Sitting of 23 April 1841

MINTUES.
Bills, Read a second time;—Court of Chancery.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Easthope, Mr. Hawes, and Mr. Labouchere, from Bromsgrove, Great Dunmow, Devizes, Dunstable, and a great many other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and against Church Extension.—By Mr. Easthope, from Newport Pagnell, that the Inmates of Union Houses may be permitted to attend Divine Worship according to their Religious Persuasion.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Baptist Congregations at Beecles, Snarden, Alcester, and Chelmsford, that Baptists be allowed to make a Declaration or Affirmation Instead of an Oath.—By Mr. Raikes Currie, from the Mayor and Corporation of Northampton, for a Revision of the Import Duties.—By Mr. Thornely, Mr. Ainsworth, and Mr. M. Phillips, from Tamworth, Stockport, Paisley, and other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Hotham, from an Individual, complaining of the misappropriation of the Emigration Fund of Australia.

SMALL DEBTS COURTS.
Mr. Fox Maule Mr. Fox Maule moved, that the time for the first reading of bills to establish local courts for the recovery of small debts be extended till Monday, the 10th of May. If that motion were carried he should afterwards move that the further proceedings on all bills for the recovery of small debts, be postponed till Monday, the 10th of May.
Alderman Copelandcould not conceive on what ground the hon. Member wished to defer the consideration of those bills. He thought, that by assenting to the motion the House would be acting unfairly towards those parties who were interested in the establishment of local courts, and therefore he objected to the postponement. As the hon. Gentleman had no

1023
reasonable prospect of carrying his bill this Session, he suggested, that such bills as had been read a second time should be proceeded with.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, he did not, like the hon. Member, despair of being able to carry the County Courts Bill this Session. He thought, that it would be a great hardship on private individuals to allow them to incur the expense of carrying their separate private bills through, and afterwards to render all their exertions useless by pressing the general bill, and under such circumstances, the House would be just as responsible for the expense to which the parties interested in these bills had been put.
Motion to extend the time for the first reading of the bill agreed to. On the motion that further proceedings on all bills for the recovery of small debts be postponed till May 10th, the House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 39: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Lennox, Lord G.

Alston, R.

Lincoln, Earl of

Anson, Sir G.

M'Taggart, J.

Basset, J.

Morris, D.

Blake, W. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Philips, G. R.

Crawford, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Currie, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Duncan, Viscount

Smith, G. R.

Duncombe, T.

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Easthope, J.

Surrey, Earl of

Edwards, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Villiers, Viscount

Ewart, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

White, A.

Fitzalan, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Fort, J.

Wilshere, W.

Gisborne, T.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Buller, C.

Jervis, J.

Maule, hon. F.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, N.

Egerton, W. T.

Antrobus, E.

Estcourt, T.

Baillie, Colonel

Evans, W.

Baring, H. B.

Fector, J. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Bolling, W.

Gore, O. J. R.

Bramston, T. W.

Gore, O. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J

Christopher, R. A.

Hardinge, rt. hn.Sir H.

Darby, G.

Hope, H. T.

De Horsey, S. H.

Hotham, Lord

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Knight, H. G.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Lowther, J. H.

1024

Lucas, E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Master, T. W. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Neeld, J.

Strutt, E.

Patten, J. W.

Trotter, J.

Philips, M.

TELLERS.

Pollock, Sir F.

Copeland, Alderman

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Freshfield, J. W.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (BILL No. 1.)
House went into committee on the Administration of Justice, (Bill No. 1.)
The clauses to the 6th inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7 being proposed,
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that he understood this clause as transferring to the Accountant-general of the Court of Chancery the funds standing in the name of the Court of Exchequer. This arrangement, and the greater amount of business got through under the new system, would, he apprehended, very largely increase the emoluments of the Accountant-general, though the present amount of his income seemed quite sufficient for the office. The expense of the additional clerks would have to be defrayed out of the suitors' fund, or, in other words, by the public, while the increased fees and emoluments would be received by the Accountant-general. He (Sir E. Sugden) thought it desirable, that before this clause was adopted, the House should have some information as to what the future income of that officer was to be.
The Attorney-Generalwas not prepared to give this information, but he did not imagine the addition to the Accountant-general's income would be considerable, for the fund of the Court of Exchequer was not large. It was to be recollected, that the labour and responsibility of this officer would also be increased by the new arrangement.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he should propose to have the clause postponed until the information he asked was obtained.
The Attorney-Generalcould not agree to this course. It was most desirable to avoid any further delay with this bill.
Mr. Richardssaid, the Exchequer fund was somewhere about two millions and a half. Certainly under three millions.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he had not the slightest wish to cut down the salary of this very useful and efficient officer, but at the same time there was no reason why it should be unduly increased. The salary of the Accountant-general was at present about 4,500 l. or 5,000 l. a-year, made up

1025
of fees and the profits of brokerage. Before consenting to any increase of that salary, he wanted to have full information as to what that increase would be. He wanted to have an account of the average income of the office during the last two or three years, and an estimate of the amount which would probably be added to it by the transfer of money from the Exchequer to Chancery. When a proper explanation was given, he should be ready to agree to the clause.
Mr. Goulburnthought the money ought to be applied to compensate the officers of the Exchequer, instead of giving it in the shape of increased fees to the officer of the Court of Chancery. The present bill contained provisions for compensation to the officers of the Court of Exchequer.
Lord J. Russellunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that this being an office which was already sufficiently paid, anything added to its emoluments ought rather to be applied, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to compensate officers who would lose their employments by this bill, or as the hon. Member for Ripon had suggested, in the payment of clerks for the accountant's office. That was a reasonable proposition, and he saw no objection to it. But the proposition of the hon. Member for Ripon, for the rejection of this clause was of a totally different nature.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the noble Lord had only to insert a proviso in the clause, that any additional fees which should go to the Accountant-general's office, should go towards the payment of compensation to officers, and it would then meet with his approval. What he objected to was, that the clause should pass without some such explanation as this, and that the provision should be left till afterwards.
The Solicitor-generalsaid, that no fees would go by the transfer of this business of the Court of Exchequer to the Accountant - general; but the additional profit would be by the brokerage. The broker would give him half his fee for the preference, the suitor paying no more. He had not heard one word said against the reasonableness of the objects of the clause under consideration, and it seemed to him, that the proposed introduction into it of matter having no connection with these objects was at the present moment unadvised. The facts relating to the mode in which the profit was made,
1026
could not furnish a reason why the funds should not be transferred to the Court of Chancery. They might take away the whole salary of the Accountant-general if they pleased, in consideration of the brokerage, but he put it to them whether it was expedient in considering the question of the transfer of the jurisdiction to mix up another question which had no necessary connection with it. Therefore, although he might admit the propriety of the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, still he submitted, that it would be more expedient to postpone the consideration of it till a future period.
Mr. C. Bullerthought the House much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, not only for what he himself had brought before it, but also for that which he had caused the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, to bring forward. He could not, however, see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, should divide the House against his right hon. and learned Friend, because his proviso was not introduced. The right hon. Gentleman might feel assured, that if he brought forward a clause embodying the views which he had stated, it would find ample support in that House. The mixing up the subject with the matter now under discussion, he looked upon as impolitic. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take the trouble of preparing a separate clause, and when the subject came under the consideration of the House, he should not think, that the House did its duty, if it failed to provide other means for the payment of a public officer.
Mr. Briscoethought it monstrous, that the salary of a public officer should be dependent on a division of profits with a broker.
Mr. O'Connellcould see no reason whatever for voting against this clause. The jurisdiction of the Exchequer had already, by a former clause, been transferred to the Court of Chancery. All that now remained, therefore, was to transfer the money to where the jurisdiction was. They were going to divide on a clause to which no one objected. He would ask, how could they prevent the sharing of profits between the Accountant-general and the broker? If they did not divide the profits, the broker would get the whole. Perhaps they

