Lords Sitting of 26 July 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading Trades Unions (Protection of Funds) * (226); Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment* (227).
Second Reading — Evidence Amendment (110).
Committee — Bankruptcy (208); Imprisonment for Debt (168–224); Prevention of Gaming (Scotland)* (206–225).
Committee—Report—Debts of Deceased Persons * (169).
Report—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2)* (205).
Third Reading— Endowed Schools * (220); Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* (180); Fines and Fees Collection* (155); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (183), and passed.
Royal Assent—Irish Church [32 & 33 Vict. c. 42]; Pensions Commutation [32 & 33 Vict. c. 32]; Judicial Statistics (Scotland) [32 &c 33 Vict. c. 33]; Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies) [32 & 33 Viet. c. 84]; Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act (1860) Amendment [32 & 33 Vict. c. 35]; Court of Session Act (1868) Amendment [32 & 33 Vict, c. 36]; Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of Lancaster) [32 & 33 Viet. c. 37]; Special Bails [32 & 33 Vict. c. 38]; Sunday and Ragged Schools [32 & 33 Vict. c. 40]; Assessed Rates [32 & 33 Viet. c. 41]; Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland) [82 & 33 Vict. c. 39]; Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation [32 & 33 Vict. c. 123]; Local Government Supplemental [32 & 33 Viet. c. 124].

QUESTION.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYasked the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Granville), Upon whose judgment and responsibility a picture in the National Gallery representing "Christ Blessing Little Children," ascribed to Rembrandt, but by many persons supposed to be a spurious work of little or no value, was purchased at the
652
price of £7,000? The picture, he believed, was originally in the Schö;nborn Collection at Vienna; from thence it passed into the hands of a foreign gentleman of whom, in 1866, it was purchased for the National Gallery. In the following year a noble Lord stated in "another place" that according to one of the first auctioneers of the day, it would, if put up to sale, fetch literally nothing. That opinion had since been confirmed by many authorities, and, as far as he knew, no contradiction had been given. He was aware that great difference must always exist as to the value of the genuineness of many pictures, and it might appear presumptuous in him to offer any opinion in this case; but he felt bound to say that, in his judgment, even if it could be proved to be a Rembrandt, it was a very inferior work, a very costly purchase, and a very repulsive painting. Indeed, the more it was looked at the less could it be liked. He had been informed that a picture very similar to it had recently been put up to auction in St. James's Street, without obtaining a single bid. He might also mention the fact that a few years ago two pictures, one by Van Huysum and the other by Cuyp, were sold for 380 and 382 guineas, and might have been originally purchased for those sums, but were shortly afterwards purchased for the National Gallery for £1,800?
EARL GRANVILLEthought it would be better if this Question and that of a noble Earl opposite, who had given a notice of similar nature, were answered by his noble Friend (Lord Over stone), who, as a Trustee of the National Gallery, would be able to give a full explanation.
THE EARL OF WINCHELSEArose to ask for information respecting three pictures which were now or had been in the National Gallery. His first Question was, By whose authority picture 234 "Warrior adoring Infant Jesus," bought by the nation for the sum of £3,000 as a veritable Giorgione, is now called Venetian School, (1,505) and is not included in the official catalogue? He had understood that £3,000 was given for it, but he was informed that this was a mistake. His second Question was, On what grounds a picture (790) sold out of Cardinal Fesch's collection for sixteen florins, less or more, was bought of Mr. Macpherson for the sum of

653
£2,000, and called after Michael Angelo, which great name it does not appear to have borne previously? Now it was well known that Michael Angelo never painted in oil, but simply furnished designs for his pupils. According to Vasari, he gave Anton Mini—
" La maggior parte de disegni e cartone fatte da lui, ch'erano cosa divina; cosi duo casse dimodegli con gran numero di cartoni finiti per far pitture, e parte d'opere fatte."
Many of these were stolen after the death of Mini in France. Mr. Wornum, moreover, had not always been of the same opinion as when he published the catalogue of the National Gallery, for in his Epochs of Painting was this passage—
"As painter Michael Angelo is almost exclusively known for his productions in fresco; he never painted in oil colours, and there is only one tempered picture attributed to him—a Holy Family, now in the gallery at Florence—which has any pretensions to be well authenticated; it is said to have been painted for Angelo Doni; it has, however, every trace of hiving been painted by Angelo Bronzino, whatever may be the origin of the design."
His third Question was, What became of a certain spurious "Ecce Homo," purporting to be by Correggio, which belonged to the nation previous to the purchase of the real picture from the collection of the late Marquess of Londonderry; when and to whom it was sold, if sold it were, what price it fetched, and whether the proceeds were carried to the national account? He hoped that his Questions would not be regarded as an attack on the Trustees of the National Gallery, for he was sure they discharged their duty with the utmost conscientiousness; but. considering how easily evidence was fabricated in favour of pictures, great caution ought to be shown in the expenditure of large sums of money in this manner.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) could obviously make no other reply than that which might be placed in his hands by those who administered the affairs of the National Gallery, it was more appropriate that these Questions should receive a direct answer from one personally conversant with the subject. That duty would properly have fallen on his noble Friend the Marquess of Northampton, who was not more superior to
654
himself in point of rank than in all those intellectual qualifications which would entitle him to speak with authority upon questions connected with the fine arts; but the noble Marquess being prevented from attending the House by personal infirmity, it devolved upon himself to undertake the task. Their Lordships and the public would feel with him that these Questions involved a grave imputation on the management of the National Gallery; but he trusted the explanation he was about to give would be full and satisfactory. The first Question was that of the noble Lord (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley), who asked upon whoso judgment and responsibility the picture of "Christ Blessing Little Children," ascribed to Rembrandt, but supposed to be of little or no value, had been purchased for the price of £7,000? The Question obviously divided itself into two parts— the first of which was, upon whose authority and judgment it was purchased? His answer was, that the Director of the National Gallery was responsible for the purchase. It could not, indeed, be otherwise; the Director of that institution was vested with plenary authority in the choice and purchase of pictures, and nothing could be done except on his judgment and with his full responsibility. But the Director was surrounded by a body of Trustees, to whom he was bound to report all his proceedings. If, in any case, they doubted, dissented, or condemned, it was their duty to record their opinion, which opinion was necessarily laid before Parliament; but if they abstained from any such expression of opinion, they by their silence acquiesced and shared in the responsibility of his acts. In the present case the Director reported to the Trustees in the usual way, and they recorded no dissent, and so they participated in the responsibility. The picture had been exhibited publicly on the walls of the National Gallery for three years; but this was the first time its genuineness had been, questioned in this House, and he could not help saying, therefore, that any attack upon it should have been made at an earlier period. In order to show that the Trustees were justified in purchasing the picture as a great work in itself, and as the production of a great Master, he would give a statement of the history of the picture from its execu-

