examinations on a call to the Bar compulsory. Of course, if one Inn made examinations compulsory, and the others did not, loss of income must accrue to the Inn which did. Having disposed of that part of the subject, he begged in the next place to call attention to the other duties belonging to the Benchers—namely, the admission of students, the power to call to the Bar, and to refuse to call, the discipline of the Bar, and especially the power of disbarring. He was convinced that the time had arrived when a change should take place, and it was for the House to determine whether the plan proposed by him was satisfactory. In the first place the Benchers, having an important jurisdiction, had not powers necessary to exercise it by summoning witnesses and compelling the production of documents. The Commissioners of 1855, in their Report, said— It may be well worthy of consideration, however, whether greater powers should not be given to the Inns for conducting their inquiries, when proceeding to determine judicially as to the admission of students to the Bar, or the disbarring of a barrister. Great hardship may arise to the party whose conduct is in question for want of any power to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of documents. The case of Mr. D. W. Harvey, for many years a member of that House, and now Chief Commissioner of the City Police, illustrated the defects in the jurisdiction of the Benchers. That gentleman entered as a student at the Inner Temple, kept all his terms, and fulfilled all the requirements essential to a call to the Bar. But as the Benchers, after a lengthened examination, refused to call him, a Parliamentary Committee was appointed in 1834 to investigate the question. That Committee unanimously arrived at conclusions opposed to those of the Benchers, and attributed the decision of that learned body to imperfect information, consequent on their inability to compel the attendance of necessary witnesses. That Report was signed by men in the position of Sir Lytton Bulwer, Mr. D'Eyncourt, General Peel, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hume, and other well-known Members. Sir De Lacy Evans, in a letter to Mr. Parkes, said— The result, as far as I can recollect, was an unequivocal, unanimous opinion that the plea on which the Benchers had refused the admission of Mr. Harvey to the Bar was utterly unfounded, utterly unjust; and that the learned body had most grievously erred in their conduct to that Gentleman. And General Peel wrote to Mr. Harvey— That ho had great pleasure in stating, as a member of that Committee, that the result of that inquiry exonerated him completely from the charges that had been brought against him. It was manifest that those who made a charge would always be prepared with evidence to support it; but a defendant was placed in a different position, unless the court could assist him. The jurisdiction of the Benchers was further objectionable, because they had not the power of taking evidence upon oath nor of punishing contempts. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford would remember the inconveniences which had arisen in a recent case, where a witness was actually collared in the most undignified manner by the Benchers, and carried to a police station. [Mr. BOVILL: No, no.] Well, at least he was given into the custody of a policeman, and as none of the Benchers knew what charge to bring against him, he was of necessity released. And yet, without the powers which every court of justice ought to possess, this irresponsible tribunal exercised authority and gave decisions affecting the prospects in life of individuals to a very serious extent. The Benchers, moreover, sat in secret; and when, in Mr. Whittle Harvey's case, twenty Members of Parliament accompanied him to the door of their chamber, they were denied admittance, and only Mr. Harvey and his counsel were permitted to enter. There might be trifling matters of arrangement which the Benchers could conveniently discuss in private, but all solemn judicial proceedings, where there were accusers and accused, ought to be conducted in the face of the public and before the representatives of the public press. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour)—into the details of whose case he would not enter—complained, not only of secrecy of the tribunal, but of its shifting character. Nothing was of more importance than that judges should hear the whole of the case. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Warren Hastings.] Well, in the case of Warren Hastings, it was very well known that justice was not done; and that case was generally mentioned to illustrate the inconvenience of such a tribunal. But for the enormous expenditure while attending prosecutions of that nature they would be little more than a bugbear. In the case of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, there had been fifteen meetings of the Benchers, These were generally held after dinner, and the following was an analysis of the attendance: —Two of the Benchers attended fifteen meetings, two attended fourteen, one attended twelve, two attended eleven, one attended ten, two attended nine, two attended eight, two attended seven, three attended six, two attended five, one attended four, two attended three, two attended two, and two attended one. A court thus constituted was not satisfactory, and whatever the merits of the hon. and learned Member's case, he had not received a fair trial. The very Benchers, moreover, who had acted as prosecutors, afterwards sat as judges and took part in pronouncing the decision. A power so important as that of taking away a man's means of living and affixing a serious stigma to his name ought not to be lightly exercised, but should be surrounded by all the safeguards which attended the administration of justice. The very best men were not fit to he trusted with irresponsible power. It might be said that an appeal lay to the judges as visitors, but precisely the same defects existed in the visitorial jurisdiction as in that of the court below. Strictly speaking, the judges were not visitors, because a visitation was an incident at common law of a corporate body, and in their capacity of visitors the judges had no power of compelling the production of documents, or the giving of testimony upon oath. He proposed to remedy the defects of constitution in the Inns of Court by the infusion of the elective principle. In the first instance, under the terms of his Bill, each Bench of the four Inns of Court would contribute three Benchers to a joint court of twelve, making a council of discipline, to which should be transferred all the special powers of disbarring, &c. now exercised by the Benchers, and which should, in addition, be armed with all the powers of a court of record, to administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. He proposed that the hearings before this council should be public, except when, in conformity with the rule existing in the equity courts, all parties concurred in desiring that the hearing should be private. From that council he proposed that there should be an appeal to the judges, who would sit in public and exercise similar functions to those of the court of discipline. At present the Benchers could only disbar, they had no power analagous to that existing in France and other countries, of suspending a man from practice. He thought that such a power of inflicting secondary punishment might with advantage be introduced, because it was obvious that there were cases where disbarring would prove too serious a penalty, and where, on the other hand, a mere reprimand would be inadequate. The Bill further proposed that the Benchers should no longer be self-electing, but that the right of election should be transferred to some extent to the Bar, which furnished a constituency like that of the Universities, composed of men of education and position, well qualified to decide upon those to whose custody the discipline and honour of the profession might safely be trusted. He did not wish to trench upon existing rights; and he therefore proposed to introduce the elective system gradually. Limiting the number of Benchers, the Bill provided, that as often as vacancies occurred, they should be filled up by elections conducted by the Bar, and not by the Bench. In the present year it was proposed that five barristers should be chosen from each of the Four Inns of Courts to be Benchers. He proposed that to those five there should be no successors. They were only to be appointed for the purpose of bringing in the elective principle. It was urged, that as the existing Benchers had paid considerable sums of money, it would not be just to exclude them from these rights. Therefore he could only introduce the elective principle very slowly. He proposed, ultimately, that in Lincoln's Inn the Bench should be composed of forty-five members; and that of those twenty-five should be elected by the Bar and twenty elected by the Bench. In each of the other Inns the Benchers would ultimately consist of thirty- five members; of whom twenty were to be elected by the Bar and fifteen by the Bench. He proposed that the first vacancies that occurred among the Benchers of the Inns of Court, either by death or by a member becoming serjeant, should be filled up by Benchers elected by the Bar; but he further proposed that those vacancies so to be filled up should not exceed twenty-five for Lincoln's Inn and twenty for each of the other Inns; so that twenty-five should be elected by the Bar to the Bench of Lincoln's Inn, and twenty to the Bench of each of the other Inns. There were then to be no more elections in Lincoln's Inn till the number of Benchers had been reduced to twenty in Lincoln's Inn, and in each of the other Inns to fifteen; and such vacancies as occurred among the residue were to be filled by election by the Benchers. With regard to the auditors, they were elected no doubt by the Benchers, but he proposed that they should be elected in a different manner—namely, by the barristers of each Inn. The auditors would be bound to make a report, which, with their balance sheet, would be suspended in the hall for inspection. Everybody knew that no one ought to be allowed to audit his own accounts. The Benchers practically did that, because they elected their own auditor. The election at present was for life. There was no remuneration, but election to the office of auditor was considered a compliment, and he thought it was usual to give an auditor the preference in case of a vacancy among the Benchers. However that might be, he thought the House would agree with him that persons intrusted with an audit of accounts ought to be elected not by the trustees but by the cestui que trusts. He proposed that the Judges of the superior courts, or any three of them, should make rules for the election; and he did not apprehend that there would be any difficulty in working the machinery provided by the Bill. The Bill might be divided into two parts, each of which was entirely independent of the other. One regarded the reform of the judicial part of the functions of the Benchers; the other, the constitution of the Inns of Court. He knew there was considerable difference of opinion on the latter point, and that many learned gentlemen were of opinion that it would be better to leave matters as they were. It would be for the House to decide that question. He had done his duty in submitting what he considered would be a considerable im- provement. With regard to the other point, he believed the Benchers themselves were of opinion that some change was necessary. He proposed that the Bill should be read a second time; and that if on a discussion in Committee the House thought the part of the measure relating to the constitution of the Inns of Court was unnecessary, they should reject it, and proceed with the consideration of the other portion—that relating to the judicial functions of the Benchers.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. COLLIER