1027
might think it advisable to attach the broker to the Court of Chancery? If so, let them appoint him. He objected to this opposition, which seemed to him to be used as an instrument of pressure on the Attorney-general.
Mr. Humethought, that the noble Lord had risen to give the House the assurance, that though the jurisdiction was transferred, the emoluments ought not to be increased, for the transfer of the money brought with it the transfer of additional emoluments. He submitted to the Government, whether it would not be more creditable to appoint a fixed salary for their officers, than to allow these fees to continue, a system which had been abolished in so many cases. He thought, that the noble Lord ought to satisfy the public wish by bringing forward a measure to that effect.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had understood him rightly. He should be most glad to hear from hon. and learned Gentlemen any suggestions which they might have to make, and he would be perfectly willing to assist in carrying them into effect, if introduced in a separate clause, in such a manner as to make the emoluments a means of affording compensation, to clerks for loss of salary.
Sir E. Sygdensaid, that the noble Lord should find him no captious objector. He was perfectly satisfied with the view taken by the noble Lord, and willingly withdrew his opposition.
Clause carried.
On the 19th clause, which relates to the appointment of two new Vice-chancellors, being read,
The Attorney-generalsaid, that by the preceding clauses, they had abolished the jurisdiction pf the Court of Exchequer, and they were now to consider how many new judges it would be necessary to appoint in Chancery. He proposed, that the blank in the clause should be filled up with the word "two," He would state shortly why he proposed, that there should be two new judges. The bill which came down from the House of Lords, last year, proposed, that there should be two, and the number had been determined on after very full consideration in the House of Lords, That House, after full deliberation, thought two necessary. Lord Brougham had been of a contrary opinion, but gave way to that of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Langdale, and Lord Lynd-
1028
hurst. There had been a committee of the House of Lords on the subject, and they had examined witnesses of great experience and intelligence, and capable of giving the best information on the subject. Those witnesses were unanimous in the opinion, that two new judges were necessary. The first witness was the Vice-chancellor, and he seemed to think two hardly sufficient. He was asked whether one would be sufficient, and he said it certainly would not. He was asked, did he not think two would be sufficient, and his answer was that he thought two would be sufficient at first. An eminent chancery practitioner, Mr. Sutton Sharpe, and others, whose competency to form a correct judgment, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not question, were of the same opinion. But if two judges were necessary when that evidence was given, they were now quite as much so. In the returns of arrears there was a slight difference. The Lord Chancellor having disposed of several causes, had struck others out of the lists, because the parties not expecting them to come on so soon, were not ready for the hearing. But these causes must, of course, come on again, and then the amount of arrears would be much the same as before. The House would recollect, that in abolishing the jurisdiction of the Exchequer, they had increased the business of the Court of Chancery. To appoint only one additional judge in Chancery, would, therefore, be giving comparatively little relief. It had been suggested, that when once the arrears were disposed of, the two judges, if two were appointed, would become unnecessary. But it was to be expected, that getting rid of the arrears would lead to a considerable increase of business. New powers had been given to the Court of Chancery, which would certainly produce this result. At present, it was an undoubted fact, that unless the sum in dispute amounted to 1,000 l. it was vain for any one to seek for justice in a court of equity. When claims were for a less amount, professional men advised their clients rather to relinquish them than go into the Court of Chancery. He believed, that this reproach to the administration of justice in England, would soon be wiped off; but the consequence would be a large increase of business, and he agreed with the Vice-chancellor in thinking, that though two judges might be sufficient at

1029
first, it would be afterwards found necessary to increase them. He, therefore, proposed that the number contained in the bill of last year he adopted, and that the blank be filled up with "two."
Mr. Humesaid, that when the precept bill was first brought in he had had an opportunity of conversing with Lord Brougham on the subject. He had spoken to him shortly before he quitted London, and his Lordship then expressed to him his opinion that it was not necessary to saddle the public with two new judges, as he thought one enough. The Government, the noble Lord thought, ought to have profited by the experience which they had had in the creation of the Court of Bankruptcy and its four judges.
The Attorney-Generalbegged leave to correct his hon. Friend. The remark of the hon. Gentleman respecting the Court of Bankruptcy was inapplicable. There it was a question of one court with four judges, while the present clause proposed to create two courts with one judge in each. He begged to remind the hon. Gentleman also, that only one vacancy could be filled up, for when the second occurred it could not be filled up without the sanction of Parliament.
Sir E. Sugdenthought it most impolitic, unless under circumstances of the very greatest necessity, to create two new courts of justice. The learned Attorney-general said, in reply to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that this bill differed from Lord Brougham's, inasmuch as it created hut two new judges, one for each court, whereas by the bill of the noble Lord four judges were created for one court. But that did not get rid of the objection to two new courts, instead of one. Whether there were four judges or but one, there was still an additional court of justice too much, which would of course require an additional bar and additional attornies; so that unless they took great care this country would become a lawyer-ridden country. The opening of two new courts would create such a rush of barristers and attornies into them that he feared much of the business of those courts would not be done in a manner creditable to the administration of justice. The learned Attorney-general said, he would give power to the Lord Chancellor to alter the practice in the Master's Office, and that the alterations would be satisfactory. He should, however, like to know what those
1030
alterations were before he sanctioned the creation, not merely of two new judges,, but two new courts, whereby they would have five separate courts of equity sitting concurrently, while there were but three common law courts. He had already on former occasions shown to the House the state of the appellate jurisdiction, both in the House of Lords and Court of Review, and, taking that jurisdiction altogether, it, was a great reproach to the country that it should have been so long allowed to remain in its present state. But what would the consequence be of creating two more courts? Why, that they would have four judges, not only of co-ordinate, but, of subordinate jurisdiction, sitting at the same time; and it was utterly impossible to suppose that those judges would not be deciding different ways upon different questions of law. It would consequently require great pains and great length of time to keep right the law of England with so many different judges adjudicating in those different courts, The Lord Chancellor had already more than he could do; and yet either he must hear all the appeals from three courts, which of itself would suffice to occupy the whole of his time, or they must be brought to the House of Lords. Then, if they happened to have a Master of the Rolls superior in legal knowledge and experience to the Lord Chancellor, they might find the opinions of the better man overruled by one less versed in the law, and less approved of by the profession. If they went to the House of Lords to decide between the two, they still had but the self same man who decided in the court below, against a court of inferior jurisdiction. He had before shown that there was no necessity for those two additional courts. The Vice-Chancellor, he believed, was of opinion that one additional judge in the Court of Chancery would be quite sufficient. Even if two could be proved requisite, why create them both at once? The appointment of a new court of justice was a great and serious alteration. He saw no reason, therefore, why, even admitting the necessity of two courts to exist, they should not postpone the appointment of the second until they saw how the first would operate co-ordinately with the three already in existence. For his part he firmly believed that the creation of those two courts at the same time would lead to an incalculable amount of

1031
mischief. It was provided by this bill, that upon the demise of the first judge the office should be filled up, but not upon the demise of the second. It must be observed, however, that then they would have brought into practice an additional number of barristers and solicitors to meet the demand of that court. What was to become of those gentlemen? What was to be their employment? These were questions which led him to believe that plenty of reasons would be found and strongly advanced for continuing that second court; for he was of opinion, that whatever number of courts they created, the business to be done would accommodate itself to that number, however well it might be done with less. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the blank be filled up with "one" instead of "two."
Mr. Lynchwas of opinion, that suitors without courts was a much greater evil than courts without suitors, and was the particular evil which now pressed upon the public, and which it was now sought to remedy by the creation of two new courts. Without this assistance it was quite impossible that the Vice-Chancellor and Master of the Rolls, could get through the enormous heap of business that was now before them; and, looking at the nature and amount of that business, he had no hesitation in saying, that less than two new courts would be insufficient. His right hon. and learned Friend said, that there were now only three courts of common law, and why, therefore, was it necessary to appoint two new equity judges? Why, his right hon. and learned Friend forgot that now, besides the three courts of common law, there was the Bail Court, and a separate judge of each court almost sitting daily at Nisi Prius; so that there were fifteen common law judges constantly employed, at an expense of 75,000 l. per annum, and why should any objection be made to the establishment of five equity judges at an expense of 24,000 l. per annum, when it should be remembered that in the Chancery Courts more real and substantial business was done than in all the other courts put together? This measure would put an end to all the mischiefs and delays which now existed in the administration of justice in the Court of Equity, and he therefore trusted that the clause as proposed would be agreed to.
Mr. Pembertonsaid, that though he
1032
thought the House and the country were much indebted to his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Sugden) for having brought the matter so fully under their considertion, still he was not prepared to give his assent to all the propositions which had been urged by his right hon. and learned Friend. It was, however, only in deference to the evidence which had been given on this subject before the Select Committee of the House of Lords—in deference to the opinions held by those learned persons of all political parties who had held judicial offices—in deference also to the opinions expressed by those members of the profession who were better judges than himself of the extent of the impossibility of obtaining justice in the courts of equity as at present constituted—opinions expressed in a petition signed by between sixty and seventy of the principal firms in London—he did not feel prepared to oppose the proposition of her Majesty's Government, made on their responsibility and after a consideration of the evidence which had been adduced on this subject. When he said this, he must at the same time state that he thought the country had great reason to complain of the mode in which this measure was now brought before the Legislature. When a bill precisely similar to the present was brought down from the House of Lords at the close of last Session, the noble Lord opposite postponed the consideration of that measure, because he told the House and the country that there was not then sufficient time to consider a bill of such deep importance. The noble Lord also stated, that this change was connected with many others that were in the contemplation of the Government, and which would have a material bearing upon the particular measure now under consideration, and the noble Lord told the House and the country, in language stronger than he should like to make use of, that the mode in which the business of the judicial committee of the Privy Council was administered was a discredit, not to say a disgrace, to the country. The noble Lord on that occasion also agreed, that the Court of Review was another establishment which of necessity must undergo investigation. That court, it was true, had been allowed to dwindle down from four judges to one judge, and he was sure that it would meet with universal approbation if that court were wholly