655
tion to the present time. It was believed to have been painted by Rembrandt about 1650, being a date intermediate between the great works which characterized the earlier and those which characterized the later portion of his career. The first trace of it was to be found in the celebrated Pommersfelden Collection, of which there were two catalogues, bearing date 1719 and 1746. It was now impossible to find a copy of the first catalogue, dated 1719; but a copy of the second, bearing date 1746, was happily extant, and he held in his hand a certified extract from it—
" Specification of the precious paintings preserved in the most noble villa at Vienna belonginging to the Schö;nborn family, together with their height and width by the Nuremburg foot measure."
Then comes this item— "6. Christ sitting with the innocent children and their parents, by Rembrandt. 6–6, 4–10." The picture remained in the Schö;nborn Palace at Vienna for 150 years, without its genuineness having ever been questioned, until the year in which it was purchased for the National Gallery, being regarded through the whole of that long period, and by all the art critics of Germany, as the pride and ornament of the Vienna Galleries, and being always spoken of as "the Vienna Rembrandt." He had asked M. Boehm, an eminent modeller and sculptor, now residing in London, whose father, for nearly forty years, was Director of the Art Establishment of the Mint, and Chief Medal-list to the Emperor of Austria, what he knew of the picture, and he had received a reply, in which M. Boehm said he had always heard it mentioned as the most important work by Rembrandt in Vienna. He added, that he well re collected the great admiration entertained for it by his father, who was on several occasions consulted by Government on the purchase of works of art, and showed by his fine collection, especially of drawings and etchings by Rembrandt, that his opinion was deservedly valued. M. Boehm went on to say—
"The picture in question has a particular interest to me, and, though I do not offer my judgment as of any value "whatever, I think it right to mention that when asked by Mr. Boxall to enumerate the works of Rembrandt at Vienna, I mentioned this picture first and foremost of all, before I knew anything of the intended purchase by the National Gallery. I never heard the picture doubted at Vienna, and have only known it
656
as the theme of general admiration among all connoisseurs there, occupying a prominent posisition in the Schö;nborn Gallery. I well remember the powerful impression it always produced upon me, and when I afterwards heard of its acquisition for the National Gallery I rejoiced in the addition of so valuable a picture to the treasures which it contains."
The next testimony which he would quote was Forster's Handbook of Germany, 1833, in which the celebrated translator of Vasari, referring to the Schö;nborn collection, mentioned "Christ Blessing Little Children" as one of "four great works of Rembrandt" to be found there. Voesmaer, in his Life of Rembrandt, quoting the opinion of a preceding writer of eminence—Hertscheene, said—
" The head of Jesus is very fine. He wears a brown dress, with a red mantle. The other figures are painted in colours difficult to describe —greenish brown, red, and dark brown. The figure of Jesus very luminous and masterly painted."
In Nagler's Art Lexicon, 1842, the painting was referred to as—
" The most excellent picture by Rembrandt in the Schö;nborn Gallery at Vienna. The head of Christ is admirable in character. The rest of the figures are copied from common nature. Moreover, this picture is of the very highest excellence in point of colour, of the greatest transparency in chiaro scuro, and of most brilliant effect. … A magnificent gem in a homely setting."
In the article on Rembrandt in Brockhaus's Conversations Lexicon, 1830, was this passage—
" Among Rembrandt's works is a picture less known, but still more excellent, representing Christ with the Little Children, in the collection of Count Schö;nborn, Vienna."
Again, M. Burger, in a very elaborate article in the Gazette des Beaux Arts for September, 1866, speaking of the picture as being then in the Suermondt Gallery at Aix-la-Chapelle, classed it for its importance and quality in the first rank among Rembrandt's works; and, after remarking that Mr. Suermondt had recently obtained it from the Gallery of the Counts Schö;nborn, at Vienna, he proceeded to remark—
"… It is remarkable that the mother, carrying her baby on the right arm, whose fine features have an exceptional elegance among Rembrandt's types, appears to be the same as the young mother standing with her back to the spectator, carrying also a baby, and ascending a step towards the Christ, in the celebrated etching known as the ' Hundred Guilders.' … The year 1648, the approximative date for the ' Hundred Guilders'

657
etching, furnishes us moreover with an indication of the probable date of the ' Christ Blessing Little Children,' and this picture can serve us as an intermediary step between the 'Night Watch' (1642), and the ' Syndics' (1601)."
He would next cite the opinions of the eminent men who, on account of their minute and critical study of pictures, had been intrusted with the care of the chief European galleries. Dr. Waagen, Keeper of the Berlin Gallery, on being consulted by Mr. Suermondt before concluding the purchase, described the picture as "a very remarkable work by the hand of Rembrandt, in an excellent state of preservation, painted between 1645 and 1648," adding that the whole picture was equally powerful, transparent, and harmonious in its effect, and that he could only encourage him to obtain it even for a high price. Cavalier Giuseppe Mollini, of the Brera Gallery at Milan, writing to Mr. Boxall on the acquisition of the picture for the National Gallery, of which he had heard from Mr. Layard, remarked that it made such an impression upon him in 1835 that he recollected it precisely as if he had it now before his eyes; that it was a marvel of light and execution, and that while wanting in a certain quality of beauty, the common defect of Rembrandt, the longer the public looked at it the more would be their surprise and admiration. "For a professional connoisseur," he added, "there is enough to charm him into enthusiasm." M. Reiset, of the Louvre, on visiting the National Gallery, left a card for Mr. Wornum, bearing these words—