said, it appeared to him that his hon. and learned Friend would have done much better if he had introduced two separate Bills to deal with subjects which he had correctly stated to be distinct and separate subjects. With respect to the constitution of the Benches of the Inns of Court, it had never occurred to him nor, he supposed, to any Bencher, to deny the right or jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with those Benches. The only question was whether, the change proposed by the hon. and learned Baronet would, in reality, he an improvement. Before asking the House to interfere with the constitution of such ancient institutions as the Inns of Court, the hon. and learned Baronet was bound to make out two propositions—first, that the constitution which he sought to alter had worked ill; and, second, that those for whose benefit it was proposed to interfere were in favour of an interference. He contended that his hon. and learned Friend had not made out either of these propositions. The Inns of Court, strictly speaking, were not corporations. They were bodies of a peculiar constitution; and it appeared to him that they had a much greater resemblance to the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge than to Corporations. The Fellows of those colleges elected Fellows; and in the same manner the Benchers elected Benchers. Was there, then, any thing in the present state of the Bench or of the Bar to call for the alteration which his hon. and learned Friend proposed in those institutions, under which they had Become what they were? He was far from saying that the laws of England were perfect; but he was justified in asserting that there was no country in which the administration of justice gave more satisfaction. He would ask the oldest Mem- bers of that House, whether in their time they could recollect a case in which any Judge—he would not say had been guilty of—but had been even charged with malversation. It would not become him to pronounce any eulogium on the profession of which he had the honour to be a member; but he believed the independence of the Bar of this country and the fidelity of its members to their clients were universally admitted. That the Bar had not been viewed with disfavour by the aristocracy was evidenced by the number of those whom it reckoned among its ranks; and that it was not in disfavour with the public was evidenced by the number of gentlemen of the legal profession who had the honour of scats in that House. It appeared to him that there was nothing either in the state of the Bench or the Bar of England which called for a fundamental change in those institutions under which they had become what they were? On what other grounds did his hon. and learned Friend base his demand for this change? he did not allege any malversation or any improper dealing with the funds of any of the Inns. On the contrary, he repudiated any such charges. In the Report of the Commissioners appointed in 1854 were these remarks— In justice to the Benchers who form the governing body of each Inn of Court, we are bound to observe that there is every disposition on their part to render the funds of the societies available for the education of the students… And we can state with confidence of all the four Inns, not only that we have found no trace of the misapplication of these funds to the personal advantage of individual Benchers; but, on the contrary, we recognise creditable instances of disinterestedness and public spirit displayed by the relinquishment of considerable fees heretofore payable to Benchers holding offices in the Inns. His hon. and learned Friend blamed the Benchers of one of the Inns for laying out their money on a disagreeable object—a picture in which a knight held a sword in his left band; but if his hon. and learned Friend referred to history, he would find that the knight in question was left-handed. His hon. and learned Friend said he proposed to confer upon the Bar a franchise of which for centuries they had been deprived. It was very remarkable that the Bar had never discovered the injustice which, according to his hon. and learned Friend, had been done to them. His hon. and learned Friend came forward as the representative of the Bar of England and asked Parliament to con- fer a privilege on them which, as far as he could make out, not a member of the Bar desired with the exception of his hon. and learned Friend and two other hon. and learned Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill. So far from the privilege being desired by the Bar, it would be so distasteful to them that the great majority of the profession would not exercise it; and the practical effect of the system which his hon. and learned Friend wished to introduce would be, to cause the election for Benchers to be conducted by a mere minority, which would not include the most eminent men at the Bar. He believed that a great number of the Benchers, who were regarded as ornaments to the Inn to which they belonged, would altogether decline the ordeal of a contested election. He believed, therefore, that the practical effect of the measure would be to deteriorate, not to improve, the character of the Bench—to make it not a more faithful but a less faithful representative of the Bar, and to render it unacceptable to the great body of the profession. The present elections of Benchers were conducted by small bodies, thus making each individual responsible to public opinion; but if they diffused the power of election over the entire Bar, the responsibility of each individual would be decreased, and in fact would be so diluted that practically it would cease to exist. With regard to the other portion of his hon. and learned Friend's Bill, the character of the Bench as a tribunal of discipline had been referred to. It was alleged, on the one hand, that the Bench had acted too harshly with some gentleman who had appeared before it; but, on the other hand, it was accused of too great laxity in those very cases. He should leave the contradictory objections to answer themselves, and proceed to the next objection. His hon. and learned Friend had urged an objection against what he termed the secrecy of the tribunal. The tribunal, it was true, was not a criminal court, but one in the nature of a domestic forum; nevertheless, he felt bound to state that, in his opinion, if any man was put on his trial before the Benchers he had a right to demand that the proceedings should be public. He also thought that every man placed in such a position bad a right to insist that the tribunal which sat from day to day should be composed of the same Benchers each day, and that only those Benchers who had heard the evidence should pronounce judgment. But those were provisions which the Benchers themselves were capable of adopting and enforcing without an Act of Parliament. He begged to state to the House—and he did so on authority—that the subject had been under the consideration of all the Benchers, and engaged their anxious attention; and he had reason to believe that all those objections, so far as they prevailed, might be obviated by regulations made by the Benchers themselves, without the interference of Parliament. It might be necessary, after the Benchers had given full consideration to the matter, to apply to Parliament for an extension of their powers with respect to the examination of witnesses and production of documents, but these were questions which required far more consideration than his hon. and learned Friend had given to them. Such a measure should be introduced not by a private Member but by the Government, with the concurrence of those who were to carry it into effect. He was unable to enter upon the case of Mr. D. W. Harvey, which occurred many years ago. In that case the Benchers, no doubt, came to one conclusion, and a Committee of that House to another; but was it a matter of logical necessity that the Select Committee must be right, and the Benchers wrong? The only case in which ho had been concerned as a Bencher was a recent and painful case, in which the Benchers were called upon to investigate the conduct of a late Member of that House. Mr. Edwin James was so far from objecting to the jurisdiction of the Benchers that he wrote to them to say that he had been maligned and calumniated, that he desired to have an opportunity of explaining his conduct, and that he should be able to show that he had not been guilty of the offences imputed to him. Mr. James appeared before the Benchers. He did not desire that the inquiry should be public. He was told by the Benchers, that if he desired to bring his friends, or any of them, to protect his interests, he could do so. Mr. James declined to avail himself of that permission. His hon. and learned Friend had talked of the exclusion of the press from these inquiries. At the desire of the Benchers, however, a shorthand writer was present, who took an accurate note of the whole of the evidence, and each morning a printed copy of the proceedings of the previous day was transmitted to Mr. James by the Benchers. Without going into the history of that case, he would simply say that after some witnesses had been examined, Mr. James, although invited to give an explanation, retired, and communicated to the Benchers, that if they would not adjudicate in the case, he would retire from practice at the Bar both in England and the colonies. If that proposal had been made earlier, it might have been acceded to; but, after the investigation had proceeded to that point, the Benchers thought it their duty to go on with it. The inquiry had been much talked about, and had been discussed in magazines and periodical papers; but he was not aware that it had been anywhere asserted that the decision of the Benchers was unjust. Another and more recent case, in which an hon. and learned Member of that House was concerned, had been alluded to. He was not a Bencher of the Inn of Court to which that hon. and learned Gentleman belonged, but some of the Benchers who conducted that case were also Members of the House, and they were doubtless prepared to give any explanation that might be required. He could not help thinking that a question of that magnitude, affecting the whole interests of the Bar, ought to have been introduced by higher authority, and after communication with those by whose instrumentality it could alone be carried. He would therefore ask the House, on behalf of the Bar, to reject a measure which was disapproved not only by the Benchers of the Inns of Court, hut also by the Bar of Westminster Hall, who united in repudiating the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk as their representative.