1033
abolished, and the solitary judge that was left, appointed to some other office for which his learning and acquirements fitted him. The amendment or improvement of the supreme court of appeal, the House of Lords, was also a matter closely connected with the subject now under consideration, and yet of this the noble Lord was now silent. If the Court of Review was to be abolished, surely this bill ought, to provide for adding its jurisdiction to the new judge in equity to be appointed under this bill, and thus, if there was any deficiency of business for the new court, this arrangement would furnish a supply. But he asked, was it fair on the part of the Government towards the country, when bringing this isolated measure forward, not to tell the House what were their views on these important subjects? Was it right, after the first Minister of the Crown in that House had pronounced such a sentence upon one of the most important tribunals, that it was a discredit, if not a disgrace, to the country, that the House and the country were now unable to learn from the noble Lord, or from the law officers of the Crown, whether it was intended to make any alterations in that court, and if so, what those alterations would be? With respect to the particular question now before the committee, considering as he did the absence of even more important topics, he would state very shortly the reasons which induced him, in deference to the evidence which had been given, and to the facts and documents now upon the Table, not to oppose the proposition which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general. Look at the evidence which had been adduced before the committee of the House of Lords. Some of the leading Members of the profession had there been subjected to a strict cross-examination by some noble and learned Lords who sat upon that committee. The effect, however, of that evidence went to prove that the average arrear of causes in the Court of Chancery was between 600 and 700. In the Vice-Chancellor's Court a period of from two to three years must elapse between the lime at which a cause was set down for hearing and the time at which it would be heard, and that in the ordinary course of business some causes came on twice, and sometimes oftener, for hearing. Now, he believed that his right hon. and learned Friend was right when he said that these delays not
1034
unfrequently led to compromises; but still, if 24,000 l. per annum, would enable justice to be administered without delay, it seemed to him that the expenses of two additional judges would be compensated by the relief from delay which would thus be given to suitors. Such then had been the evidence which had been produced from all quarters to satisfy those who were but little disposed to be satisfied, but who finally arrived at that conclusion. Had anything since happened to alter that determination, and what was in point of fact the real state of business at present? The total number of causes in a state for hearing in the Rolls Court was 139. Undoubtedly, ibis was an arrear, but nothing of an arrear compared with what they were accustomed to see, not only in the Court of Chancery, but even in the courts of law. But still that was not a satisfactory position of affairs. The cause, for instance, which had been heard to-day, was set down for hearing so long ago as the month of July last. And during these long delays, look at the accidents by which the hearing of a cause might be still further postponed. Suppose twenty parties to a suit, and one of those parties, unhappily for the rest, should happen to die in the meantime. Why, in that case, a new suit would be superadded, because the old original suit was rendered defective by the death, and although eight or nine months might not be long to wait for the recovery of a demand, yet a further extension of delay became a grievance and a hardship upon the suitors, from which he for one should be glad to see them relieved. He thought it was desirable that the state of business in each court should be such, that when they rose for the vacation, no suitor who was ready for a hearing should remain unredressed. But if this was the state of things in the Rolls' Court, what was it in the Vice-Chancellor's Court? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Lynch) had underrated the number of cases in arrear in that court. He presumed that his hon. and learned Friend excluded from his calculation causes which were abated, but the number of causes set down in the book he held in his hand was 619. Now, what was the progress made in hearing causes, as shown by the returns which had been obtained by his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Sugden)? The progress made in disposing of causes in the general paper last year

1035
was 173, excluding all short causes. Now there was on the roll of the Vice-Chancellor's Court 619 causes set down, and disposing of them at 173 or 200 causes each year, from two to three years must elapse before they were all heard. He fell very sensibly the inconveniences of such a system of delay, and he trusted they would be obviated by the appointment of two new judges. If he did not anticipate an increase of business by this addition he should be ready to join with his right hon. and learned Friend in the objection to a multiplication of courts, which might be unnecessary. There was one point in this bill of which he highly approved, he alluded to the provision for enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules and regulations for the improvement of the practice of the Court of Chancery. He (Mr. Pemberton) was well aware that several members of the bar of opposite politics had most honourably devoted themselves to that subject, and were now, and had been for months engaged in considering alterations and framing regulations and rules which might be introduced into the practice of the court, and be productive of the greatest possible benefit to the suitors, and induce a great influx of business, by not only removing the delays in the hearing a cause, but the delay in the final prosecution of a suit in the Master's office. In this state of things, he thought that when the Government took upon itself to have two new judges appointed, when they were backed by all the authorities as derived from the witnesses who had been examined, and though he felt forcibly some of his right hon. and learned Friend's objections, still, on the whole, he (Mr. Pemberton) was not inclined to oppose the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
Mr. C. Bullerfelt it was great presumption in him to intrude himself upon a debate on the practice of a court with which he had no acquaintance, but he looked on this as the first step towards a great and useful series of law reforms. He was glad the commencement had been made with the Court of Chancery, because its delays had been, and still were, productive of great misery. He was quite prepared to agree with his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, that the reform would be incomplete with this measure only, and until the Government proceeded to introduce those measures
1036
which had been promised last Session. The present bill was, however, a safe measure to introduce by itself, for it merely added two new judges to those who were insufficient for the work to be performed. To show the hardship of the present system he would mention a case with which the hon. and learned Member for Ripon was no doubt well acquainted, that of "Day v. Croft." A person died, and left property of the estimated value of 400,000 l. The wife and daughter made an application to the Master of the Rolls for relief, under the following circumstances:—they had each an annuity of 3,000 l. bequeathed to them by the testator, but in consequence of some litigation with which they had nothing to do, the property was tied up in Chancery, and they could not touch a single penny of it. They had been compelled to borrow money to the amount of 12,500 l., and were paying interest at the rate of 625 l. a-year. More than that, they had insured their lives by way of security. Their claim was utterly undisputed, and yet they were deprived of their property. There were several other annuitants under the same will, who were suffering in consequence of the property being in Chancery, some of them being reduced to extreme distress. For instance, one of them having received 40 l. a-year from Mr. Day during his life, had the same amount bequeathed to him, but his income was now stopped, and he had no other resource, and nothing in prospect but the workhouse. He would ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and those hon. Gentlemen who were lovers of economy, whether, looking at such cases as these, they could object to the expense of additional judges as a remedy? There was another case in which the parties had been kept out of their property for forty years, although a considerable sum had been paid into court. The fight hon. Gentleman had objected to the measure on the ground, that it would cause an increase of litigation; but he (Mr. Buller) considered that it was better to increase litigation than not to do justice. Property in Chancery might now be regarded as property in reversion. It was common in the city to threaten parties who would not consent to a compromise that the matter in dispute should be thrown into Chancery. Out of 100 bills filed not more than sixty would be set down for hearing, and before the hearing came on, at least

1037
a third of them would be disposed of. Such a terror was entertained with regard to the Court of Chancery that people would rather submit to a compromise, than wait for its adjudication. Would not the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he had a legacy of 10,000 l. left to him, rather accept of 8,000 l. than go into Chancery? He believed he would. He concluded by declaring his conviction that there could not be a worse kind of economy than that of refusing justice because of the expense which would be incurred in providing a sufficient number of judges to administer the law. He trusted then, the House would consent to the measure which had been called for by the almost unanimous voice of the profession, as well as by the public at large.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that if a thousand more judges were called into existence, still the evils complained of by the hon. Gentleman would not be removed, because they did not originate with the judges, the fault being partly in the rules of court and partly in the complicated claims of the different parties who were not agreed among themselves, as in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The widow might say—"Give me my annuity." But the answer to that was, naturally enough, "Stop until we see that the estate is sufficiently clear of all liabilities to afford you the full amount you claim." The hon. Gentleman had asked, supposing a legacy of 10,000 l. were bequeated to him, would he not take 8,000 l. rather than stay in the Court of Chancery? To be sure he would, lint he would then file a supplemental bill to make the adverse party account, for the difference. He must say, that a more in sensible and absurd project had never been launched in that House than this bill, which proposed to abolish the Exchequer Equity Court. Why, Mr. Baron Alderson had stated, that the Court of Exchequer did fifty days' work in a year, and that by a little arragement between the four judges, the whole time of one judge might be saved and made otherwise available to the public. He could not understand why a permanent court should be abolished to set up a temporary court, but if they proposed to do away with one permanent court to establish another, that would be intelligible. He ventured to prophecy, that if the noble Lord's two new judges courts were once established,
1038
they would not be temporary but permanent courts. If two new judges were appointed, he thought there would be a gross breach of duty on the part of Government, if business were not provided for them by abolishing the Court of Review, and transferring the bankruptcy business to the Court of Chancery, the establishment of which would then be quite equal to the additional amount of causes. He should not divide the House upon the clause, but it was his firm opinion that Government was taking a wrong course in this matter.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer should be retained, and quoted Mr. Baron Alderson as an authority in support of that opinion. Now he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. Baron Alderson's evidence, question 494, in which he was asked,
"Is it your opinion that the Court of Exchequer will make an effective court of equity without an additional baron, devoted exclusively to that department."
The answer was,
"I should say certainly not; that is my decided opinion; there should be one judge who should lake the whole of the equity business, if the court is to be retained as an equity court."
If, then, it was necessary to have an additional judge, it would be much better to make him a Vice-Chancellor and abolish the Equity Exchequer, thus making the equity jurisdiction uniform and harmonious.
Mr. J. Stewartcould inform the House 'that although Lord Brougham had formerly thought that the appointment of one judge would be enough, that noble Lord was now firmly of opinion that the appointment of two was necessary. He was of the same opinion, because at present there was a delay of three years between the setting down of a cause and its hearing—a delay which induced many persons to allow themselves to be robbed rather than incur the expense, and trouble, and delay of a Chancery suit.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had little hopes of good from this reform, which originated with the lawyers. But was it not to lawyers that all the scandalous abuses and delays which disfigured the present system of administering justice were to be ascribed? It had been remarked, that