" Thousand thanks and thousand congratulations. … The little Garvagh Raphael and the fine Rembrandt from the Counts Schö;nborn have given me the greatest pleasure."
Chevalier Engert, Director of the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, regarded the picture as an unquestionable Rembrandt, which did great honour to the National Gallery. He had been favoured, too, by Lady Eastlake with a memorandum from an old note-book of Sir Charles Eastlake, who was in the habit of visiting the principal Continental galleries every summer, and of making short notes for his future guidance. In 1830 he noted this picture as a Rembrandt, with the comment—" Effect of heads in partial shade very beautiful and Correggiesque." Their Lordships would be interested in learning the opinion of the
658
late Lord Taunton, a Nobleman of correct and cultivated taste, so recently and so grievously lost to this House and to the country, as narrated in a letter which he had received from the Solicitor General Sir John Coleridge—
" I learn that you are desirous to have in writing what I can remember of the few words which tell from Lord Taunton on almost the last day of his life as to the 'Entombment ascribed to Michael Angelo, and the ' Christ Blessing Little Children' ascribed to Rembrandt. It happened in this way. I had seen him the very day before his death with reference to the University Tests | Bill, which he was to assist Lord Russell in conducting, and finding that he was unwell, though he did not speak seriously of his illness, I was a very short time with him, and was just going away, when I stayed for a moment to look at his own fine but unfinished picture, said also to be by Michael Angelo. He said to me that, fine as he thought his own picture, he felt that in some respects the ' Entombment' just placed in the gallery was even finer, and that it was one of the greatest acquisitions we had had there for many years, He went on to express his strong sense of the value of Mr. Boxall's services as Director, and on my saying that I believed the Rembrandt WAS to be attacked in Parliament, he said that, whoever painted it, he thought it impossible not to see that for impressiveness and for the fine sentiment of it, it was a thoroughly great and noble picture. He spoke on these matters with great strength and decision, I cannot give you his very words. I wish I could. But of the substance I am quite sure, and, if it is of the slightest use, you are very welcome to my evidence, I wish, indeed, with all my heart that the opinions of that high-minded and accomplished gentleman had not become matter of evidence."
He might also mention that when, two years ago, the picture was attacked in. the House of Commons, an article appeared in a periodical publication, anonymous, but well known as having been written by an eminent critic on works of art, advising the public to go and judge for themselves, and, instead of consulting any auctioneer, to ask their own hearts whether it was not the work of one of the greatest geniuses that ever recorded humanity and Divinity upon canvass. He had felt bound, considering that the management of the National Gallery was on its trial, to accumulate evidence in its justification, and he felt confident that both their Lordships and the public would come to a decision different from that of the noble Lord opposite. What, he might ask, might have been the effect of missing the opportunity of purchasing this picture? What would have been the taunts and censures directed against the apathy and ignorance of the Director and Trustees if,

659
with this accumulation of evidence before them, they had allowed this important work to. become the ornament of some other public Gallery? He would now reply to the Questions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea)—and here he felt bound to say that before putting Questions on the Paper noble Lords should be satisfied of the accuracy of the statements on which they were based. The noble Earl's first Question implied that the picture of "The Warrior adoring the Infant Jesus" was not in the official catalogue —whereas it was distinctly and prominently mentioned there; and that it was bought for £3,000, a sum which the noble Earl afterwards discovered to be inaccurate; a public Return laid before Parliament distinctly describes the picture, and gives the price as £525—just one-sixth of the sum named in the Question of the noble Earl. Nor was it bought as a Giorgione, for the catalogue simply stated that, by its former owner, as well as by many others, it was attributed to Giorgione, but that connoisseurs were of opinion that it was of the Venetian school. That picture was bought before the office of Director of the National Gallery was instituted. The late Lord Lansdowne with Sir Charles Eastlake and himself had taken upon themselves the responsibility of purchasing it, and it was exhibited for a long period in an obviously damaged condition; it had since undergone restoration under the personal superintendence of Mr. Boxall: it is a perfect masterpiece of restoration, and he could not understand how any man of taste or judgment could pass it by without stopping to pay to it the tribute of his admiration. Passing to the next Question of the noble Earl, which referred to what he was pleased to call "a certain spurious 'Ecce Homo' purporting to be a Correggio," he might observe that it formed one of a very valuable collection of pictures which had been bequeathed to the nation by the Rev. Holwell Carr. It was, at the time the bequest was made, in a frame on which was inscribed the words —" Ludovico Caracci after Correggio," and in that frame it remained until the Trustees of the National Gallery were fortunate enough to secure the original picture by Correggio. It was then withdrawn; and when the noble Lord asked whether the proceeds were carried to
660
the national account —which, must be understood to imply that the picture had been sold and the money surreptitiously kept back—for if it did not mean that it meant nothing, and he was perfectly willing to admit it meant nothing—he must inform him that it was placed in one of the private rooms under the gallery, to which the noble Earl might have free access, and where he would find that the picture was still in the possession of the nation, untouched, and with the same frame and inscription to which he had already referred. That answer would, he hoped, be satisfactory to the noble Earl. He would, in the next place, say a few words about "The Entombment of Christ," by Michael Angelo, which had recently been added to the national collection, and with respect to which he would trouble their Lordships with the following notice, which seemed to him to be an admirable specimen of criticism of the highest kind—
"There is no history to guide us as to the authorship of this picture; we must therefore trust entirely to the internal evidence of the work itself. It will not I think be questioned by those conversant with art that the' Entombment' is the production of a sculptor. The style of the composition, the profound knowledge of form, and the subtle feeling displayed in the modelling of every part, satisfy us that it must be the work of a hand trained in the severe requirements of sculpture. As the eye passes over the picture we become conscious of the delicate modulation of every muscle, as if studied in clay or wrought in marble. Of this the figure of the dead Christ is a wonderful example. The exquisite beauty and expression of the head, the type of Michael Angelo alone, has perhaps never been surpassed. St. John and the Magdalen supporting the body are grandly designed. The action of the Magdalen is majestic, and full of passionate grief, and the woman standing silent behind her is the personation of unspeakable sorrow. We feel the presence of a great mind throughout the whole of this work, notwithstanding its rugged and unfinished condition. It was probably executed about the end of the 15th century—a youthful effort left incomplete by the artist either from fastidiousness or from the consciousness of its many faults of proportion; the very faults which characterize, especially in his early works, the great painter-sculptor whose name we have not hesitated to connect with this picture. No other name is known to us to which it can be attributed."
That was the criticism of Mr. Boxall, the Director of our National Gallery, but the same picture was criticized by a foreigner, Baron de Triquetti — and foreigners, as was well-known, are reasonably jealous of the acquisition for the National Gallery of great works of art. Yet Baron de Triquetti did not hesitate