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. ROEBUCK

seconded the Amendment.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he had never known-any instance in which the members of an ancient institution which required reform, did not oppose every reform which was not approved of by themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked them to look at the institution of the Bench as it now existed; but he could not see that the eminence of men upon the Bench and at the Bar had anything to do with the administration of the property of the Inns of Court. His hon. and learned Friend had represented the Bar as opposed to the Bill before the House. It was, however, very difficult to elicit a general expression of opinion on the part of the Bar, since they had very little opportunity or inducement to consider questions of this nature. There was, however, a pretty general feeling that some change was necessary in the constitution of our Inns of Court. The question before the House on the present occasion was simply the preamble of the Bill, which declared— Whereas it is desirable to amend the constitution of the four Inns of Court—that is to say, the Hon. Societies of Lincoln's Inn, the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, and Gray's Inn, for the purpose of giving to (lie barristers of those societies a share in and control over their government, and the administration of their property and affairs, and also to provide a fit tribunal, with the necessary powers, for maintaining the discipline of the Bar, and hearing and determining questions relating thereto; Be it enacted, &c. He was confident that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Bowyer) did not wish to press this Bill with any unseemly haste. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] And he thought it might he advantageously referred to a Select Committee upstairs if the principle were affirmed on the second reading. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Collier) that the Benchers in any degree resembled the Fellows of Colleges. The ancient practice was for the Benchers to select colleagues among the stuff gowns as well as silk, while the modern practice was that every Queen's counsel should be elected a Bencher. The rule had, however, been departed from on one occasion. Recent disclosures of the most painful description had drawn attention to the fact that the character of the Bar did not stand quite so high as it used to do. Had his hon. and learned Friend ever, until lately, known a Queen's counsel disbarred after receiving Her Majesty's patent? Had he ever known until recently a Queen's counsel refused to be elected to the bench of his Inn? These cases were an answer to that general laudation of the profession in which his hon. and learned Friend had indulged, but which in the present day must be taken cum grano salis. His hon. and learned Friend had said that the persons accused had declined publicity; and that although no reporters were present, a shorthand writer was in attendance. But where had the public had the opportunity of reading his notes of the evidence? Had the public no interest in publicity in such cases? Certain statements had been published relative to the evidence adduced; but if rumour might be believed, the ire of the Benchers had been greatly roused by the publication of these statements. It was the interest of the public as well as of the profession, that the character of members of the Bar should be above suspicion. Want of care in admitting members of the profession had a good deal to do with the present state of things. When a man had been once admitted, it was a serious matter to deprive him of the means of earning his daily bread. In the case of an hon. Gentleman, still a Member of that House, the judgment of the Benchers against him had been "screened," as it was called—that was to say, published and circulated. The hon. and learned Gentleman in question thereupon challenged the Benchers to publish the evidence, but they had shrunk from so doing—from what motive he could not say. Ho had, however, been told that the Benchers had not published the evidence because they had been threatened with an action if they did. Perhaps hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who were Benchers of the Inn would tell the House whether that was the fact. In any event, he did not see how the Benchers could escape from this dilemma. Either their judgment was unfair towards the hon. and learned Gentleman against whom it had been pronounced, or, if the evidence justified the grave charges contained in that judgment, they had signally failed in their duty towards the profession and the public in not following it up by a sentence of expulsion from the Bar. He trusted that the House would affirm the principle which the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had proposed for their acceptance—namely, that the constitution of the governing body of the Inns of Court required amendment. The Bill could then be referred to a Select Committee to consider its machinery and details.

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH

said, he fully agreed with hon. Members in thinking that the public were largely interested in the good government of the Bar, and the only question then before the House was, what was the best mode in which that Government could be carried on? He was aware that a number of arguments might be used in favour of such a court of discipline as the Bill proposed; but in all those cases the question was with respect to the balance of advantages and disadvantages; and he submitted that it would require a much stronger case than had been made out to induce the House, without a single request or petition from the Bar, and with the feelings of the Benchers strongly opposed, to impose such a change upon that body as the hon. and learned Gentleman called upon them to do. A case had been mentioned in the House which led his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr to say that some change was desirable. He could not forbear, after such a statement, to refer to that case—a recent and a painful one—which had been brought before the Bench of the Middle Temple, respecting an hon. and learned Member of the House (Mr. Digby Seymour). He was quite sure, that the gentlemen who acted upon that inquiry approached it with a sincere and earnest desire to do what in their judgment was just and fair in the matter. It was said that the tribunal was secret. All he could say was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was the subject of the investigation did not desire that it should be public, or that the inquiry should be conducted otherwise than in conformity with what had long been the practice of the Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman, indeed, not only submitted to the tribunal, but even requested that another inquiry, which was going on upon his own circuit, might be deferred until the judgment of the Bench had been given. He knew perfectly well the constitution of the body which was to decide his case; he knew the mode in which it would act, and he submitted to the course of procedure, which was justified by the precedents of the Bench—namely, that the inquiry should be secret. He (Mr. M. Smith) would not say one word upon the merits of the case. It was sufficiently painful to have had to decide upon it, and he was quite sure that upon the discussion of a Bill simply relating to the good government of the Inns of Court, the House would forgive him if he did not attempt to enter upon the merits of a particular case. The mode, however, in which the investigation was conducted was one on which he might offer explanations to the House, and which might also be fairly commented on by the hon. and learned Member himself. It was said that the inquiry took place after dinner, from which it was to be implied, he supposed, that the Benchers sat at a time when their judgments were not be well fitted to decide upon an important matter as they would be at an earlier period of the day. Well, that was a reproach which the Bench must share with that House, in which the most important delibera- tions and discussions took place after they had dined. It might, however, be interesting if he told the House the mode in which the Bench conducted those inquiries, What was done was this:—The Benchers dined at half-past five; at seven o'clock every trace of the banquet was removed, the treasurer took the chair, and business was proceeded with in the most regular and formal manner. It was impossible to get gentlemen who were largely engaged during the day to attend at any other time. Another charge was, that the members were varying in their attendance. It would ho much better that that should not be the case; and since attention had been called to the matter, he trusted care would be taken for the future to remove that cause of complaint. Though in a recent case the attendance was varying, the evidence taken was printed at the end of each day, and distributed among the members of the Bench; and he would undertake to say that not a single member gave his decision without having most carefully and anxiously read the evidence. He himself had not been able to attend at the commencement of the inquiry; but having met the hon. and learned Member for Southampton in the robing-room of the courts, and having told him that he had not read the evidence, and therefore did not intend to take any part in the proceedings, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "You know it is all published; you can read it;" and he expressed a wish that he should attend. Having, therefore, attended after that request, he paid the most anxious attention to the case, and his vote was not given until he had carefully read and weighed the evidence which had been circulated. It was hardly in the power of the hon. and learned Member, however, to complain of the varying attendance of the members, for his attention had been called to the matter, and he expressed the most anxious desire to have the inquiry proceeded with. He held in his hand the minutes of the proceedings, a copy of which was furnished to the hon. and learned Gentleman every day, and he there found that after the eighth meeting the treasurer said to the hon. and learned Gentleman, "According to our rules, a quorum of nine is required. We are only seven. Would you wish that we should proceed?" And the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was— I certainly do not demur to the jurisdiction. My anxiety is to get this matter closed as soon as possible; it presses with great weight upon me, and although there are only seven present, the evidence will be read by the others. I have no objection; and if there be any objection on the part of others, I pray that it may be waived for my sake. An objection had been urged that the Benchers ought to have disbarred the hon. and learned Member for Southampton or acquitted him altogether. But was there no middle course? In all other professions, in which discipline was exercised by a governing body, there was a middle course. In the army an officer might be simply reprimanded or reprimanded severely; indeed, in the army there was every grade of punishment and censure between the cashiering of an officer and his entire acquittal. Take the case of attorneys. If an attorney was brought before the court for something which he had done inconsistent with the practice of his profession, the court might strike him off the roll; but it very frequently happened that the court did not take that extreme course, and directed that he should not practice for a certain number of years, or that he should pay the costs of the application, or it would censure him for what he had done. Take another profession—that of the Church. Was there no intermediate punishment between depriving a clergyman of his orders and absolute acquittal? Had they not ecclesiastical censures, and cases of clergymen who, after being suspended for a given number of years, returned to the performance of all the offices of their sacred profession? But, unfortunately, in this case the Benchers of the Middle Temple, by taking a middle course, had pleased neither one party nor the other. Nevertheless, the judgment to which they came was what in their conscience they believed the right one. Were they to visit a man too severely for that which was stated to have been done several years ago? It was impossible to rely upon some of the evidence with regard to facts which took place six or seven years ago. [Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR: Nine or ten years ago.] But other facts appeared upon evidence too plain to be gainsaid, which required notice, and therefore, upon the whole, they came to the conclusion that it was their duty to take a middle course. The hon. and learned Gentleman, might, if he liked, appeal from the decision of the Benchers to the judges, and surely the House would think that those eminent dignitaries, free from all passion and prejudice, would form the most competent tribunal which could be conceived to decide upon the appeal. He now turned to the other provisions of the Bill. As for the proposal to make the Benchers elective, he trusted the House would pause before they subjected the profession of the law to anything so uncomfortable as a popular election. At present the Bar was an harmonious body. [A laugh.] His hon. and learned Friend (Sir George Bowyer) laughed, but he was hardly a member of the Bar; he was an outsider—[Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!]—and he could hardly judge of their feelings. He repeated that the Bar was an harmonious body, and it was much to the credit of the Bar of England, that although running the same race and for the same great prizes, there was usually to be found the best personal feeling among its members. He did not know anything which would so much interfere with that feeling as making the Benchers elective by the Bar. High-minded men would not submit to canvass for the election—they would have constant and indirect canvassing going on, and heart-burnings and jealousies which did not now exist. But the Benchers, properly speaking, were not self-elected. It was the Crown who virtually placed the Members of the Bar upon the Bench. It selected those whom it chose to honour by making them counsel for the Crown, and the Benchers raised the members so honoured to the Bench. It was said there were too many Benchers in that House, but that appeared to him to be an argument in favour of the existing state of things, because it showed that the Crown and the people concurred in bestowing honour upon the same persons. For the reasons which he had stated, he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. WALTER