1039
it was the rules of court which stood in the way of justice, in the case of "Day and Croft," to which allusion had been made. Did not common sense then enjoin, that before appointing new judges the existing judges should be made to do their duty? Why did not the judges remove the obstacles and impediments to justice which were created by inefficient or pernicious rules of court? He feared that the increase in the number of judges would cause an immense increase of barristers and solicitors. The principal difficulties in reforming the administration of justice were caused by the too great number of barristers, and the present bill he feared, would do nothing towards removing the real source of the evils complained of.
The word "two" was inserted, and the clause agreed to, as were also the clauses up to 24 inclusive.
On the 25th clause,
Sir E. Sugdenasked, if it were intended to make the two judges independent of the Lord Chancellor. He thought it would be derogatory to the dignity of their office if that were not done.
Lord J. Russellreplied, that they would be placed on the same footing as the present Vice-Chancellor.
Clause agreed to, as were the following to the 28th inclusive.
On the 29th clause,
Mr. Aglionbyinquired if any alteration were to be made in the offices of the courts, especially those of the six clerks?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the Lord Chancellor was now preparing, with the assistance of able and experienced advisers, a set of regulations for the conduct of the business in those offices, which, it was hoped, would prove beneficial to the suitors, and satisfactory to the public.
Clause agreed to, as were the succeeding clauses to the 35th. On that clause, and on the question that the blank be filled up with the sum 5,000 l.,
Mr. Pembertonthought it would be necessary to give a higher salary for the additional Vice-Chancellors. Considering the enormous weight of the duties which they would have to perform, and in which they would be deprived of the assistance and advice which were available to other judges; considering, too, that the Master of the Rolls had a salary of 7,000 l. a year, he should move that the salary of the Vice-Chancellors, instead of
1040
5,000 l. a-year, as proposed by the clause, should be 6,000 l.
Lord J. Russellremarked, that the salary proposed by the clause was the same with that received by the Puisne Judges, who had many and great expenses to defray out of their income.
Sir E. Sugdenthought there was no analogy between the case of a Vice-Chancellor and that of a Puisne Judge. The committee had no idea of the immense amount of labour which the former would have to go through. He had not like other judges, the advice and opinions of other persons to help him. He had nothing to depend on but his own learning, ability, and industry. If the noble Lord placed the rank of these judges too low, and at the same time gave so low a salary, he feared there would be a difficulty in finding men of proper standing and character to accept the office. Such a course would be calculated to lower the character of the office. For his own part, he would declare, and the noble Lord would admit him to be a fair witness—that no human inducement would make him undertake the immense amount of care and labour appertaining to the office. If new courts, with single judges, were to be appointed, they should bear in mind the difference between the position of such functionaries and that of judges sitting in courts with perhaps, four or five others, and allow a fair remuneration.
Mr. Humehoped the noble Lord would not listen to the recommendation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this subject. Indeed after the lecture on economy delivered by the right hon. Member for Tamworth last night, he thought that the noble Lord could hardly be expected to listen to any suggestion of the kind coming from the other side of the House. The right hon. Baronet had reproached the Government, and reproached their party with extravagance; let the noble Lord take warning in time, and not fall into similar errors for the future. With respect to the salary proposed by the clause, he thought that it was quite sufficient; 5,000 l. ought to buy the services of any man in England—he meant of any lawyer. Why the President of the United States had only 5,000 l. a-year. He repeated again his hope that the noble Lord would not listen to what he must term the unreasonable proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite,
Amendment withdrawn.
5,000 l. inserted. On the question that the clause be agreed to,
Mr. Pembertonsaid, that there was at present some difference of opinion on the state of the law with respect to masters in Chancery, and certain other judicial functionaries holding seats in Parliament. The question, he remarked, ought to be arranged in some settled manner.
Mr. Humesaid, that Lord Brougham had declared to the committee up stairs, at the time the former bill was under consideration, that Masters in Chancery should be excluded from seats in the House. He thought that a functionary, who was paid by the public, should give his time to the performance of his duties in Court, and not neglect those duties by taking part in the proceedings in that House. He did wish to interfere with the seat of the existing functionary, but his successor should certainly be excluded.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that having conversed with his hon. Friend, the Attorney-general, they were both of opinion, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that the seat of the existing master should not, at any rate, be disturbed. The question raised by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, as to the successor of that functionary, was a distinct one altogether. Some understanding should be come to, but he retained his opinion, that it would not be advisable to exclude Masters in Chancery. His hon. Friend, the Attorney-general, had other occupations as well as the master, and yet no one could say that he should be excluded. He could not help thinking, that the more they excluded persons qualified to give correct and proper legal opinions, the more they would lower the character of that House.
After a few words from Mr. Hume,
Mr. Lynchsaid, he considered his holding a seat in that House would not disqualify him for performing his duties as Master in Chancery.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the difference was, that his hon. and learned Friend sat for a place in Ireland, and it had been decided that he could do so. But it had not been decided that a Master in Chancery in England could not, as the representative of any English constituency.
Sir W. Follettsaid, he perfectly agreed with the noble Lord (J. Russell) that
1042
nothing would be more injurious to the character of that House, than laying down the principle, that persons holding judicial stations should not sit in it. He thought that the more persons of station and learning they had in the House, the more its character and usefulness would be increased. A judicial office should not act as a disqualification, unless there were other circumstances which would make it impossible for a functionary to fulfil his duties properly.
Mr. Ewartreminded his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, that judges were not excluded from the Chamber of Deputies in France.
Mr. Jervisonly regretted, that his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, had not made his very excellent speech last session—when, by what he considered a most unwise decision, the Judge of the Admiralty was excluded from sitting in that House in future Parliaments. He hoped he might give notice, on his hon. and learned Friend's part, that his hon. and learned Friend would make a motion to remedy the blunder of last session.
Sir W. Follettcould inform his hon. Friend opposite, that he had not voted for the exclusion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. If he had been in town when the decision alluded to was come to, he should hare voted against it. He considered it a most unwise decision. He thought that case, in which the holder of an old-established office, whose occupiers had so long sat in Parliament, was thus excluded, fell precisely within the range of the present question. And if his hon. and learned Friend brought forward any proposition to alter or rescind the decision of last Session, he should have his (Sir W. Follett's support.)
Mr. Humesaid, whatever might be the opinions of the learned Members of the House, he must again protest against the admission of judges to seats in Parliament.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 52nd agreed to.
On the 53d Clause,
Mr. Humesaid, that it would save him the necessity of making an annual motion, if a clause were inserted in the present bill, providing that an account of the Suitor's Fund should every year be laid before Parliament.
The Attorney-Generalhad no objection to insert such a clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen proposed to substitute the following clause for clause 56, which had been expunged:—"And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any officer of the Court of Exchequer, who was appointed to his office or employment in that court prior to the 14th day of March, 1840, whose office will be abolished or affected by the operation of this act, to make a claim for compensation within six months after the passing thereof, to the commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the Lord Chief Baron of the said court for the time being; and the said commissioners and the Lord Chief Baron shall proceed, in such manner as they may think proper, to inquire whether any compensation ought to be made to any such claimant, and, if any, what were the lawful fees and emoluments in respect of which the same should be allowed; and in every case in which such claim shall be established to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners and the Lord Chief Baron, they are hereby authorized and empowered to fix and determine, by an order under their hands, the amount of the annual compensation which shall seem to them to be just and reasonable for the loss sustained by such claimant, not being in any case, where his office is wholly abolished by, and he shall not be appointed to any other office under this act, less than three-fourth parts of the full net annual value of the lawful fees and emoluments of the office so abolished, and the amount of such annual value as aforesaid shall be ascertained and fixed by the said commissioners and the Lord Chief Baron, according to such an average of yearly receipts and disbursements, prior to the passing of this act, as they shall think proper; and the said commissioners and the Lord Chief Baron shall have full power to award, in any case in which they shall think fit, such annual sum by way of compensation, to any such claimant who shall be appointed by or under this act to any office or situation in the Court of Chancery, in addition to the salary attached to such office or situation, so long as he shall hold office under this act; and also, an annual sum by way of compensation, to become payable when he shall, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, have resigned such office; and all the compensations, fixed and determined as aforesaid, shall be issued and paid and payable by the accountant-general of the
1044
Court of Chancery, by virtue of an order or orders for that purpose to be made by the said Court of Chancery, out of the interest and dividends that have arisen or may hereafter arise from the Government or parliamentary securities, now or hereafter to be placed to two several accounts in the Bank of England, standing in the name of the said accountant-general of the Court of Chancery, and intituled, 'Account of the monies placed out for the benefit and better security of the suitors of the High Court of Chancery,' and 'Account of securities purchased with surplus interests arising from securities carried to an account of monies placed out for the benefit and better security of the suitors of the High Court of Chancery,' or either of them (but subject and without prejudice o the payment of all salaries and sums of money which by any act or acts how in force are authorised to be paid thereout): Provided always, that an account of all such compensations shall, within fourteen days next after the same shall be so granted, be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons, if Parliament shall be then assembled, or if Parliament shall not be then assembled, then within fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament then next following: Provided also, that no person who was appointed to his office or employment in the said Court of Exchequer, after the said 14th day of March, 1840, shall claim or shall be entitled to any compensation whatever, in consequence of the said office or employment being abolished, or affected by this act." [Mr. Hume. Why was this clause preferred to the other?] The clause was proposed on his part because there was much objection to the clause as it now stood, which left the decision entirely in the hands of the Treasury; and because, also, he wished the House to decide on the question as it affected certain officers of the Court of Exchequer in Equity rather than the Treasury. The point at issue in respect to one of these gentlemen, Mr. Scarlett, of whom he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) desired to speak with all possible respect, was, whether a person appointed to an office, after such notice had been given of the abolition of that office as the introduction of a bill by the highest legal officer of the Crown was calculated to convey, was entitled to any compensation for such abolition; and, if so, at what amount should it be fixed. He did not desire to say anything in the slightest degree personally unplea-