661

to bear the following generous testimony to the value of the "Entombment of Christ":—
"The discovery of a picture by Michael Angelo, important, indisputable, but respecting which history has hitherto been silent, cannot fail to excite a lively interest among all who are interested in high art. It is to the Director of the National Gallery of London this good fortune has occurred. He has enriched the Gallery confided to his care with a work of the highest excellence. We are already acquainted with two pictures well authenticated, by the great painter of the Sistine Chapel; we shall henceforth recognize three:—1, ' La Vierge d'Agnolo Dono,' one of the glories of the Tribuna, in Florence; 2, ' La Vierge aux Anges,' of Lord Taunton, in England; 3, ' La Mise au Tombeau,' of the National Gallery. Mr. Boxall alone has had the intuitive sagacity to discover this concealed treasure. He has had the courage to face the censures which want of success would have brought down upon him. The cleaning and repair of this work will henceforth be one of its glories. This work has been a masterpiece of carefulness, patience, skill, and, above all, of deep respect for the Master. The Director of the National Gallery has in this matter established his claim upon the gratitude of all true lovers of art."
The National Gallery was, it is true, very limited in extent, but in that limited extent it contained, by the universal acknowledgment of every foreign critic, an unusually large proportion of works of unquestionably high merit. To fill the important post of Director to such an institution it was necessary that a man should be a thorough gentleman, a man of high education, actuated by honourable and pure feelings, as well as one who was fond of art and sensitive in his taste with regard to it, and in all those respects he believed the present Director was eminently qualified for the position which he occupied. He felt this testimony to be due to a public servant, called upon to discharge duties of a difficult and very delicate nature, and exposed to criticisms of very varied character. The present acknowledged excellence of our National Gallery—not complete, but peculiarly select so far as it has been carried—sufficiently testifies to the efficiency of our late Director, Sir Charles Eastlake, and our present Director, Mr. Boxall. Whenever this office shall again become vacant, fortunate indeed shall we be if a successor be found, possessing the same rare combination of qualities, and competent to complete the collection with which the country ought now to be well pleased, and, indeed, justly proud. He would conclude by appealing with confidence to the sympathy of their Lordships in support of those who had
662
used, and were using, every means in their power to render the national collection of pictures worthy of this great country.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, they must all feel obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) for his explanation, which showed that the Trustees displayed their judgment without fear or favour in choosing pictures for the National Gallery. If, indeed, there were any part of the noble Lord's speech with which he felt inclined to find fault, it was that in which he appeared to be more than displeased at these Questions having been put. The noble Lord must be aware that Questions of this kind, when asked in either House, were not only perfectly fair in a Parliamentary point of view, but were likewise a proof of the great interest felt by the public in the success of the National Gallery. He was sure that the noble Lord himself did not desire that the people of this country should wander in stupid silence through the rooms in which these pictures were hung, and no one with such a liberal mind as his could find fault with the remarks and criticisms, however extraordinary, which those who inspected the treasures of art preserved in the Gallery might make. These were after all, nothing more nor less than expressions of opinion. The noble lord had styled the Questions put to him this evening as ungenerous Questions; but for his own part he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought they were evidences of the pride and interest which all persons in this country, whatever their rank might be, took in the art treasures which were to be found in our National Gallery. He maintained that it was entirely a matter of opinion as to whether a picture were genuine or not, and more especially must this be the case with regard to pictures painted by the Old Masters. When it was considered that upwards of three centuries had elapsed since the Venetians put their pencils to the canvass, it was obviously impossible to have what in a court of justice would be called complete and positive evidence that such and such a picture was painted by such and such a man who lived in the 16th century; all we could do was to trace the pedigrees and successive owners of these pictures, and to draw an inference from the facts as to whether they were genuine or not.

663
Most of the paintings in the National Gallery had, he believed, passed through that ordeal, and might be regarded with pride and confidence as genuine works of the Masters to whom they were ascribed. If it had not been for the Questions put this evening, the public would not have had the advantage of being acquainted with the complete pedigrees of the pictures to which the noble Lord had referred. Considering the great difficulty of identifying ancient pictures, he could not but admire the characteristic sagacity of a certain class of collectors—he meant those men who, having in the course of a life of practical business accumulated large fortunes, and having great taste and a desire to form galleries of pictures, almost universally discarded the Old School and laid out their money in purchasing modern pictures, the genuineness of which could be ascertained far more readily than the authenticity of works alleged to be by the Old Masters. This circumstance showed that the public were excusable if they were suspicious and timid with respect to purchasing pictures of the Old Masters; and the noble Lord and his Colleagues—for whose exertions he felt assured the country was deeply grateful —must occasionally expect Questions similar to those which had been asked this evening. The noble Lord had quoted various authorities; but it would not be difficult to show that those authorities did not agree among themselves. He himself possessed a picture which for the last 100 years had been deemed to be an undoubted Giorgione. Some lovers of art used to come to look at it two or three times a week, and he had a letter from the late Sir Charles Eastlake, in which he stated it was one of the finest Giorgiones he had ever seen. Yet when he sent that picture to the Exhibition at Paris, a gentleman employed at the Louvre pronounced it to be the work, not of Giorgoine, but of another Venetian master. Indeed, he believed there was only one way of discovering the real authors of these ancient pictures —namely, by calling in the aid of spiritualism, and bringing ourselves into correspondence with Mr. Home, who should be requested to interrogate Giorgione, Titian, and other great artists on the subject. Until their Lordships believed in spiritualism, however, they must rely upon opinions such as had been adduced
664
this evening by the noble Lord (Lord Overstone.)
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he had not gathered from the statements of the noble Lords that they intended to impugn generally the management of the National Gallery. He was extremely glad that they had raised this question, and he could not think they had done so in any hostile spirit, and they had elicited very satisfactory answers from the noble Lord (Lord Overstone). It appeared to him that the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery had a rather hard task to perform; but he was bound to say that, generally speaking, they had performed it in a highly satisfactory manner. In regard to the pictures which formed the subject of the present discussion, he would not, after the very elaborate evidence which the noble Lord opposite had produced of their genuineness, venture to express any very decided opinion of his own. As to the disputed Rembrandt he believed it to be a genuine picture. It had been described by Sir Edwin Landseer as a very fine conception, with a very coarse frame. In his own opinion, it was a very fine picture, though somewhat deficient in purity and refinement. The questions concerning the other pictures, especially the "Ecce Homo" and "The Warrior adoring the Infant Jesus," had been satisfactorily disposed of by the noble Lord opposite. As to the Michael Angelo, it was very doubtful whether the controversy would ever be settled; though he was inclined to think that the picture was an original. Great credit was due to the Directors for having bought so fine a work for £2,000. While on that subject he could not help expressing a hope that there would be no further delay in proceeding with the erection of the new National Gallery. If matters went on as they now did he feared that few of their Lordships would live to see the completion of the projected new building.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it had been a question raised in a late discussion whether it would not have been an advantage to have had Sir Joshua Reynolds among them as a Member of that House. If Sir Joshua had been a Member of that House he could not have added to what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Overstone), for he could only have given them his own individual opinion on a subject like that now before

665
them; whereas his noble Friend had given them the opinions of various competent authorities. What the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) had said as to the difficulty arising in these matters through great authorities disagreeing only rendered the argument so much the stronger when, as in this case, they found all those great authorities absolutely agreeing upon any one point. As to his noble Friend (Lord Over stone) complaining of the Questions being put, he apprehended that his noble Friend and all of their Lordships were of opinion that it was very desirable, in any matter in which the public took an interest, or on which any doubt, whether rightly or wrongly, was entertained, that a Question be put in regard to it. What he believed his noble Friend thought was that it would be better to avoid influencing the public beforehand on the subject, and to put such Questions in a rather plainer and less epigrammatic form.