said, that as one of that numerous class of barristers called by the hon. and learned Gentleman "outsiders," and not having the most distant prospect of attaining that elevated position to which it was the object of the present Bill to facilitate the access of barristers, he might, perhaps, be allowed to give expression to the views which he had formed after attentively listening to the discussion, and to state the course which he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend to pursue with respect to the Bill now before the House. As for the reconstitution of the Inns of Court, he was disposed to agree with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He had not himself the smallest wish to be intrusted with the elective franchise which the Bill would confer. Every man's happiness was pretty much in an inverse ratio to the extent of his professional acquaintance with the gentlemen of the long robe, and the probability was, that the business of canvassing for the appointment of Benchers would fall into the hands of attorneys, who would pester every barrister they knew in order to promote the election of their friends, That would be one of the greatest annoyances to which the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend would subject them; and he had heard no arguments which would induce him to rush into such a scheme for the reconstitution of the Inns of Court. With respect to the second part of the Bill, he agreed very much with the object of his hon. and learned Friend. In all probability they would never have heard of the Bill but for the very painful and unhappy inquiries that had lately taken place. He believed the interest taken by the public in the Bill was mainly confined to this point, whether the administration of domestic justice by the Benchers was satisfactory to the public and fair to the accused. In his opinion, the present arrangement did not work in a satisfactory manner, and he thought it was for the interest of the public that those who were put on their trial before the Benchers should receive the benefit of a public inquiry. It should be remembered that barristers were a privileged body, and their privileges affected the whole community. Every man was liable to be put on his trial in matters in which his life and property were involved. His life and property were placed in the hands of a privileged class practically appointed by the Benchers. If it were open to the public to select their own advocates, the public would have nothing to complain of. But, considering that the public were really in the hands of the Benchers, and their interests in the hands of men whose character was guaranteed by the Benchers, they had a right to know by what means they were deprived of the assistance of those men, or, in case suspicion attached to them, whether those suspicions were well-founded. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring to a middle course, mentioned the case of clergymen. But the analogy failed, because, although it was true that a clergyman might be suspended or deprived of his functions, he was subjected to neither pun- ishment without a public examination before a public tribunal. He contended that the same rule should obtain with respect to barristers. The examination ought to be of a public character, the Benchers ought to have all the means and appliances possessed by other tribunals, and whatever grounds they might have for suspending or disbarring a member of the profession ought to be easily accessible to the public. Some remarks had been made about the time of day at which these investigations took place. He would only observe on that point that the Roman poet had said— —Male verum examinat omnis Correptus judex. It might happen, however, that those postprandial inquiries were more favourable to the accused than to the accuser. At all events, the public feeling of the country was such that it would no longer submit to see a man's character taken away by a secret tribunal of that sort without knowing whether justice was done in the case or not. He could not vote for the Bill of the hon. and learned Member, because it embraced two subjects of an entirely different character, with one of which only he thought they should attempt to deal, and because it would not be easy to say how the two things so mixed up would work together. He would therefore strongly recommend his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Bill for the present, and to reintroduce it next Session, not with a view to the reconstitution of the Inns of Court, but in order to secure that openness and fairness which existed in all other courts.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought in the Bill had wholly failed in showing that there was any practical mischief to be remedied. He had never heard a case in which there was so little apparent conviction, even in the mind of the mover, of its being well-founded. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the subject of education, and of the management of the funds of the Inns of Court; but he had not stated what efforts had been made by the Benchers of late years to promote legal education in the profession. The hon. and learned Baronet had probably heard of the Council of Education—[Sir G. BOWYER: I was one of the lecturers myself.] Well, then, was the hon. and learned Baronet aware that in 1860 and 1861 the contributions of the four Inns of Court for the purposes of education amounted to between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum, in addition to the fees paid by students, and that considerable sums were now applied in support of a number of studentships? He thought that with reference to that important part of the functions of the Inns of Court no substantial grounds of complaint existed. With regard to the expenditure, the hon. and learned Baronet, when he introduced his Bill, absolved the Benchers of the different Inns from any suspicion of unfair dealing with the funds, and no real grievance in connection with the management of the funds was made out. He was not disposed to deny that some suggestions of the hon. and learned Baronet might be well worthy of consideration. In many cases it might be desirable that the tribunals which had to investigate the conduct of members of the Bar should not be dependent on the voluntary attendance of witnesses, but should have the power of compelling their attendance. That was, however, but a small part of the hon. and learned Member's proposition, and he could not, because he might approve that, affirm the other main principles of the Bill. With regard to the question of publicity, he was not prepared to say that on some occasions publicity might not be desirable and just; but that was a point on which it was perfectly competent for the Inns of Court to lay down a rule of practice for themselves. By the 9th clause of the Bill it was proposed that the judges should sit in open court, unless all the parties agreed that the cases should be heard in private; and consequently the hon. and learned Baronet himself recognised the propriety, more or less, of an inquiry being conducted with closed doors. It did not appear to him that the hon. and learned Baronet had established a case of real and practical grievance, calling for the interference of Parliament; but, if evils existed, the remedy devised by the Bill was one in favour of which scarcely any one hon. Member had spoken. It was proposed that in future about one-half of the Benchers should be elected by the Bar, and the other half by the Benchers. Not a single petition had been presented from any member of the Bar in support of such a plan, and he had not been able to discover that any section of the Bar was favourable to it. Unless the hon. and learned Baronet could satisfy the House that the Benchers elected in the way suggested would be better fitted for their duties than the present Benchers, the scheme naturally fell to the ground. That had not been attempted to be proved, and probably it would not be the case. What was the present practice? Whenever a gentleman at the Bar obtained distinction, and had a silk gown conferred on him, he within a short period afterwards was called to the Bench of the Inn to which he belonged. That was the general rule, almost without exception. The result was, that those persons in the profession became members of the Bench who had given the best and most satisfactory proof which could ordinarily be given of their fitness for the position. But it must not be supposed that it was from that rank only that Benchers were formed; for from time to time elections to the Bench took place from the "utter Bar"—from the body of barristers who had not obtained the distinction of the silk gown; and in that way the Benchers were enabled to obtain from time to time the valuable services of men of long standing, probity, and character, who, on personal grounds, had not thought fit to enter into competition for the distinctions of the profession. There was another class to which the Bench was open; he meant that class of persons who, called to the Bar in early life, had not practised as barristers, but had obtained distinction in other careers, such as Jeremy Bentham and Hallam. The one had sat at the Bench of Lincoln's Inn; the other at that of the Inner Temple. Was it supposed that election by the Bar would be a better mode than the present of choosing members for the Bench? Unless that was made out, a consideration of all the evils consequent on what was called popular election—its turmoil, excitement, and vexations—was sufficient to deter the House from entering on the proposed experiment. Thinking that no case had been made out to justify the passing of the present Bill, he should vote for the Amendment.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