1045
sant to Mr. Scarlett; but he apprehended that the rule on which the Treasury had always acted in such cases was adverse to such claim. That rule was the same as had been applied to the analogous cases of corporate officers appointed after the first introduction of the municipal bill. In the beginning of the last year the Lord Chancellor had brought in a bill for the abolition of the office held by Mr. Scarlett, in conjunction with the creation of two new courts, and he considered the case of that gentleman perfectly analogous to that of those corporate officers appointed under similar circumstances, and that it should be dealt with in the same manner. That was one ground on which he rested his argument against this claim. The other was on its analogy to the case provided for by a bill, the 1st of Wm. 4th, introduced into the House by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. That bill received the Royal Assent on the 4th of July, 1830, and yet it provided that compensation should be claimed for fees affected by it after the 24th of May, thus giving an ex post facto operation to it, on account, of course, of the previous notice-given to all claimants by the introduction of the bill, He hoped, therefore, that the House would decide the point, and he-hoped still more that they would do so as judges, not as partisans. It would be most painful that the head of the Court of Exchequer and the Treasury should be at issue on the point, and he thought it best for the House to decide it. It had been stated that in law it was necessary that the vacancy to which Mr. Scarlett had been appointed should be filled up, but it seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that, after such notice of the intentions of the Government as had been given, in good sense it would be far better that it was not, or, if it was imperative to do so, that it should be filled provisionally—the holder to render himself liable to certain conditions connected with the abolition. It was a very common case to give an appointment subject to such conditions, and, therefore, in his opinion, the necessity was not at all established. He trusted, however, that the House would, in dealing with the question, dismiss all party feeling, and act in the spirit of judges alone. With this hope he should leave the question to their decision.
Sir W. Folletttrusted that the hope of the right hon. Gentleman would be rea-
1046
lised, and that justice, not partisanship, would guide the decision of the House on the question. He thought, however, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was not greatly calculated to lead to such a consummation of his desires. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the clause before the House was introduced because the Treasury did not wish to decide on the question; but he had instanced three decisions in the cases of corporate officers under the municipal act, as a proof of those powers to do so if they had chosen. Now, he did not well know what was the power of the Lords of the Treasury, but this he knew, that they had no power at all to decide who or who were not entitled to claim compensation under the municipal act, because it was expressly provided that all persons holding office at the passing of that act, were entitled to compensation. The right hon Gentleman, therefore, could hardly have recollected the provisions of that act, or be must have acted disingenuously in stating the case as be did. The right hon. Gentleman was also mistaken in his other case. But, without entering into any precedents, the abolition of the office gave the holder a title to claim compensation for his deprivation. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the 1st of William 4th but the ease before the House rested on a very different, foundation. In that act, however, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to state that the claim for compensation, though apparently retrospective, was in reality, not so at all, for it was only barred from the period of the introduction of the bill, the 24th of May, 1830. The right hon. Gentleman's clause, unlike that, however, was purely retrospective, and went back, not alone from the latter end to the middle of a Session of Parliament, but from one Session to another, instead of being prospective, as all such measures should be. Sufficient importance had not been attached to the consideration whether it was possible that the place could remain vacant. It was true that there was every reason to suppose that some bill more extensive than the one which had been proposed would pass, but could the Lord Chief Baron in the meantime allow this office to remain vacant? Under the 1st of George 4th c. 35, it was actually imperative in the Lord Chief Baron to appoint some one to this office;

1047
but, independently of that obligation, how was it possible that it could remain vacant? If no one had been appointed the whole business of the Court of Exchequer must have stopped; but the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said that it would have been easy to get a gentleman to fill up the gap, with an understanding that he should not receive compensation. The person appointed must be a barrister of a certain standing, and it was not easy to get a person in a profession to give up that profession without some adequate advantage. Whom could they get to fill up the gap? He was satisfied that no one could be found to fill the office with notice that he was to receive no compensation. Well, the office had been filled up, and he asked whether there had been any precedents in which, under the same circumstances, compensation had not been given? The right hon. Gentleman had searched for precedents, but, none were to be found, for the case which he had quoted was one of a prospective notice that no compensation was to be given, whereas this was retrospective. In that case compensation was given to all persons holding offices that were abolished, and the same was done with regard to the Corporations bill. He must say that it was very unfair towards the hon. gentleman who filled this office that he should be singled out to make a precedent in the first instance. The right hon. Gentleman had said, too, that he was willing to grant compensation to the purchasers of offices; but surely the case of persons acting under the obligations of an Act of Parliament was stronger. He hoped, then, that in the absence of all precedent, the House would not make anything like a personal affair of this, but, when they found that it was necessary that the vacancy should be supplied, that they would deal with this as with every similar case, and give compensation to all those whose offices they took away, and he might be permitted to say that he could not conceive anything more unwise than that that House should lay down narrow rules with regard to grants of compensation. Their object was to effect beneficial changes, and to do so without injury to individuals. But if they drew the line of compensation too narrowly they would raise up opposition, and probably powerful opposition, to these changes.
1048
The Legislature, however, had always dealt liberally with such cases, on the ground of vested interests; and he hoped that the House would feel that this was a vested interest, and deal with it accordingly. He would, therefore, move as an amendment, that the date proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman should be omitted, and that all persons holding any office abolished by this Act might claim compensation according to the modes and forms of proceeding provided in the act.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred to a certain degree in the policy of the hon. and Learned Gentleman. He would never be a party to dealing harshly or unfairly with persons who, without notice, were deprived of their offices by the power of Parliament; but he could not regard in the same light parties who had taken their offices with a full knowledge that they were to be abolished; and he should say that it was a dangerous principle for the House of Commons to sanction—that whatever the time at which the appointment was made, whatever might be the known intention of Parliament, if the act had not actually passed, and a life dropped and the vacancy was filled up, then the holder of the office should receive the same amount of compensation as if he had held it for forty or fifty years. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Brougham, he understood that that took place several years before the bill passed; the appointment, he was informed, was in March, 1831, and the bill passed in August, 1833. Now, he asked, was there a gentleman in that House who seriously believed that parties could not have been found to fill this office upon the understanding that they were not to receive compensation if Parliament abolished the office? He had no personal feeling on the matter; he was only desirous of ascertaining the opinion of the House on the subject.
Mr. Goulburnsaid that on former occasions he had opposed similar attempts to give a retroactive operation to Acts of Parliament. When the noble Lord opposite had introduced a bill as to the residence of the clergy and pluralities, he had sought to give the measure a retroactive operation for three sessions, because he had given notice then by bringing forward a bill; but he (Mr. Goulburn) took the objection

1049
at once, and the noble Lord acquiesced in the arrangement which he then suggested, and altered the date of the bill. The Ecclesiastical Benefices bill was also pending before Parliament for a considerable time; and the noble Lord, not being able to pass it in the particular Session, brought in a bill which prohibited the conferring of the benefices in question until the subject had been discussed; and so in this case, if the Attorney-general had intended that no compensation should be given, he ought to have brought in a bill prohibiting the appointment, or have warned the Chief Baron, who was bound by law to make the appointment, of that intention. He objected to this system on principle. There was no justice in giving notice of a bill in one Session, not passing any measure till three or four Session afterwards, and then denying compensation to parties appointed in the interval. Upon these grounds he should support the amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Robert Peel—Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the purchasers, to whom he is willing to grant compensation, purchased their offices after the notice had been given of the intention to abolish them? He says the salaries of these offices are but small; but this is a question of principle, and I understand the case to be this:—After this notice had been given, two persons purchased offices with full notice that they were to be abolished. For them the right hon. Gentleman proposes compensation, but where is the distinction between that case and the case of the Lord Chief Baron exercising, in the case of a death, that duty which the law imposed upon him? If these purchases were made after the notice, on what principle does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deprive of compensation the person appointed by the Lord Chief Baron?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the offices to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded, were small appointments attached to the office of hereditary usher of the Court of Exchequer, which that officer had always had the power of selling, as much as any other part of his property; and the House would draw a distinction between a man holding property of that sort, which might be a subject of family arrangements, and a
1050
public officer, a Judge, who merely had the appointment in trust for the country.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he recollected a case bearing some resemblance to the present, which arose with regard to the provision for compensation made in the First Fruits and Tenths Act. Before that bill passed a vacancy occurred at the board, and he appointed a gentleman who had been acting as his private secretary; but when the bill passed, although compensation was granted to some gentlemen, as to that particular office none was claimed or expected, and he, in his position, should have considered it wrong to hold out to that gentleman any prospect of compensation—but certainly the Lord Chief Baron did not stand exactly in the same position. He did not complain of the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward this subject. It was a question upon which two opinions might fairly be held; and all that his right hon. Friend wished was that the House should decide it.
Mr. Pembertoncould not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking that there would be no difficulty in procuring gentlemen to fill this office for a few months, without any prospect of compensation when it was abolished. He most sincerely believed that no barrister of sufficient standing would have taken the office on those terms. Suppose, session after session, the bill should not pass, would the case remain the same? Would the holder of the office still have no title to compensation? He asked then whether it were wise, in a case that was admitted to be doubtful, to risk the success of a measure of this importance for so small a matter. With regard to the precedents, they were all in favour of the amendment of his hon. and learned Friend; for he was quite satisfied that he was correct in stating that Mr. Brougham had been appointed after a distinct notice had been given by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords of the intention to reduce the salaries of the Masters in Chancery. What course had been adopted when they took away a portion of the patronage of the Lord Chancellor. They made compensation by adding 1,000 l. a year to his retiring allowance. Their loss of patronage was made the subject of pecuniary compensation; now they were abolishing all the Chancery appointments of the Lord Chief Baron; and they not only gave him no