POLICE (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to call the attention of the House to the inefficiency of the police and magisterial arrangements for the prevention of crime or detection of criminals in Ireland. The administration of justice in Ireland was a disgrace to the Empire, and most injurious to that country. It was but too notorious that the most horrible crimes were committed in Ireland in open day with perfect impunity; that assassins went through the length and breadth of the land perpetrating murder and outrage, and that the Government of the country, with all the power at its command, seemed to be unable to stop such violence. This state of things was notorious to all the world, and he need not trouble their Lordships with any proof; but he might read from a newspaper an extract, based on statistics, giving the unpunished crimes of the last fifteen or sixteen months in Ireland, beginning with the murder of Mr. Featherstonhaugh and ending with the attempt to murder Mr. Warburton. Within that period eleven victims of these outrages had been killed, three had been severely wounded, and only two or three of the cases at the outside were not agrarian in character. In one case only had the murderers been brought to punishment, and in one more a con
666
viction was hoped for; but no life had been forfeited for so many lives taken. The number of agrarian outrages reported, exclusive of Fenian crimes—and without any mention of the county of Cork—had risen from 87 in the year 1866 to 123 in 1867, and 160 in 1868. All that showed that the Government were powerless, and that the assassins were without the least dread. The persons injured durst not come forward to swear informations against the criminals, because of the system of terrorism which these murderers created. It might be said that all that was an old story; that such outrages were common twenty, thirty, and forty years ago. He asked how many convictions there were twenty, thirty, or forty years ago in proportion to the outrages committed? Were they as numerous now as they were then; or were the offences similar? Formerly the Government had been successful in putting down the crimes of the Ribbon and other conspirators in Ireland. Since that time Ireland had enjoyed the advantages of Catholic emancipation, the odious tithe system had been done away with, and a system of national education had long been in operation; yet the fearful crimes to which he was referring were now committed with impunity— and this although a very numerous and costly constabulary force existed. Formerly their police in Ireland was not regularly organized. In 1823 Mr. Plunkett, then Attorney General for Ireland, brought forward a plan of police which was to cost £240,000. In 1845 the force was immensely increased, and its cost was £440,000. At present the public paid for the Irish constabulary a total sum of £899,871 per annum, including £29,359 from the Irish counties. The cost of the seventy-two stipendiary magistrates was £28,900. He knew it was only in particular parts of Ireland that the outrages of which he complained prevailed; but it was to these particular parts that the Government ought to turn their attention, and see whether they could not do something with the force they had at command. Could the Government complain that Parliament had refused them any coercive powers they wanted? Had they not at this moment an Arms Act, and yet people were carrying arms every day in the most notorious manner? There were five different counties in which those outrages

667
prevailed — Westmeath, Leitrim, Tipperary, Gal way, and the Queen's County. It was only on Saturday last that the newspapers stated that another outrage had been committed, the details of which were given more at large in the papers of to-day, and, although no life was lost, the character of this outrage showed at once the truth of his assertions. It appeared that a man was employed as a surveyor to define the boundaries of two different estates; but the people thinking that he had come down for the purposes of valuation and raising the rents fell upon him, threatened him, took away his maps and papers, and fired shots in the open day. And where did all this occur but within a few miles of that notorious place, Ballycohey, where such dreadful murders had been perpetrated last year. Now, what were the police about, what were the magistrates about, what were the Government about? for, if there was any place in Ireland in which such doings should have been impossible it was in that very place. He had no doubt that the people who had perpetrated this outrage would also escape punishment. In the Queen's County the other day there was the Judge, the grand jury, and the whole police force of the county all collected together, and yet in the middle of the day, on the high road, Mr. Warburton was shot at and wounded. He hoped that gentleman would recover; but the heinousness of the outrage was the same. Well, it might be asked—"What are your remedies?" There were two. In the first place, the Government ought to establish a more really effective constabulary force, with a separate detective branch, such as existed in England; and, in the second place, they, ought to put themselves into communication with the loyal, honest feeling of the country. For, with all the power at their disposal, they could not do by means of the stipendiary magistrates what had been done by the local gentry with far inferior means at their command. He would take the liberty of reading the language of a very great man, one of the best Lord Lieutenants that Ireland ever had—he meant Lord Wellesley—and show what his conduct had been under similar circumstances. Lord Wellesley did not disdain to go to the gentry of the country and consult them, he did not disdain to come to Parliament, and he had no army of police magistrates throughout the coun-
668
try. He could recollect the state in which many counties of Ireland were in 1822, when Lord Wellesley, by his resolution, skill, and the judicious use of the means at his disposal, aided by the local gentry, who displayed, as much courage, activity, and skill, as the present police, when called upon to fight, had shown, succeeded in putting down the disturbances. The Marquess of Wellesley, in a despatch, dated January 19th, 1823, said—
" The new police had been introduced into the lately-disturbed districts and into others with general approbation, with the cordial and effective co-operation of the magistrates, with great success in the detection of crime, the speedy apprehension of offenders, and the maintenance of public peace.… I, some time since, submitted to you a separate despatch, relative to the trial and conviction of several persons denominated Ribbonmen. … It is, at least, an advantage to the King's Government to have completely and publicly exposed the whole craft and mystery of the Ribbon Conspiracy."
How did the Marquess of Wellesley do all that? By communicating with the local gentry and seeking their co-operation. These gentlemen could, of course, give him more information than the disciplined soldiers who were called the constabulary, but who were, properly speaking, no more police than they were Life-Guards. In 1862, the grand jury of the South Riding of Tipperary assembled at the Special Commission, held in Clonmel, drew up a representation to the Government, in which they stated that they considered it their imperative duty to call the attention of the Government to the constitution of the constabulary, which for some years had become a mere military force, quite useless for the detection and apprehension of offenders against the law, or the prevention of crime. Any noble Lord connected with Ireland would bear him out in saying that that representation to the Government, in 1862, was founded on strict justice. But he would like to know what answer was sent to it, or what was done in consequence of it? The advice of the Irish gentry was not taken—although, by-the-by, the very first attempt to stop Fenianism was made by a meeting of magistrates in the county of Cork, not called together by order of the Lord Lieutenant, but, he believed, very much complained of by the Government, who said their proceedings were premature. But if the Government had been in