Sir, I feel myself placed in a position of considerable difficulty; for if I remain silent on the present occasion, an unfair and unjust construction may be put on my silence, not by any persons in this House, but by those who might peruse the debate in the newspapers. It is very painful to me to feel that my name is connected with the present discussion from the beginning to the end; yet it is a satisfaction and consolation to reflect, that if it is now too late to do me justice—though I trust it is not— some good may be derived from the circumstances which have led to the introduction of my name into the debate. Without entering generally into the merits of the Bill, I heartily hope that the hon. and learned Baronet who has charge of it will, at all events, not retire from the position which he has taken up without, at least, obtaining a pledge, now that attention has been drawn to the subject, that an endeavour will be made in this or in some other form, to cope with the evils which exist. For myself, I do not shrink from the responsibility of saying that the system as it works at present is one under which it is almost impossible for any man who has made himself politically or professionally obnoxious, to expect impartial justice. I do not accuse any individual, but I blame the system. It is perfectly true that I did accost the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith) in Westminster Hall, and having a high respect for his personal character, his fairness, and impartiality, and feeling at the time great agony of mind in consequence of the course of an inquiry in respect to which prejudice was doing more than proof, I asked the hon. and learned Member, as a Bencher of the Inn to which he belonged, to be present at the investigation and hear the charges which would be brought forward under circumstances which I might designate as atrocious. It would have been all very well if the matters made the subject of charge had occurred only one or two years before. It would have been all very well, if I was only wearing a stuff gown and was fighting my way as a junior barrister, to select that time to investigate these matters if there was any ground for investigation. But it was a different thing when seven, eight, or nine years had passed away, when some men were in their graves and could no longer be called to give evidence, and when the ocean rolled between this country and other men who might have given important evidence in my behalf. One fact must be remembered, that for many years past there were members in my profession—members of the Bench, of the Middle Temple, and of the Northern Circuit—who were aware of all the circumstances which were afterwards used as the foundation of charges against me; and if I do not complain of individuals, I do complain of that secret system which enables persons behind a man's back, with- out signing the bill of indictment, to promote a charge against him from motives it is not impossible to fathom. From this moment I will place the case in the hands of the House, and the House will judge whether or not I have acted best for my own character in not asking for a Committee of Inquiry; and if the House should think that I have not taken a proper course, I shall rejoice if a Committee should then be appointed to investigate the entire matter. The first charge, in point of time and gravity, has reference to the end of the year 1852 and the beginning of 1853, and is to the effect that I was guilty of an act which, if there existed the remotest ground for concluding that there was one word of truth in the imputation, would have justly subjected me to be flung from the profession of the law as a rotten branch, and have rendered me unworthy to continue a Member of this House. This charge was, that in February, 1853, when I was chairman of a company in the City, called the Waller Mining Company, I, without the consent of a brother director, broke open and abstracted from a strong box, belonging to the late Captain Robertson, securities to the amount of £2,000 or £3,000 in value, and deposited those securities for the purpose of raising money on my own private account. A charge more monstrous could hardly be made; and it is one which shows the evils of the system to which the present Bill relates. I say that no member of the Bar ought to be placed on his trial upon such a charge, unless the parties instituting the trial were satisfied that there was some basis for so monstrous an accusation. But what was the basis in this case? Had this gentleman—Captain Robertson— a strong box? There was no proof of that; it was all assumption. Were the securities taken by my hand? Again there was no proof—only assumption. Were the securities applied by me to raise money for my own use through a broker in the City? This, again, was all assumption; and nobody was called to prove it. The imputation was made, but not a particle of proof was adduced; and a letter written in the course of the inquiry by a gentleman, in which he stated something he had heard another gentleman say before he died in 1854, was the only ground for the infliction of this cruel imputation ! But how did I meet the charge? By joining issue on every point and demonstrating my innocence. It was my misfortune in an evil hour when Member for Sutherland to become chairman of a public company; and I thoroughly deplored the circumstance, for the business of my profession and my absence on circuit rendered it impossible for me to attend to the duties of the office. In the beginning of the year 1853 my co-directors in that company, haring formed some connection upon the Stock Exchange, entered into transactions which I did not understand and with which I distinctly refused to connect myself. They engaged in buying up shares and involved themselves in large liabilities. Having received messages to come up to town, I attended the board of directors before one of the settling days in February, 1853, and the directors told me that they were afraid that there had been some treachery in their own ranks; that they expected that on the next settling day some shares, involving large liabilities, would be delivered, for which their brokers would, in consequence, be responsible. I told them that they had signed an agreement to which every one of them was a party, but to which my name was not attached; but that though I was not legally bound, I felt it my duty to save the credit of the Board, and that therefore, whatever might be the risk and difficulty, I would join them and share the responsibility. I then said to the directors, among whom was Captain Robertson, whose imaginary strong box I am accused of having broken open, "Bring up your securities, and assist me in getting money." Upon the following day Captain Robertson brought up three debentures of the Army and Navy Club—the maximum price of which was never more than £300, instead of £3,000 — and handed them not to myself, but to a gentleman now alive, a director of the company, who had charge of the securities. I handed in securities of my own to the value of £15,000 or £16,000, and they were all put together with other securities of other directors for the purpose of meeting the difficulties which were imminent. The settling day came; Captain Robertson was absent from illness, but I was there. The anticipations proved true. Shares were delivered which the brokers did not expect to receive. The consequence was, that on some of them losses were falling, and to others there was a prospect almost of ruin. There was one gentleman, Mr. Helps, an old member of the Stock Exchange—a gentleman, I am glad to say, now living —who had purchased shares, but not for me, who sent over word in the afternoon, that if he did not get £2,500 in the course of half an hour, he should be declared upon the Stock Exchange. I proposed to my fellow directors that we should go to Messrs. Price and Brown, of No. 4, Change Alley, and request a loan of money on our securities to pay this debt. Under these circumstances we were taking out our securities, when some one said, "Here are Captain Robertson's debentures." I said, "You can take them; I will take my own, and be responsible for my own acts in this matter." Accordingly, accompanied by two of the directors, I went, carrying the bundle of my own securities, and those gentlemen carrying those of Captain Robertson, to Price and Brown, who, on the deposit of all those securities, handed over a cheque for £2,500, which never was in my hands, but was handed by them to Mr. Helps to pay his debt. Not one shilling of that money did I ever receive. Not one shilling of that debt did I owe. When I was before the Benchers on this charge, I called Mr. Price; I called Mr. Helps; and I called some of my brother directors. Moreover, I was able to produce a letter written months after these securities were deposited, in which Captain Robertson addressed me as "Dear Seymour," and applied to me to assist him in obtaining terms of compromise and redeeming these securities. I handed the letter to the Benchers, who required a witness to the handwriting; and when they had an affidavit of Messrs. Cox and Greenwood's clerk, it was proposed to adjourn the inquiry in order to take his oral evidence ! Such was the case of Captain Robertson; and what was the verdict of the Benchers with respect to it? It was "Not proved." Now, I want to know how is a man to cope with false accusations if his brother barristers, after evidence like that, and with a case so weak as a charge and so clear as a defence, are content to find a verdict of "Not proved," and refrain from speaking out like Englishmen, declaring that their unanimous decision was "Not guilty." But this is not all of which I complain; for after this equivocal verdict I complain of the subsequent comment of the Benchers respecting the "recklessness of my assertion in venturing to take credit for doing an act which was little short of romantic generosity." If the Benchers had told me that they intended to dispute my veracity in their Parliament Chamber, I would have been prepared to produce the broker's notes, and other evidence, showing what liability I had taken on myself. I complain of the gross injustice of the judgment of the Benchers, and I think the House will not blame me for taking this the first opportunity of explaining the nature of Captain Robertson's case, and of declaring how cruel an imputation has been made on my veracity, simply because the Benchers thought that the generosity I laid claim to was too "romantic" for lawyers to believe !