1051
compensation, but they refused it to the officer, whom he was by law compelled to appoint, and whose office they abolished. It was a harsh, unwise, and unjust course, in which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persist.
Lord J. Russell—I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has so explicitly stated as to the fate of this hill. I have said, and I repeat, that I shall be satisfied with any decision to which the House may come on this question, hut if we are to be told that important bills of this kind will be rejected by the House because it differs in opinion as to the arrangements and money matters, it amounts to this—that no great measure is to be passed unless the House of Lords, and the House of Lords alone, has the power of granting compensation and settling the money questions. It is not a question of a compromise with the House of Lords as to our giving up the privileges which we have assumed in this respect, for that might be advantageous; but it is an absolute transfer of that privilege; it is saying that if you mean to have judicial reforms of importance, with regard to all matters of compensation the House of Commons is to pronounce no opinion of its own; and Mr. Scarlett may be entitled to compensation or he may not, the House of Commons is only to record the supreme judgments of the House of Lords.
Sir E. Sugdendid not think that anything which had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend at all justified the observations of the noble Lord—and he begged to remind the noble Lord and the committee that the bill had been sent down last year by the House of Lords without the compensation clause. He mentioned that to show that the House of Lords, thinking it right that these offices should be abolished, had been content to originate a measure on the subject, though they had no power to provide compensation for those who held the offices which they proposed to abolish; it was impossible, therefore, that the House of Lords could be obnoxious to the observations of the noble Lord. The noble Lord the Chief Baron of the Exchequer was bound to make the appointment ha had made, and to fill the office with a competent person, and therefore it would be most unjust to deprive the person accepting of it of a fair compensation.
Mr. Jervissaid, that he meant to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Exeter, on the ground that Lord Abinger had a right to appoint a person to the office, and that the individual so appointed had therefore a right to compensation on being deprived of it.
Mr. J. Jonesdid not think that they could withhold compensation in this case without violating the obligations they had come under when the patronage was bestowed on the Chief Baron. That being the case, he would vote for the amendment.
Mr. C. Bullerthought, that the House ought to act liberally in compensating persons deprived of any office in consequence of improvements in the law. They ought to do so not only in justice but in policy, because the slightest disposition on the part of Parliament to act illiberally towards persons so situated, would make the passing of any measure of Reform a matter of great difficulty. What was the worth of these twopenny-halfpenny questions, compared with the great good which would be gained by a reform like the one now proposed? He thought that the Court of Exchequer had behaved admirably on this occasion, as Lord Abinger had offered no opposition to a bill which would strip him of a great deal of patronage.
Mr. Humesaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend that the House ought not to deal niggardly in granting compensation to parties who were really entitled to it, He, for one, had never refused a fair compensation in such a case. Under the present bill, every person belonging to the Court of Exchequer, except Mr. Scarlett, would be entitled to compensation. The vacancy to which that gentleman had been appointed had taken place after the question had been brought under the consideration of the Parliament, and he concurred in opinion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Mr. Scarlett was not entitled to compensation.
Mr. Creswellsupported the amendment. Lord Abinger had accepted his situation, with the patronage attached to it, and as the gentleman whom he had appointed to the vacancy alluded to was admitted to be perfectly competent to the duties of the office, he thought that he was fairly entitled to compensation.
Mr. Hawesthought, that the services

1053
performed did not justify any compensation.
Mr. Villiers Stuartbegged to state one fact to the House previous to their dividing. Mr. Scarlett had actually given up a situation worth 500 l. a-year, in order that he might, be able to attend to the duties of his new situation.
Major Scarlett: The situation which Mr. Scarlett so resigned was that of counsel to the Mint and to the Post-office.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought, that the fact of Mr. Scarlett having resigned another situation ought to come under the consideration of the Treasury. He hoped that the clause might be so altered as to give the Treasury a discretionary power to grant a limited compensation.
Sir W. Follettdid not feel justified in assenting to the proposition. Mr. Scarlett had certainly given up the situation referred to; but he rested the claim for compensation on other grounds.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Sir W. Follett to he left out, stand part of the clause:—Ayes 70; Noes 73—Majority 3.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. H.

Morris, D.

Blake, W. J.

Morrison. J.

Bowes, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, D.

Busfield, W.

O'Connell, J.

Chalmers, P.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Clay, W.

Ord, W.

Dalmeny, Lord

Paget, Lord A.

Davies, Colonel

Palmerston, Viscount

Dundas, D.

Philips, M.

Evans, Sir De L.

Philips, G. R.

Evans, G.

Rawdon, Colonel J. D.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Ewart, W.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Fort, J.

Scholefield, J.

Gishorne, T.

Sheil, right hon. R. L

Gordon, R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stanley, M.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Guest, Sir J.

Stock, Mr. Sergeant

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Surrey, Earl of

Hobhouse. rt. hon. Sir J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornley, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hume, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

James, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H.

Listowel, Earl of

Wakley, T.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T.B

Wilbraham, G.

1054

Wilde, Sir T.

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Horsman, E.

Worsley, Lord

J. Parker.

Wyse, T.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bailey, J.

Jervis, J.

Bannerman, A.

Jones, J.

Baring, H. B

Kemble, H.

Barrington, Viscount

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Blackburne, I.

Botfield, B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bramston, T. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Broadley, H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Buller, C.

Lynch, A. H.

Burr, H.

Maclean, Donald

Burrell. Sir C.

Mahon, Viscount

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Master, T. W. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Monypenny, T. G.

Courtenay, P.

Morgan, O.

Cresswell, C

Nicholl, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Norreys, Lord

Darby, C,

Pakington, J. S.

Dick, Q.

Parker, R.T.

D'Israeli, B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Polhill, F.

Eaton, R. J.

Richards, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Round, J.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Scarlett, hn. J. Y.

Gladstone, J. N.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Godson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Stewart, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stewart, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stuart, W. V.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Grimston, Viscount

Thesiger, F.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Trotter, J.

Hogg, J. W.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Holmes, W.

Wood, Colonel T.

Hope, hon. C.

Hotham, Lord

TELLERS.

Hurt, F.

Follett, Sir W.

Ingham, R.

Pemberton, T.

Original words struck out.
On the question that the words proposed by Sir W. Follett be inserted,
Mr. Haytersaid, as the clause then stood, a compensation amounting to three-fourths of the salary and emoluments was to be granted to the party during his life. Now, it might happen that, in the case of Mr. Scarlett, he might be called to the House of Lords, and in such a case it would be proper that the compensation should cease. He proposed, therefore, that the time during which the compensation then to be paid be discretionary with the Treasury.
Sir W. Follettsaid, he should not object to a clause being hereafter introduced providing that the compensation should cease, should Mr. Scarlett become a Peer.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

CONVICTS IN THE HULKS.
On the Order of the Day for the House to go into committee of supply,
Viscount Mahonsaid, that before the House went into committee, he wished to ask the noble Lord a question. On the 23rd of last month, the House passed a resolution, expressive of an opinion that the increasing number of convicts on board the hulks was an evil, and a strong desire to see a better system pursued. The House, it was true, was thinly attended on that occasion; but there were fifty-one for, and thirty against, the resolution, and he believed if there had been a fuller attendance, the decision would have been the same. A month having elapsed, and the noble Lord having apparently acquiesced in the resolution, in not having proposed its being rescinded, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had taken any steps, or whether the Government had any measure in contemplation for fulfilling the recommendation of the House; or, if not, whether he would give a pledge that with all due care the resolution should be fully and completely carried out?
Lord John Russellsaid it was exceedingly difficult to take any certain course in pursuance of a resolution of so general a character as that to which the noble Lord alluded. He had not given a direct negative to the proposition contained in the resolution; for to the proposition by itself he felt no great objection. But what he stated was, that he did not think it desirable that the House should come to such a resolution; and he therefore moved the previous question, hoping that the noble Lord would hare been satisfied, and not have divided the House. However, the House did divide, and adopted the resolution of the noble Lord. There was a very elaborate report made by the committee on transportation, which committee was composed of persons holding the most opposite political opinions, and by men, some of whom were in office and some not. That committee came to certain resolutions, in which they decidedly disapproved of transportation of convicts to any settled districts in the colonies. With that opinion he agreed. The resolution alluded to by the noble Lord said nothing
1056
positively contrary to the opinion expressed by the committee; but the noble Lord in the course of his speech on that occasion, suggested the founding a new colony, to which convicts should be transported, instead of being sent on board the hulks. There was that course certainly open for adoption, or there was another course—that of confining transportation to a limited number of offenders, and establishing penitentiaries in this country for the confinement of the remainder. He (Lord J. Russell) was of opinion that the latter was the most desirable course to be pursued. For that purpose her Majesty's Ministers proposed a vote of money last year, and a similar vote would be proposed this year, for the purpose of building penitentiaries. He was certainly of opinion that it was not desirable to have a very large number of convicts on board the hulks. But that was only a temporary evil until the penitentiaries should be built.
Viscount Mahonwished to ask the noble Lord whether the opinion he had just expressed was intended to be acted upon by the Government, and whether it was proposed to make any immediate progress in building new penitentiaries, or whether they were merely the abstract opinions of the noble Lord himself, and which were not intended to be carried out in practice by her Majesty's Government?
Lord John Russellrepeated, that in his opinion a certain number of convicts should be transported to districts not settled in the colonies, that a limited number should be confined in the hulks, and that the rest should be confined in the penitentiaries; but he could not exactly mention the numbers. This plan could not, however, be acted upon in the course of a few weeks; neither could any definite system be adopted upon a bare resolution of the House of Commons. The thing must be conducted according to the regular mode. He had before stated, that votes had been already proposed for building penitentiaries.
Viscount Mahonwas anxious to understand the noble Lord correctly. What he did understand the noble Lord to say was, that the course to be taken by the Government was settled before he (Viscount Mahon) introduced his motion on the subject; and that that course would be followed without any alteration.
Lord John Russell, amidst considerable laughter, repeated his former statement,