669
communication with the magistrates, and they were meditating a premature movement, it would be easy to stop them. He implored the Government to turn their attention seriously to this subject. They had now passed the Irish Church Bill, which he most anxiously hoped and sincerely believed would go a long way to conciliate the great body of the people of Ireland; but it would not prevent assassins and murderers from doing their evil deeds. He believed that the Irish on the whole were the best conducted people on the face of the earth; but in a population of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 they could not do without a well-organized police. He entreated their Lord ships to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking this subject into their serious consideration. He could do no more than call attention to it; but if the country was not in a better condition next year he would certainly move their Lordships to grant a Select Committee—and it was quite open to them to make it a Secret Committee. It was, he believed, a long time since there had been a Secret Committee of their Lordships' House, but, nevertheless, it might be appointed. We were paying now the most enormous sum that ever was paid in any agricultural country for the police. In the rural counties of Ireland they had a police which, as a detective force, was useless. A Friend of his—a Member of Parliament—was travelling only a few weeks ago when he thought he had been robbed of his watch. Seeing a smart, well-dressed man among those who gathered round him, he accosted him as a detective, and was right. So it was always; the police of Ireland were as well drilled and bespoke their profession in their bearing as clearly as any soldier of the Line; but the detective should be a civilian to the back-bone, who had never been drilled, as like his fellow-citizens as possible, and singular only in his ability at thief-taking.
LORD DUFFRINregretted that he was unable to offer any reply to the observations of the noble Marquess beyond repeating the assurance he had before given to their Lordships—that the Government deplored quite as earnestly as the noble Lord, or any of their Lord ships, those atrocious crimes to which he had alluded. But he was obliged to remind the noble Marquess that he had somewhat over-stated the facts of the case,
670
for he had included the whole of Ireland in his condemnation; whereas, as he (Lord Dufferin) had before stated, these crimes were confined to a comparatively small area. Knowing how intimately acquainted the noble Marquess was with everything connected with the administration of Ireland, he had listened with considerable attention in the hope that he would submit some scheme which the Government could adopt; but the suggestions of the noble Marquess resolved themselves into two recommendations—the institution of a secret police, and the establishment of a more complete concert between the Government and the local gentry. Both in his private capacity as an Irish landlord, and also as a Member of the Government, he admitted that the first suggestion of the noble Marquess had much to recommend itself; and he would go further and say that such an obvious method of detecting crime had not escaped the attention of the Government; but, for obvious reasons, it would be extremely unwise to enter at length upon this occasion into any details as to the circumstances under which the Government might resort to the system. As to the nature of the relations which existed between the Executive and the magistrature of the country, from his own experience he could say that he did not think that any just complaint could be made as to the inaccessibility of the Government to any recommendations or suggestions emanating from that body. It was altogether beyond his own experience that any complaint could be alleged in this respect. He felt the slur that these outrages cast upon everyone connected with Ireland, and he assured their Lordships that not only the Lord Lieutenant, "but the whole of the Government felt as acutely as possible the deep responsibility that rested upon them to use every method and device known to the administration of justice to bring the authors of these atrocious crimes to punishment.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 110.)
(The Lord Penzance.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD PENZANCE LORD PENZANCE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said,

671
that he must, in the first place, recall to their Lordships' recollection the great change which was made in the law some years ago, by the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 99, which for the first time allowed parties to certain suits to give their own accounts of the transactions out of which the litigation arose. The change was of a most marked and serious character, and no one who had practised in the courts of law since that change was made doubted its expediency, or hesitated to pronounce it a most successful measure. But suits on account of breach of promise of marriage and adultery were excepted by this enactment, and it was with these exceptions the present Bill proposed to deal. As regards suits for breach of promise, it was proposed simply to do away with the exception. He would only say, as to this part of the matter, that it was the opinion of most lawyers that the Bill in this respect would be an unquestionable improvement. The exception in cases of adultery had wrought much evil, altogether independent of the object aimed at by the framers of the law. It was thought by many, himself included, that it was undesirable anyone should be put into a witness-box, and be asked whether he or she had been guilty of adultery; and the sympathy for a person placed in that position—especially a man whose admission involved the public dishonour of a woman—dictated the exception on this head. But the form of the exception was this—instead of providing simply that the question as to whether he or she had committed adultery should not be put, it was provided that parties to suits instituted on account of adultery should not be examined as witnesses. It happened that in the Court over which he presided many suits were instituted on account of adultery which involved other questions, and the exception had had the effect of shutting the mouths of the parties to the suit as regards questions—say, of desertion and cruelty— when, in many cases, they alone could speak directly to the facts; and the result had been to cause very great expense in bringing witnesses from all parts of the country to prove facts within the knowledge of the parties to the suit. As the Act was passed before the Divorce Court was established, the result was plainly fortuitous; and there seemed to be no reason on earth why a man or
672
woman should not be asked any questions touching the adultery of either husband or wife, and yet a suit being instituted on account of adultery made it impracticable. There was another evil which followed from the exception. Whatever might be said as to the propriety of asking a witness whether he or she had committed adultery, there seemed no such objection in a suit between husband and wife to asking one party as to the adultery of the other. It was even possible, under the present law, for a man to go into a room and find his wife in the act of adultery, and yet be incompetent to state the fact in evidence. Had it not been that some amendment had been made in the original law, the business of the Divorce Court could not have been carried on at all; and, as it was, the Act making that amendment, the 22 & 23 Vict, c. 61, led to fresh inequalities, by limiting the repeal of the exception to only two cases, in order to allow a woman to prove cruelty and desertion by her husband. The amendment permitted the husband and wife to give evidence in cases where the suit was instituted by the wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. But this only met the case where the wife was the petitioner; for, unfortunately, if the husband brought a charge of adultery and the wife answered it by a charge of cruelty and adultery, she could not be a witness upon the subject of cruelty, because the suit was instituted on the ground of adultery. Then, other evils arose connected with costs. The husband brought a charge of adultery against his wife, who, knowing she could not be a witness in that case, brought a cross-suit on the ground of cruelty, in order that she might speak. Thus the husband had to pay the costs of two suits, when one would serve the purpose. Thus the law, as it now stood, ' was full of anomalies. It excluded evidence not intended to be excluded, and it admitted that intended to be shut out; it did not exclude evidence where adultery came up by way of recrimination, but it did exclude it where adultery was charged in the petition. Again, the law did not cover the case of an action brought by a third person—say by a tradesman against a husband for necessaries supplied to the wife; in that case, if adultery were alleged, there was nothing to prevent the parties getting