Another matter mixed up with this inquiry is called "Coutts's case," with respect to which there was not a particle of evidence except an alleged conversation, held seven years ago, with a former agent of the Carlton Club. The charge was that I had deposited shares belonging to the company I have just mentioned, of which I was chairman, at Coutts's bank, to raise money which I put into my own pocket. The proof was, that in answer to a question some years ago, as to who were the chief holders of Waller shares, I named Coutts's bank. On this slender basis was at once raised the foul and ludicrous charge which the Middle Temple Benchers called on me to answer ! My answer to that was, that the shares so deposited were voted to me by the board of directors as payment for enormous advances, for which I had never been repaid; and that every shilling I had raised at Coutts's had been applied by me as a further loan to that very company, and was raised on shares of which I alone was owner. I produced as a witness a director of the company—a Middlesex magistrate, well known to many Members of this House, Mr. Edmund Halswell —who actually moved the resolution by which those shares had been put absolutely at my disposal; and I handed in a letter from Messrs. Coutts, who stated that neither directly nor indirectly were they parties to the inquiry before the Benchers. What I complain of is, that when I was put on my trial, use was made of the name of an ancient and honourable firm in connection with the transaction. "Coutts's case" was no more "Coutts's" than "Robertson's case" was "Robertson's" ! With regard to the system of inquiry by the Benchers, I complain that it is unsatisfactory, as some members attend on one day and do not attend on another. The hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith) said that on one occasion I consented to the continuance of the proceedings when only seven members were present; but I was exhausted, having waited so long to meet the charges—charges which, if made in any court of justice, would have been scouted. Sick at heart, and weary of so prolonged an investigation, I did consent to the inquiry going on; hut does that prevent me from now complaining of a system under which such a state of things could be tolerated? It is impossible that printed evidence can supply the place of the vivâ voce testimony of witnesses. There is something in the manner of men, and in their mode of giving evidence, which is favourable to the ascertainment of truth. But that is not all; for, if the Benchers had published the evidence taken before them, it would have been seen that they have so mixed up the cases together, and produced such a confused and inextricable medley, that I defy the hon. and learned Member for Truro to assert that any man reading the printed evidence alone could arrive at the same satisfactory judgment as he could have done had he been present and heard the witnesses.

I have now to inform the House that there was a third charge brought against me. It arose out of an alleged compromise of an action brought against me several years ago, which, in the formal language of special pleading, imputed to me a breach of trust as to which the evidence of my accuser demonstrated my innocence. My answer, among other things, to the Benchers was, that if I had acted imprudently or injudiciously in consenting to terms of peace in that action, at all events I had for my counsel two of the ablest men at the Bar—Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Randal Bennett—who considered that my honour would be safe in agreeing to what they recommended. They advised me to accept the compromise, and I acted upon their advice. A learned judge, now living, Mr. Justice Wightman, suggested that course being taken. The Benchers have acquitted me upon that charge, as well as upon the two others, but I ask the House whether there was not something wrong in their whole proceedings. In England we have tribunals for the trial of almost every species of offence. Let the Benchers inquire into alleged professional delinquencies if they please, but I contend that I ought not to have been placed upon my trial under the circumstances as they stood; and, at all events, before placing me upon my trial, the Benchers should have been impressed with a higher sense of the gravity of the charges brought against me, and should have shown some little commiseration for my outraged feelings on hearing such au accusation. It has been said that I pleaded guilty to some of the charges. But what did I "plead guilty" to? To nothing for which I need blush. I have told the House that I took upon myself enormous liabilities in 1853. Those liabilities were so heavy, exceeding £20,000, that although I was able to pay off a great many of them, the remainder nearly oppressed me, and I was obliged to apply for terms from my creditors. The difficulties under which I laboured at that time were not brought upon me by any dishonourable conduct on my part, but were the result of that act of "romantic generosity" of which the Benchers think me incapable. In 1855 the attorney of a gentleman who held my undertaking to pay a large sum arising out of those very matters put himself in communication with me. I settled the principal debt, and, in writing to the attorney, who I then thought was a personal friend and client of my own, I suggested to him that his bill of costs was heavy, and stated that I should be happy to hold any briefs which he might intrust to me, setting them off against the amount of his claim. In making that suggestion I may have committed a thoughtless act; but the case was one in which, if professional etiquette pointed one way, personal honesty pointed another; and the worst that can be said of me is that I considered how I could most expeditiously pay my debts, rather than whether I might not offend against some abstract and indefinite rule of the profession. For upwards of sixteen years, through good and evil report, I have worked my way steadily at the Bar, and the only charge, after a twelvemonths' inquisition, established against me, is that on one occasion I offered to hold briefs to pay a debt honestly due ! Some time ago a statement —I will not now call it a libel—reflecting upon my character, appeared in a legal publication. Glad to seize the first opportunity of vindicating myself, I have called upon the author to justify his imputations. That is the second challenge I have given. My first demand was that the Benchers should publish their proceedings; my next step has been to call upon those who accuse me to prove their charges. I now place myself in the hands of the House. My guilt, if it can be proved, would reflect upon the aggregate honour and dignity of any assembly of which I may happen to be a member. Already I have appealed to a jury of my countrymen, but I should be only too glad to adopt any other course which, if followed by a favourable result, might give me the hope of recovering those friendships that seem now estranged, and that position in this House to which, owing to the rank I hold in my profession, I may be fairly entitled to aspire.

MR. BOVILL

Sir, as the only Bencher of the Middle Temple who has the honour of a seat in this House, I wish to make a few observations in reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Out of respect to the House, I shall not attempt to enter into the merits of a case which formed the subject of an investigation extending over fifteen days, and the evidence in which fills no fewer than 700 printed pages. When, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman arraigns the conduct of the Benchers of the Middle Temple, when he complains that we had no right to enter upon the inquiry at all, and when upon that ground he asks the House to deprive the Benchers of a power which they have wielded with satisfaction to the profession and the public for so many years, I feel that I am bound to state the reasons why we deemed it to be our imperative duty to investigate the charges brought against him as a member of our Inn. It is not my intention to enter minutely into the particulars of each of those charges, or to explain how they came to the knowledge of the Benchers. There is one case, however, which will show beyond the possibility of doubt that it behoved the Benchers to institute an inquiry. Some time ago a serious charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman was brought before a committee of the circuit to which he belongs. It was no less than a charge of having defrauded a Mr. Parker of £500, and of having allowed, without defence, a judgment to be filed in Court against him upon that charge. An investigation took place before the members of the Northern Circuit. Mr. Parker was examined. The hon. and learned Gentleman denied the truth of the charge, though he acknowledged that he had permitted a judgment to pass against him, whereupon Mr. Parker at once said, that if his word were disputed—if there were any doubt about the charge of fraud, he would withdraw the judgment which he had obtained, and try the case before a jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman had thus an opportunity of trying the case before a jury, but up to the present hour he has not availed himself of it.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

I have accepted the challenge.

MR. BOVILL

The hon. and learned Gentleman says he has accepted the challenge, but the judgment remains upon the files of the court, and by his own admission he has been guilty of fraud.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

The judgment is not on the files of the court.