1057
that the intention of the Government was, that a certain number of convicts—a smaller number than formerly—should be transported according, generally, with the views expressed in the report of the transportation committee; the Government agreeing with the opinions stated by that committee. That with regard to the other convicts which were detained in this country, it was the opinion of the Government that it was not advisable a very great number of them should be confined on board the hulks, but that they should be sent to well-conducted prisons, and where a system of prison discipline could be completely carried out. But this course could not have been established, in consequence of an abstract resolution of the House of Commons, nor could it be carried into effect in the space of a few weeks; but that it must be done according to a regular plan to be proposed by the Government to Parliament.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that this was a subject of great importance at all times, but of peculiar importance at the present moment, when there was evidently a great disposition on the part of the House to proceed to the utmost possible extent to abolish capital punishment. Therefore, whatever system of secondary punishments might be devised, should be made as efficacious as possible, of course agreeably with an enlarged humanity, and with sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. He was a Member of the Committee to which the noble Lord had referred, and in the general recommendation of that Committee as to the evils which the continuance of transportation, and particularly the assignment system, were entailing upon a colony circumstanced like New South Wales now was—that colony having outgrown its original purpose of a penal system—in that opinion he entirely concurred. He recollected that a proposal was made in that Committee which went to a positive recommendation of immediately abolishing transportation. On that occasion he stated, that it was impossible, looking to the number of persons sentenced to transportation, for any committee safely to recommend the immediate abolition of transportation in the present condition of this country, and in respect to the present system of secondary punishments. He, therefore, did not mean, by concurring in the proposal with respec to the discontinuance of transpor-
1058
tation to New South Wales, and particularly of the assignment system, to imply an opinion that transportation, under all circumstances, and with reference to all parts of her Majesty's dominions, ought to be abandoned. And he did hope, that the noble Lord, in the measures which the Government were about to propose, would not exclude from his consideration the propriety of continuing the punishment, and the severe punishment of expatriation, or transportation, call it by what name they pleased. He thought that, so far as this country was concerned, the punishment of certain crimes by transportation was a most efficacious kind of punishment—that it was a perfectly just and legitimate punishment, and one not open to any of the objections urged against capital punishment, not revolting to the feelings of humanity, and not inclining witnesses to be reluctant in giving evidence, or juries to convict. Then, again, so far as the impression to be made on the minds of persons likely to be charged with crime was concerned, if the abolition altogether of the terrors of capital punishment was to take place, he felt that they must, for the effectual punishment of crime, and for deterring others from crime, continue in their criminal code the punishment of transportation under some mode. With respect to New South Wales it was impossible for him to have heard the evidence given before the Transportation Committee without feeling that they were approaching to a state of society in that colony, in its present circumstances, that was pregnant with all the evils of slavery; that there was growing up among the different classes there, the prejudices and hostile feelings of freemen on the one hand, and of slaves on the other; and that those hostile feelings and prejudices were gradually banishing all social and physical comfort from the colony. He, therefore, cordially assented, that the assignment system should be discontinued, and that so far as the colony of New South Wales was concerned, transportation ought to be administered in the most moderate and considerate degree. If the noble Lord intended to place entire reliance upon imprisonment in the hulks or in penitentiaries, he would find himself mistaken as to the result. He could easily believe that punishment in the hulks and penitentiaries might be put upon a better system; but

1059
with all the improvements of which prison discipline was capable, two evils would probably arise out of that mode of punishment: first, the offenders would be led to rely upon the chance of remission, owing to the interference of friends in their favour; and, secondly, it would be found impossible to resort systematically to periods of confinement long enough adequately to punish the guilty. Humanity would revolt at the infliction of sentences of perpetual confinement, or even at confinement of any very considerable duration. At first they might not be as revolting as public executions, but among the multitude of cases, if only ten or twenty instances of aberration of intellect were to occur, it would be impossible to continue the system, and then another relaxation of the criminal code must take place. Supposing resort to be had to imprisonment for five or six years, annually a very large body of persons must be turned loose upon society who had undergone their sentences in the hulks or in penitentiaries. He was willing to admit, that some improvement of moral character might occur in consequence of confinement under a better system; but his own experience led him to believe, that it would not be so great as was anticipated. Prisoners, in the hope of indulgence, and of obtaining some degree of confidence, would conduct themselves well while in confinement, and when it was thought that their characters might be re-established, from joining again their old associates they would too frequently relapse into their old habits, and the hopes of amendment turn out to be merely delusive. He believed, that not fewer than 5,000 persons were annually sentenced to transportation.
Lord J. Russell: More than 4,000.
Sir R. Peelwould take it so, and of these, under a system merely of imprisonment, a large number would periodically be restored to society, and it would be impossible for the legislature by any measures to abate the existing prejudice against the employment of persons who had been punished for crimes in preference to others who had never been found guilty. On the other hand, a well-regulated system of transportation would remove the convict from the association of his companions, and having expiated his offence, he would not carry about with him in the colony the prison mark. If the criminal could be induced, abroad, to re-
1060
ly upon the produce of his honest labour for subsistence, under no, or few, disadvantages from the effects of his previous life, an immense advantage would be gained, not offered by any system of prison discipline at home, however well it might be regulated. The objections to imprisonment at home were, first, that the punishment would not be efficacious; and next, that when the offender was turned out upon society, even if he were a reformed man and anxious to redeem his character, he would not be able to do so, by reason of the prejudice that must exist against him, especially in a country like this, where there was an immense quantity of surplus honest labour. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not exclude from his consideration the possibility of combining secondary punishments with expatriation.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had been really misunderstood in what he had before stated to the House. The course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to the punishment of transportation—the punishment of death being confined to very few offenders—was to have three distinct species of punishment,—of transportation, confinement in prisons, and in the hulks. With regard to transportation, he certainly had always been of opinion that it was advisable to send a certain number of convicts abroad; that by sending them abroad they would obtain for them, after a certain period of punishment, the means of providing honestly for their own livelihood; because when they considered this punishment of transportation, they were bound to consider not only the immediate effect of it on our own country, but also on the society that they were establishing in another quarter of the globe: and what he certainly considered to be a very great evil was establishing a society in another quarter of the globe which really, if allowed to go on in the way in which it was proceeding, would have been a monstrous creation. With regard to the mode of doing this, it had appeared to him that there had been far too great a number of convicts sent out to our penal colonies. There was a great number to provide for, but many of these were only included under the sentence of transportation in consequence of acts passed ten or twelve years ago, for crimes which were not before punished with transportation; and there were seve-

1061
ral cases in which he thought that the punishment was most disproportionate. He remembered one case of a man who entered a small shop where bread was sold, and cut off a slice of bread for himself, and said that he was determined he would never pay for it, and he was sentenced to transportation for seven years. He had applied to know whether there was any falsehood or mis-statement in the representation of the case, and he had found that there was not, but that, the man had been convicted before, and was a person of bad character, but that this was the offence for which he was transported. When they spoke of 4,000 convicts, this number included many who had not committed crimes which ought to subject them to such a punishment. He thought that in such cases a moderate punishment would suffice. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that in cases of fifteen or twenty years' solitary imprisonment they might very often disturb the mental faculties, and that therefore such terms might involve an unnecessary degree of cruelty. He would give directions accordingly to the Governor of Van Dieman's Land with regard to the treatment of the convicts there and at Norfolk Island. There would be still no less than 2,000 convicts sent out every year; and it must be borne in mind, that whatever might be the advantages of the system of transportation, it was their duty to avoid the formation of colonies of which the great mass—say, three-fourths of the whole community—would be men branded as felons.
Mr. Hawesexceedingly regretted, that a subject of so much importance should be incidentally discussed. After calling the attention of the House to two of the resolutions of the committee on transportation, he expressed his decided opinion, if offenders were to be imprisoned, it would be found not only more effectual, but much more economical, to confine them at home than abroad. The system of transportation had hitherto cost the country not much less than 500,000 l. a year, and he believed, that punishment in penitentiaries, properly regulated, would much more tend to the reformation of the guilty. The stigma of conviction would follow the offender as much abroad as at home; and with regard to long imprisonments producing alienation of mind, he had closely examined eight cases of the kind from
1062
America, and he had found that the failure of intellect was distinctly traceable to other causes, and to diseases existing before the parties were sentenced to confinement. Severity was necessary, and he asked whether it was likely to be administered under a better system in a remote colony, or at home, under the immediate eye and control of the Government? He trusted that the question would not be allowed to rest upon this conversation, but that it would be separately and distinctly considered on some future occasion.
Mr. Wakleywas of opinion, that a night ought to be set apart for the consideration of this important subject. He earnestly requested the noble Lord not to be led away by real or supposed information from America, that long imprisonment did not produce aberration of mind. Fatuity, disease, and death, were the consequences of such inflictions; and if they were introduced into the system of this country, capital punishments, instead of being diminished, would be increased. Death would be inflicted, though not by the hand of the executioner. It was impossible to introduce confinement for any long period, such as ten or fifteen years, with any regard to the common claims of humanity. Sometimes only three years' imprisonment was utterly destructive of the future health of the sufferer. The great business of the Legislature ought to be, to prevent rather than to punish crime, and instead of debating on systems of severity, the House ought to consider how punishments could be rendered less frequent, by improving the morals of the lower orders. He, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord would cause a careful inquiry to be made into the effect of the systems pursued in this country, and that he would not determine upon the course to be pursued, till he had investigated this matter fully and perfectly.
Colonel Sibthorpwas sorry to be obliged to inform the noble Lord, that if he persisted in his determination at that late hour, to take into consideration those important documents which had so recently been laid on the Table of the House, he must be prepared to listen to a speech from him of four or five hour's duration. He had never, during his experience in that House, seen such an attempt to smuggle papers into it. He hoped that the noble Lord would postpone his motion,