673
into the witness-box. He would add a word, on the question whether there was any objection to the parties being examined on the direct charge of adultery. Was there really any reason why a petitioner or a respondent should not be allowed to get into the witness-box, and by his or her explanation get rid of the suspicion which circumstances had raised against them? For want of this power great injustice was often done. Appearances were very often strong against a man and woman; admissions made, or said to have been made, were given in evidence against them, yet they were not permitted to get into the witness-box and give their own account; and, in many cases, this was a great hardship. The Bill as it stood said not only that he parties to any action for breach of promise should be "competent," but should be" compellable"—and, as regards suits instituted in consequence of adultery, it also provided that they should be "compellable." But such a provision respecting the parties to the suit must be a dead letter, for the plaintiff would not call the defendant, nor the defendant the plaintiff; and the Bill would be just as valuable if the word were struck out, and if it simply said that the parties should be competent to give evidence. For ten years the Court of Divorce had been harassed and hampered by the action upon each other of two Acts of Parliament without any common design between them; and he therefore rejoiced that this Bill had been passed by the Commons to correct a gross anomaly which could not be well defended. The House of Commons had added a provision to protect witnesses against being compelled to criminate themselves, and he was satisfied that it would be sufficient for the purpose.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Penzance.)
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had the greatest possible confidence in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill, and whose experience in the court over which he presided rendered his opinion of so much value, and it was, therefore, with hesitation and doubt that he ventured to make some remarks against it. He could not however help entertaining very serious apprehensions as to the danger that would be incurred from the admission of
674
the evidence of parties in such cases as those to which this Bill referred. This was not only a legal question'—it was also a moral and a social one, upon which every one of their Lordships was as competent to form an opinion as any of the legal Peers. When the first Bill on the subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham he said that the exceptions in reference to proceedings in adultery and actions for breach of promise were forced upon him against his will; but it was quite clear that the opinion of the majority of persons then was that the exceptions should be introduced. In 1865 the present Lord Chief Baron, then Sir Fitzroy Kelly, introduced into the House of Commons a Bill in which there were two clauses for admitting the evidence of parties in these two cases. The Bill was read a second time, but in Committee the two clauses were struck out, and the Bill was therefore dropped. In 1866, the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) introduced a Bill containing similar clauses, which enacted that the parties should be competent, but not compellable to give evidence. Personally, he (Lord Chelmsford) thought there was no serious practical distinction between the two forms of expression, for it was clear that if persons were competent to give evidence, even though they were not compellable, if they failed to present themselves to rebut the charges made against them they would subject themselves to unfavourable observations, and their silence would probably be fatal to their case. On that occasion the only speakers were the Lord Chancellor, himself, and the late Lord Taunton, who also took the view he did as to the danger of admitting evidence of this kind. On a division the House was equally divided, and the Bill, therefore, fell to the ground. These facts indicated great difference of opinion upon the propriety of admitting evidence of this kind; and, as he said at that time, he certainly felt that the proposed change would open the floodgates of perjury. Take the case of proceedings by a husband against a wife for adultery. It was quite clear that her character and position in life — everything she could hold dear — being involved, the temptation to commit perjury was so strong as in many cases to be utterly irresistible. A woman who had already broken one commandment would not scruple to break

675
another in order to protect herself. Again, a co-respondent might feel it a point of honour to protect the woman with whom he had committed adultery, though at the expense of perjury. Shortly before he left the Bar there occurred an action of what was then termed crim. con. in which the verdict went against the defendant. The husband applied to the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce a mensâ et thoro; but the defendant in the action appeared and swore positively no adultery had been committed. The husband then indicted him for perjury. It was at this point that he (Lord Chelmsford) first heard of the case, being retained for the defendant. He felt that the result must be against his client unless the wife was called to deny the adultery. And, in consultation, he stated this inevitable consequence; though, of course, without any advice as to her being called or not. At the trial she appeared as a witness, and swore that no adultery was committed, and the defendant was, after some hesitation of the jury, acquitted. In the meantime Parliament had established the Divorce Court, and the husband proceeded in that court for a divorce, and the adultery being clearly proved he obtained it; and one of the first acts of his official life as Lord Chancellor was, on the application of the Lord Lieutenant, to strike the name of the defendant out of the Commission of the Peace. This case showed how difficult it was for persons to resist the temptation—a woman to defend herself from the consequences of adultery being established against her, and a man, from a feeling of honour—if it must be so called—to protect the woman with whom he had committed adultery. It was that feeling that induced him to apprehend considerable danger from the admission of evidence of this kind. He admitted, with his noble and learned Friend, that the state of the law with regard to evidence in cases of this description was in an anomalous position, and he should be glad if his noble and learned Friend would introduce an Act to remove those anomalies, without going the length of admitting the evidence of parties charged with adultery. He would now turn to the question of the evidence proposed to be admitted in actions for breach of promise of marriage. At present cases of this kind are proved by
676
letters, or promises made in the presence of witnesses, the evidence of the plaintiff being expressly excluded. His noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Cairns) had informed him that in Ireland they had a curious way of getting over the difficulty which at present existed in the way of procuring the admission of the plaintiffs evidence. In the charge against the defendant a count for assault and battery is inserted, and upon this the lady herself is called, and proves, with the assistance of friends, the promise made to her. He had known cases of this kind where letters in support of the promise were forged; and where, of course, if the party had been a witness, she would not have scrupled to support her forgery by perjury. If the plaintiff's evidence—generally a woman—is admitted, and it establishes a promise, the denial of the defendant will stand little chance of a favourable reception, when all the sympathies of a jury will be sure to be with the weaker sex. Every case of seduction will be turned into an action for breach of promise of marriage, and a jury will easily be persuaded that the woman's virtue only yielded to such a promise. He could not think it safe to admit such evidence unless some precaution is introduced against the probability of its abuse. In cases of affiliation, the evidence of the mother is not received without some corroboration. So if that extension of the law of evidence is to be made, it ought not to be without acquiring some additional proof. By an Act of Charles II. no action can be brought upon a promise in consideration of marriage unless the promise is in writing; but this does not apply to mutual promises to marry. He thought that the plaintiff's evidence ought to be supported by some writing, or, at all events, by some corroborative proof from other witnesses. He did not intend to oppose the Second Beading of the Bill, but he trusted that the points to which he had referred would receive attention.
LORD DENMANwas understood to oppose the "questionable shape" in which the Bill was presented for a second reading.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that this Bill dealt with several questions which stood upon a different footing, and it was only to one of them that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) had directed