MR. BOVILL

It may have been removed temporarily, but at the time the Benchers of the Middle Temple were called upon to investigate the accusations brought against the hon. and learned Gentleman there was a judgment on the files of the court, in an action which charged him with having defrauded Mr. Parker of £500, he having admitted that charge to be true. The hon. and learned Gentleman, moreover, was challenged to have the case tried before a jury, but he had declined to avail himself of the opportunity. Under these circumstances will any hon. Gentleman in this House venture to tell the Benchers of the Middle Temple, that there being upon the records of the court a judgment which charged one of the members of their Inn with fraud—a charge, remember, which was admitted to be true by the person against whom it was brought— they were not entitled to institute an inquiry into the matter? Let me remind the House, too, since a discussion has been provoked by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he holds the position of a judge, being the Recorder of an important Borough. After the statement which he has just addressed to the House, I feel bound to ask the Government whether they do not think that some inquiry should be made into the charges which have been brought against him. We are not now considering the details of those charges, but there are one or two points to which I may be allowed to refer. The usual practice, when a member of the Bar obtains the rank of Queen's counsel, is that he sends the patent to the Benchers of his Inn, prior to an application for a seat on the Bench. When the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained the rank of Queen's counsel, he did not send in his patent, nor did he venture to present himself to the Benchers in the ordinary way. It was also known to most members of the Middle Temple, and indeed was current in the profession at the time, that he had endeavoured to be made a serjeant at law, and had not been successful. What happened then? After a critical period in this House the hon. and learned Gentlemen, who wanted to be a serjeant, had conferred upon him the rank of one of Her Majesty's counsel. The failure of the hon. and learned Gentleman to send in the patent which made him a Queen's counsel naturally produced an impression that there must be some cause for it, but there is no foundation for the statement, that in resolving to enter into an inquiry, the Benchers of the Middle Temple were actuated by any feeling of personal animosity. We did not suggest the charges against the hon. and learned Gentleman; the charges were presented to us, and it was our imperative duty—a duty from which we could not escape—to investigate them. I am not authorized to say who sent the first communication to us; but I may state that the communication of these facts which prevented the rank of serjeant being conferred upon the hon. and learned Gentleman was placed before the Bench, and was the foundation of our proceedings. The conclusion we came to was, that the facts and circumstances which justified the exclusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman from the rank of serjeant ought to be investigated, and no one can doubt, that considering the gravity of the charge brought against him in the Parker case, the proper course for the Benchers to pursue was to institute an inquiry, and, if satisfied of the truth of the accusation, to disbar him and expel him from the profession. An inquiry took place before a committee of the Benchers; Mr. Parker was examined. During the whole of those proceedings there was a judgment on the records of the court— where, for anything I know, it still remains—convicting the hon. and learned Gentleman of fraud. But the Benchers did not accept his own admission of guilt as conclusive of the fact; on the contrary, they went into all the circumstances connected with the judgment, and they offered the hon. and learned Gentleman every opportunity of explaining why he had submitted to it. Moreover, they gave him the benefit of every doubt which could be suggested in the case, and eventually they did not find him guilty, but pronounced the charge not proved—the fraud not established. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now prepared, in the face of the evidence produced against him, to ask the House to express the opinion that the Ben- chers ought to have pronounced him not guilty? If it was proved by facts admitted by himself that he had received money for one purpose and had applied it to another, is he to complain that the Benchers, while finding the charge of fraud not proved, censured him for the mode in which he dealt with the cash? Surely if we thought upon the evidence adduced that the hon. and learned Gentleman was deserving of censure, it was our bounden duty to express that censure. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask the House to express an opinion upon his own version of the facts. I do not desire to follow him into the particulars of each individual case, but the charges brought against him were of a very serious character. The Parker case I have stated. The Robertson case was neither more nor less than a charge of stealing securities. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that such a charge, when brought against a person lately made a Queen's counsel is not to be investigated by the Benchers of the Inn to which he belongs? In the other case, the charge was that he had misappropriated certain shares in a Company, of which he was a director, and had used them for his own purposes with the Messrs. Coutts. Will any man venture to say that that is not a charge which ought to he investigated? Such are some of the matters which were brought before the Benchers of the Middle Temple. The only course which could be adopted, as it appears to me, was that a committee should ascertain whether there were good grounds for investigating the charges. We adopted that course, and what was the result? The Committee came to the conclusion, in the first place, that there were not sufficient grounds for inquiry into various matters, other than those I have mentioned, which had been brought under our notice. Does that show any desire to place the hon. and learned Gentleman on his trial without proper cause? Yet he asks the House to express the opinion that the Benchers were wrong in putting him upon his trial at all. I now come to the mode in which the inquiry was conducted. The regulation in the Middle Temple is that in cases of this description there should be nine members present, and that the same nine members should attend throughout the inquiry. From the length of this investigation and the varied subjects brought under the attention of the Bench, it happened that the same nine members were not always present; but as soon as that circumstance was discovered, it was communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was asked whether he wished the proceedings to be commenced de novo. At his own desire the proceedings were continued—continued without the slightest objection of any sort or kind from him, until after he heard the result of the inquiry. So with respect to the time of the sittings. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had objected to the Benchers holding their sittings at the time this House does—namely, after dinner, arrangements would have been made for holding the inquiry at a season of the year when it could have been conducted in the day-time, but not a word was heard from him on the subject. It is well enough when all is over to make complaints about the constitution of the tribunal and the time of the sittings, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the changes which took place from time to time in the members of the Bench, I would ask him who, towards the end of the proceedings, solicited one gentleman who had not heard the evidence to attend the sittings, and so alter the constitution of the court? Why, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and therefore he has no right to complain upon that score. At the conclusion of the case, when the evidence filled upwards of 700 printed pages, there was no member of the Bench prepared to undertake the delivery of a judgment upon it. The case was adjourned for a considerable period, in order that every member of the Bench might have an opportunity of reading the evidence. I can say, that the evidence was gone over with the greatest possible care; I, for one, devoted whole days to it; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had the benefit of every doubt which could be suggested. We had to decide upon the printed evidence; but such is the case with the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and other tribunals. I am at a loss to understand how it can he said that the Benchers of the Middle Temple erred in their duty to the public, to the profession, or to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon the three charges they took a very lenient course. They did not find the hon. and learned Gentleman guilty; they pronounced the cases not proved; but they felt it their duty, at the same time, to pass a severe censure upon the accused — a censure called forth by facts which were too clear to be disputed. If the hon. and learned, Gentleman objects to the decision of the Benchers, and questions the propriety of their censure, there is a legitimate and proper course open to him. Let him appeal to the Judges; for the Benchers of the Middle Temple, in considering his case and pronouncing their judgment upon it, acted not only under a strong sense of responsibility, but with the knowledge that their decision might be appealed from to the Judges of the land. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman to come here, and, in a discussion upon the second reading of a Bill like that now before us, to wind up his own version of the facts by asking the House to express an opinion upon the conduct of the Benchers of the Middle Temple? I should have thought, that if he objects to the judgment which has been pronounced, it would be more correct to appeal to the Judges, and to ask them whether they are of the same opinion as the Benchers. I regret that I should have been led—by necessity led—to make any observations that have an appearance of hostility to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is necessary that the House should understand this charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, has not thought fit to appeal to the Judges, nor has he appealed to the public. It is true he has asked the Benchers to publish the evidence, but it is no part of our duty to do so. He has the evidence in his own possession, and he is at liberty to publish it if he pleases.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

I have not the whole of it.