1063
and name some future day for the examination of these documents.
Lord John Russellcould assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had no desire whatever to take any improper advantage. It was desirable to go into Committee of Supply, because it was necessary to vote certain sums of money, for the purpose of paying off Exchequer-bills.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee, and a sum of 21,626,350 l. was granted to pay off the Exchequer bills for the year 1841.
House then resumed.
Report to be received.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Cleveland, from Perth, in favour of the Jews Declaration Bill.—By Lord Hatherton, from various places in Lincolnshire, for Alteration of the Law relating to Turnpike Trusts; and from Penn, in the county of Stafford, against Sunday Trading on Canals.—By the Bishop of London, from a number of Clergymen of his Diocese, praying to be relieved from certain hardships which they suffered in consequence of the Provisions of the Composition of Tithes
Act; and from Inhabitants of Clapham-road, that some measure should be adopted for the Redemption of Tolls on Southwark, Waterloo, and Vauxhall Bridges.—By the Earl of Wilton, from Merchants of Manchester, that the principle of Inland Warehousing might be extended to that town.—By the Earl of Zetland, from a parish in Scotland, in favour of Non-Intrusion.

CANAL TRAFFIC ON SUNDAYS.
Lord Hathertonpresented a petition from Penn, Staffordshire, against the prevailing system of traffic on canals on Sundays. This was a subject to which the attention of their Lordships had been called during the last Session, and it was then universally admitted, that a great evil existed, and that a remedy should be applied. The present system was totally unnecessary, and unproductive of good to any class, either to the merchant, the labourer, or the public. With regard to one class, and one especially, deserving the kindest consideration of the House. He should, in a few days, present a petition universally signed by those boatmen who justly complained that they alone of all the labourers in her Majesty's kingdom, were restrained to work on a Sunday. They thought, and he agreed with them, that all considerations, moral, religious, and political—combined to render an abolition of this system in every way expedient. The petitioners, whose petitions he now presented, entertained the same views and made the same prayer, and with that prayer he begged to express his entire concurrence.

DRAINAGE.
The Marquess of Salisburyhaving understood that some clauses were to be introduced by the noble Marquess (Normanby) into the Drainage Bill, (the report of the committee on which was to be brought up that day) for the purpose of extending the operation of the measure to Scotland, was desirous of asking him whether he would have any objection to postpone its further consideration until these clauses had been printed.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that from one cause or another so much delay had already taken place in the progress of this bill, that he certainly was very unwilling to postpone its consideration still further. And he put it to the noble Marquess whether the reason he had assigned was a sufficient cause for so doing. There could be no doubt as to the necessity of some such measure in Scotland. In fact there was no part of the kingdom for which it would be so necessary; and the

1019
only object of the clauses which he intended to propose for the application of this bill to that country was, that the same principle should be adopted, and the same machinery used as in England. He accordingly thought that the best course to pursue would be to bring up the report of the committee at the present time, and to take the additional clauses into consideration on Thursday next.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not wish to throw any impediment in the way of the measure's progress, but he was afraid that mixing up with it the question of Scotch drainage would most seriously impede, if not altogether throw it out. Some parties had felt the greatest alarm on the question, and had drawn up a petition praying to be heard against the supposed clauses by counsel at their Lordships' bar. He had advised them not to take this step; but he thought the alarm thus proved to exist was a sufficient reason for delaying the further consideration of the bill until the additional clauses had been printed.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that in connection with this subject, he had received a petition from Birmingham against the Borough Improvement Bill, originally a part of the Drainage Bill, stating that that borough had possessed for upwards of seventy years a local act very similar in its provisions to the bill of the noble Marquess, which the petitioners, on this account opposed. They prayed that Birmingham might be excluded from the operation of the measure, and as commissioners were appointed by the local Act, and there was no clause in the present bill to abolish them, if it were not excluded there would be two authorities appointed for the same purpose, and endowed with the same powers, operating against each other—the commissioners under the local Act, and the town council under the bill of the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the case to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, was a mere matter of detail. It would be easy either to omit Birmingham from the operation of the bill, according to the prayer of the petitioners, or to abolish the local Act. As to the strong desire of the noble Marquess (Salisbury) for the postponement of the measure, he sincerely trusted that if they agreed to postpone the consideration of the report until the earliest day in next week that
1020
the noble Marquess would not ask for, nor the House consent to, that which had been almost held in terrorem over them, that the parties opposing the application of the bill to Scotland should be heard by counsel at the bar against it.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that in Birmingham, and in those places which possessed local Acts, their abolition for the sake of introducing the bill of the noble Marquess would excite the strongest opposition and discontent.
The Marquess of Normanby: I only suggested that as a means of avoiding the anomaly which would arise from the joint operation of the general and local Acts.
Lord Lyndhurst: If the power of the commissioners under the local Act are proposed to be abolished, they would certainly then have a right to be heard by counsel at the bar, which the noble Marquess seems so desirous to avoid.
The report of the committee received, pro formâ, with additional clauses. Further consideration postponed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenpresented a petition from a presbytery in Scotland, to which he would for a moment call the attention of their Lordships. Like most of the petitions presented from that country in relation to the affairs of her church, it was not for the abolition, but it was for the preservation and continuance of patronage in Scotland, as established by law and as at present existing. He presented this petition because it had been sent to him by a body of men whose opinions were entitled to every respect, but he at the same time lamented that these reverend gentlemen had thought it necessary to send any petition to their Lordships on the subject. On every occasion on which he had been consulted respecting the expediency of addressing petitions to Parliament as to the unfortunate position of the Scotch Church, and the applications to him had been numerous, he had always expressed his disapprobation of presenting any petition whatever. Considering the manner in which these "patronage" petitions were got up, and the grounds on which they were founded, no effect was produced by them—no great attention was paid to them, and he felt sure that no member of any party or of any description gave to their presentation the least countenance or support. This he had always declared,

1021
and this was still his opinion. Such petitions could produce no good—their character was generally too well understood, The noble Earl then presented the petition from the presbytery of Garioch, in Scotland, in favour of the present system of patronage.

THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
The Earl of Falmouthbegged to put a question to the noble Viscount opposite (Duncannon), on a subject which had excited great uneasiness in that part of the country with which he was connected. Their Lordships would know that an ant had been passed some years ago, called the "Nullum Tempus" Act, by which the powers of the Crown had been limited with regard to the laws of property in some of the Royal Duchies. From the operation of this bill, however, the Duchy of Cornwall had been excluded, and the power of the Crown, though long dormant, was alleged to be still in force. A letter had recently been addressed to a large proprietor of mines in the western part of Cornwall, by the solicitor of the commissioners of the. Duchy, informing him that the ownership of the submarine minerals (viz., the contents of those mines worked under the sea) lay in the Crown, and that the lease of the present proprietor having expired in September last, the commissioners of the Duchy were willing to renew it on reasonable terms. Now he much doubted whether this claim on the part of the Crown was a just one. At any rate, whether it was legal or whether it was illegal, it had excited the greatest alarm in Cornwall, as tending to render insecure the tenures on which property was held in that county. For these reasons he begged to ask the noble Viscount whether the commissioners of the Duchy authorised the sending of such a letter?
Viscount Duncannonhad no doubt that the letter which had been sent was fully authorised by the commissioners, but he was not at the moment prepared to afford any general information on the question to which the noble Earl had referred. He would, however, make inquiries, and state the result of them to their Lordships.

SOLICITOR TO THE HOME OFFICE.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to ask the noble Marquess, whether the gentleman who had been recently appointed solicitor to the Home Office, was to be allowed to
1022
hold with that office the situation of the secretaryship to bankrupts?
The Marquess of Normanbywas glad to answer the question of his noble and learned Friend. The gentleman alluded to, had been appointed to the situation of solicitor to the Home Office, with the distinct understanding that it was impossible that he should continue to hold the office of secretary to bankrupts. He had held both offices up to the present time for the convenience of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack; but it was never intended that both offices should permanently be vested in one person.
Lord Lyndhurst: I put the question because I have before me a paper of so late a dale as the 31st of March, signed by I hat gentleman as secretary of bankrupts.
Adjourned.