677
their attention. He had called attention to the anomalous state of the law of evidence in the court over which he so ably presided; and had his noble and learned Friend confined his enactment to that question he would have bowed to his opinion. But there were two other portions of the Bill which stood upon a different footing. One of them was the question relating to breach of promise of marriage, which frequently entered into allegations supported by mere passing words. If power were given to examine the parties it would be found that men and women would be swearing as to the use of words which, after a lapse of time, might be made to wear a very different colour from that which they wore when originally spoken; and seeing that the sympathies of juries were with the woman and against the man, it would be a great anomaly, he thought, to allow a proceeding such as that to which he was referring to be supported by merely verbal testimony which could not be met by verbal testimony on the other side. The third part of the Bill seemed to him, he might add, to be of great importance, inasmuch as it proposed to abolish, for the first time, oaths altogether in civil proceedings, not out of regard to any religious scruple, or for any of those other reasons which had hitherto prevailed, but simply on the ground of sic volo. That was a proposal which in his opinion, was open to very great objection. In other respects the Bill was a very valuable one; but he hoped that the two points he had maintained would be carefully considered by their Lordships when it was in Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he saw no reason why the exceptions aimed at in this Bill should be allowed to continue. When the alteration was first made in the law of evidence by which the parties to a suit were allowed to be witnesses in their own case, leaving it to the jury to estimate the value of their testimony, he was entirely in favour of the change. He had, however, felt a strong objection at the time, which was not now, perhaps, entirely removed, as to the extension of that particular benefit to the suits of husbands and wives inter se. He thought it might lead to a disturbance of the peace of families. But as it had pleased the Legislature to take a different view, he did not, he
678
must confess, see why the exceptions with which the Bill proposed to deal should remain, especially as the peace and harmony of families would in those particular cases have already been destroyed. With reference to the third part of the Bill, which permitted persons to give evidence without being sworn, he must say that he heartily concurred in that object, because he had long been of opinion that it was undesirable to draw a distinction between the duty of telling the truth at all times, and the duty of telling it in a court of law. He was convinced that all that was necessary in giving evidence in a court of justice was that, instead of taking an oath, a witness should know that he had a solemn duty to perform, for any breach of which he would be liable to a legal penalty.
LORD PENZANCEexpressed his readiness, if it should be deemed desirable, to omit the provision with respect to the taking of oaths in Committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

BANKRUPTCY BILL—(No. 208.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[Temporary Provisions.]
LORD CAIRNSexpressed his regret that the Government had refused to increase the salary of Mr. Commissioner Bacon, who was to be appointed the Chief Judge of the new Court. He also pointed out that some of the details in these compensation clauses were of no entirely novel kind.
LOUD PENZANCEsaid, that he also was dissatisfied with the clauses—especially with the proposal that in some cases the compensation was granted on the condition that the recipients should, if called upon, perform the duties of some other office—possibly in a remote part of the country. Such clauses would have the effect of narrowing their choice of fit men to fill public offices, and, instead of economy to the public, the result would be exactly the opposite. They were also a great hardship upon these officers — many of whom were of advanced age.
LORD ROMILLYregarded the clauses as a violation of the rights of property, by which altogether not quite £1,000 would be wrung from the pittance of these unfortunate men. The clause, which would inflict great hardship, was suddenly introduced in the other House near the close of the discussion in Committee; and he would suggest that, as the rules of the House did not permit the clause to be altered, it would be wiser and more reasonable to strike it out in order that the matter might be re-considered, and a new clause really meeting the exigencies of the case be inserted when the Bill went down to the House of Commons.
THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained the circumstances under which the Government had modified their original proposal to appoint as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy one of the Judges of the Superior Courts. As the Bill was origin ally framed it gave the office of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy to one of the Judges of the Superior Courts. These Judges now consisted of six in each Court; and it was thought that one Judge of each Court, either of law or equity, might take upon him the duties of the Court of Bankruptcy, on the understanding that he should not be compelled to travel on circuit while acting in bankruptcy. Sir Roundell Palmer suggested that it would be imprudent to hand the jurisdiction over to the Common Law Courts when there were already Judges in Bankruptcy who could take the Chief Judgeship without calling on the Judges of law or equity. And they accordingly offered to the acceptance of Mr. Commissioner Bacon the position of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, that arrangement having been recommended to them in the other House as one that would avoid additional charge to the country, and prevent a waste of money in compensation. With respect to the question of the salaries of officers, there were two classes of officers. The first consisted of the Commissioners, who held for life or during good behaviour. The second class consisted of Registrars and Official Assignees, who did not stand in the same position as the first class, being subject to removal by the Lord Chancellor for cause shown. They were remunerated by fees; the clause provided that their fees should be ascertained on a proper and fair average,
680
and then that those officers should receive a sum amounting to not less than two-thirds of their average fees. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Romilly) was not correct in saying that this was introduced at the last moment. So far from that being the case, there was a good deal of discussion on the matter in "another place," and those who did not hold by good behaviour addressed him very fully, and so did their friends. There was therefore no surprise. Great blame had been thrown on the Government for bringing in matters in that way; but on that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Government (Mr. Hunt) and Mr. Sclater-Booth very honourably said that they had known exactly the same difficulty to arise at another time when a certain clause was brought in without consultation with the Treasury, and they had taken it upon themselves to alter it. He had the full approbation of the Treasury for proposing that those who held during good behaviour should have their full salaries, and those who did not should never receive less than two-thirds. There were plenty of precedents for this proposal. With regard to Clause 133, the case was this—if a person was compensated with full salary his whole time was paid for, and they ought to be entitled to say to him—" Here is an office under the Act. You give up one office; take another." There were precedents for that. When the Court of Chancery was reformed they threw on the Vice Chancellors one day's work more per week than they had before. They gave them exactly six hours' additional work. Again, under a former Bankruptcy Bill, Sir George Rose, who was one of the three Judges, had his office abolished; but he was afterwards offered the post of Master in Chancery, and he very honourably took it. He could not see that there was any breach of faith in asking gentlemen who should receive the full amount of their salaries to accept a new office. If anyone retired on less than his full salary the case would be different, for he would not be paid for all his time. He should be willing, however, to amend the clause, so that it might run thus—"Any office or employment of equal or greater salary under this Act." In that way no gentleman could feel aggrieved on being asked to accept a new office.
LORD DENMANexpressed a hope that, in offering employment to any one pensioned under the Bankruptcy Act, regard would be had to the place of residence of the person who might be offered employment.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, law authorities would always take care of members of the profession.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that any Chancellor would be careful for the interest of any person who might reasonably object to change his residence.
Amendments made: The Report there of to be received To-morrow.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(No. 168.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD ROMILLYdeprecated continuing the power of imprisonment for debt in the hands of County Courts as was proposed in the 1st clause. He believed the power of imprisonment for debt was very injurious. Credit was given for goods sold in the ordinary way only because the vendor believed the purchaser would be able to pay, and not because he thought he should be obliged to have resort to compulsory measures; and the fear of imprisonment benefited no one but the tallyman, who was thereby enabled to force his goods on the unwary poor, and relied almost exclusively on the compulsory power of imprisonment. he did not approve the distinction made in the Bill between debts for £30 and £50 with respect to imprisonment, a distinction which was wholly irrational. In some respects the abolition of imprisonment for debt seemed to be perfect, but in others it was not. He had given notice of some Amendments based upon these views, but, having placed them on record, he did not wish to press them.
Amendments made: The Report there of to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 224.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.