MR. BOVILL

The hon. and learned Gentleman has the whole of the evidence with the exception of a small interlude, which, though it is quite immaterial to the case, I may describe to the House. One of the witnesses examined before us was a gentleman who was introduced by the hon. and learned Member himself. He was cross-examined with respect to some letters which happened to be in the possession of the Bench. The cross-examination was not particularly agreeable to the witness, and on the second occasion he asked permission to look at the letters. Instead of continuing to answer the questions addressed to him, he quietly took the letters, said they were his property, and put them into his pocket. I do not want to make the hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for the conduct of his Friend; the incident I have narrated has no bearing upon the case, and I assert again, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the whole of the 700 pages of the evidence and may publish it to-morrow if he pleases. It will thus be seen that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the choice of two tribunals. There is an appeal to the Judges—he declines it; and there is an appeal to the public—he does not avail himself of it. It is true he attended a public meeting in Southampton and made his own statement of the facts, declaring, among other things, that he had obtained an acquittal in au honourable manner. The people of Southampton must have been remarkably astonished when they came to read the severe censure of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now complains. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has not published the evidence, and consequently he has not appealed to the public. Nor let the House forget that he has had au opportunity of bringing the case in which a judgment stands against him before a jury. He has not adopted that course. [Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I have.] About a year ago the case had never been brought to trial; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman says he intends to take that step now, I will tell the House why—since that time Mr. Parker has died.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

I had resolved upon it before his death, or even his illness.

MR. BOVILL

The last time this case was before the Benchers the judgment was standing against the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am very much mistaken if it does not still remain on the files of the Court. It is also important to remark that after the Benchers pronounced their decision the hon. and learned Gentleman ceased to be a member of the mess of the Northern Circuit. I regret that it has been my lot to be obliged to occupy the time of the House with these personal matters, but I should like to know why the hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask the Home Secretary to have an investigation into his conduct at the Home Office, in order to see whether he should retain the office of Recorder; or why he did not come here and ask for a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain whether he ought any longer to remain a Member of this House. I do not mean to say that he is guilty, but I do say that when he has had an opportunity of appealing to the Judges, to the public, to a jury, to the Home Secretary, or to the House—and when he has not ventured to go before any one of these tribunals—it is rather too much for him to ask the House, upon his evidence alone, to pass a judgment in his favour and to condemn the conduct of the Benchers. Passing from that subject to the Bill before the House, I would observe that a Royal Commission was appointed in 1854, and the result was that after a year's consideration on the very important subject referred to them, they came to a certain conclusion with reference to the constitution of the Inns of Court. They recommended that a legal university should be established with a Chancellor, a Vice Chancellor, and a senate, and that the university should be composed of delegates from the four Inns of Court. If there should be any reform in the constitution of those bodies, I think it would be only right that any Bill to be brought in should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. This Bill does not at all carry out those recommendations. I v, ill only express my opinion, that if the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. as embodied in this Bill, were carried out, there is scarcely a Gentleman who is now willing to undertake the duties of the office of a Bencher who would then be willing to devote his time and attention to them, and I say that there is no case made out for this Bill.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the Parker case, and has stated that there was a judgment filed against me, by which I confessed a fraud. He might have added that I produced the evidence not only of the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench, where the judgment is recorded, but also of gentlemen of high reputation at the Bar, including Mr. Lush, Q. C., to show that the judgment is entirely confined to an admission of the debt, and excludes altogether the notion of fraud. I proved that it was under that impression that my counsel advised me to submit to the judgment; and I may add that one of them offered to make an affidavit that my representation was correct. Upon that point, therefore, the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely inaccurate. Nay, more; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., both brother Benchers of the hon. and learned Member, concurred in the opinion of Mr. Lush. As for the gentleman who was examined on my behalf, that matter will probably occupy the attention of a jury, and I will say no more con- cerning it than this—that he ascertained that the Benchers had got possession of his private letter-book, which was stolen from his office some time ago, and were making use of garbled extracts, which had nothing to do with the subject-matter of inquiry, to shake his evidence. He did take possession of his property, and was afterwards charged at the police station with stealing the book; but the officer on duty dismissed the case, and gave the Benchers who preferred it a wholesome admonition. The case, however, is now before another tribunal.

MR. BOVILL

It is quite true, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he offered evidence to show that the judgment was not an admission of fraud; but it is right I should inform the House that there was evidence, distinct evidence, the other way.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman now qualifies his previous statement, but I deny that there was a single atom of evidence the other way. I dispute everything the hon. and learned Member has said as totally misrepresenting the facts.

SIR GEORGE GREY

I do not rise, Sir, to take any part in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, hut I wish to say a few words in consequence of the appeal which has been made to me upon the personal question introduced into it connected with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton. I do not mean to express the slightest opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House could do otherwise than he has done. I think the Benchers were bound to institute an inquiry into the case after the manner in which the character of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had been impugned. I must say I think the House is perfectly incompetent to express any opinion on the case, being with regard to the nature of the inquiry totally in the dark, having not one tittle of evidence before it, not knowing how the charges originated, what the specific charges were, nor how the inquiry was conducted. The statements made with great confidence on both sides should not therefore influence the House; but if there he any means of obtaining a judicial investigation, that course should certainly he adopted. I should not have risen at all but for two statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford. He has stated that the rumours affecting the conduct and character of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had been long in circulation, and that having applied to be made a serjeant-at-law, and been refused the coif, the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, at a critical period in party politics, had received the promotion of a silk gown from the present Government, Sir, I speak in the name of the Government of which the late Lord Campbell was a distinguished Member, and I feel bound to deny altogether the imputation against him and the Government of which he was a member. In the first place, I am sure, that if these rumours did exist, and if they reached the cars of Lord Campbell, he could not have attached any importance to them; and he would have been justified in attaching no importance to them, in the absence of any action on the part of the Benchers—the legal competent tribunal to investigate those charges—or any notice being taken of them during the whole time those rumours were afloat. I cannot distinctly deny—for I have not the means of denial, that these rumours did reach Lord Campbell; but if they did, and if he had thought they had any valid foundation he, I am sure, would not, for the sake of serving any political purpose, have taken the course imputed to him. What foundation is there for the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman? I am not aware that in February, 1861, any political crisis was impending which could have induced Lord Campbell to act as has been stated. I can remember no such crisis—and I can appeal to every man who knew him to say whether Lord Campbell was base enough to act in the manner imputed to him. But, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has rather imputed to myself some negligence in this matter, in not having instituted an inquiry at the Home Office, in order to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Member for Southampton should retain the judicial position he had for many years occupied as Recorder of Newcastle-on-Tyne. The hon. and learned Gentleman must he aware that recorders do not hold office during the pleasure of the Government, but during good behaviour, and I am not aware of any investigation that could have been instituted by me with a view to ascertain on what foundation these charges were made. But if I had been of opinion that they had some foundation, what could I have done with regard to the appointment the hon. and learned Member for Southampton held? All I knew was that an inquiry towards the close of last year was conducted by the Benchers of the Middle Temple, which they thought it their duty to institute, and which, I admit, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford, it was their duty to institute; and the result of that inquiry was, that they were of opinion that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton was a fit person to continue a Queen's counsel, and to act as a member of the Bar and of that society the honour of which was in their keeping. It never occurred to me that it was my duty to institute an inquiry into charges which were never laid before me, of which and of the evidence in support of them I was wholly ignorant, in order to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, being allowed by the verdict of the Benchers to remain a member of the Bar and to act as a Queen's counsel, should still retain his office of Recorder. Sir, under these circumstances, I hold that no blame whatever can attach to the Government on this account. At the same time, I must say, that if there is an appeal now open from the decision of the Benchers of the Middle Temple to the Judges, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have recourse to it; for I must say the House is, in my opinion, incompetent to entertain such a question or to decide it as satisfactorily as the Judges.

MR. BOVILL

I beg to say that I did not impute the slightest blame, and never intended to make the slightest charge of neglect against the right hon. Baronet. I was led to make the observation I did in order to show that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had never courted any investigation. With respect to the rumours I mentioned, I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Baronet has made the statement we have just heard. It is extremely satisfactory, and the right hon. Baronet cannot regret that an opportunity was afforded for making it.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

observed that he had heard no arguments adduced in reply to what he had advanced in moving the second reading of the Bill. He should however, follow the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and withdraw the Bill pledging himself before the close of the Session to lay on the table another measure to reform the judicial portion of the duties of the Benchers. The whole discussion showed that a change in that respect was required. The case of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton just amounted to this:—The Benchers, after allowing the matter to sleep for eight or ten years, instituted an inquiry, the result of which was that they first absolved him from every charge, and then censured him. It was the old story of the jury who found the prisoner not guilty, telling him at the same time never to do so any more. He would withdraw the Bill.

Question, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Beading put off for three months.