Sitting of 16 November 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Elections Polls; Bank Notes.

CASE OF MR. NEWTON AT VERONA.
MR. HUMEsaid, that seeing in his place the noble Lord the Under Secretary of the Foreign Department, he wished to ask the question of which he had given notice. Although it was most desirable that British subjects should be protected in foreign parts, they ought at the same time, when complaints were made, to endeavour to ascertain as fully as possible

199
the circumstances that caused those complaints. In the month of June last a letter was written by the father of the individual to whom the present inquiry had reference, making certain charges against the officials in a public department at Verona; and he (Mr. Hume) begged to ask whether any inquiry had been instituted into the complaints of Mr. Henry Robert Newton, who in June last was arrested in Verona, imprisoned, and treated with great indignity, and all explanation then and there refused; and whether any apology or explanation had been offered by the Austrian Government?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to confirm, in the first place, what he has stated, namely, that in the month of June last a British subject of the name of Newton was arrested at Verona, and detained under circumstances of considerable hardship. The circumstances of the case were these: Mr. Newton was arrested on suspicion of sketching the fortifications, he being at the time, as he stated, and as we have reason to believe, not so engaged; but it is fair to say, that the suspicion was not unreasonable, inasmuch as Mr. Newton bad at the time a book and map spread open before him. I merely mention these trifling circumstances to show what, indeed, Mr. Newton himself acknowledges, that as regards his original arrest, he has no ground for making any charge against the authorities. The city of Verona was at the time in a state of siege, and there is no reason to suppose that he was treated, so far as the original arrest was concerned, with exceptional harshness or severity. Subsequent to the arrest he was taken to the guard-house, orders were given that his papers should be examined, and that if, on their examination, nothing was found tending to criminate him, he should be set at liberty. These were the orders that were given, but unfortunately they were not obeyed. The search took place, and nothing was found of a criminatory character amongst his papers. When the search concluded, it was late in the evening, and by a gross neglect of duty on the part of the officer of police in whose charge Mr. Newton was, instead of releasing him, when nothing was discovered against him, he detained him all night, and did not liberate him until the following morning. Mr. Newton unfortunately, in my opinion, did not immediately proceed to put the case in the hands of the British
200
Consul General at Venice, but preferred applying for redress in person, and without communicating with the Consul. He did not succeed in obtaining any satisfactory explanation from the authorities, and having so failed, he then put his case into the hands of Mr. Dawkins, who took it up with great energy and promptitude. Shortly afterwards complaints were made to the Foreign Office by Sir William Newton, the father of the complainant, and a letter was written by him, dated 16th July, stating the particulars which I have related. Immediately on that letter being received, a full account of the circumstances as they were stated by Sir W. Newton to have occurred, was sent to Lord Westmoreland our Ambassador at Vienna. An inquiry was instituted, and there being some discrepancy between the different accounts, a correspondence of some length took place; but the end of that correspondence has been that a full and ample expression of regret has been obtained from the Austrian Government, accompanied by a promise that, in future, care shall be taken to prevent British travellers from being ill-treated in a similar manner, and to see that the regulations in force in Austria are carried out with no unnecessary hardship on individuals. That expression of regret having been obtained—the original charge of misconduct having been against a subordinate officer, and the promise I have mentioned having been given by the Austrian Government, it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that, under the circumstances, nothing more could be expected or required.

THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the constitution and management of the Board of Customs?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have directed the recommendations of the Committee to be submitted to the Commissioners of Customs, and I received their Report—a very elaborate one —only last month. I have very much considered it, and it is the intention of the Government to place a Treasury Minute on the table, which I hope I shall be able to do before Christmas, indicating all those changes that we think ought to take place

201
in the present administration of the Customs, and some of those changes will require legislative interposition.

FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
SIR CHARLES WOODbrought up the First Report of the Committee appointed to consider the circumstances relating to the attendance of the House and their place at the solemnity of the Duke of Wellington's funeral. It was as follows:—
"Your Committee have examined the Journals touching the proceedings and circumstances relating to the Procession of this House, and their place, on the occasion of public funerals, and they find that, in the year 1694, the House, with the Speaker, attended the Funeral of Her Majesty Queen Mary; that seats were reserved and tickets given to Members, with the Speaker's name, and that of each Member, for his admittance.
"Your Committee also find that in the year 1708 the Speaker was deputed on the part of the House, to present an Address to Her Majesty Queen Anne.
"Your Committee are of opinion, that it would be convenient, on this occasion, that the Speaker should be deputed to attend the Procession on the part of the House, and that the House should attend in the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, and that the Speaker, when he arrives there, should take his place accordingly.
"Your Committee have examined respecting the arrangements for the accommodation of Members. They find that 500 seats are reserved for Members in front of the North Transept.
"Your Committee recommend that each Member should be furnished with a ticket of admittance with his name, and that the same should be distributed to Members, under the direction of Mr. Speaker."
Report to lie on the table.

CORONER'S INQUEST (SIX-MILE BRIDGE).
SIR JOHN F. FITZGERALD: Sir, as one of the representatives of the county where this sad event took place, I deem it a duty I owe not only to my constituents, but to the wives, children, and relatives of the unfortunate men who were slain at Six-mile Bridge, to move "for a Report of the evidence given before the coroner's inquest, held at Six-mile Bridge, in the county of Clare, in July last." I do so particularly at this moment, when I observe it is the intention of both the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland to endeavour to quash the verdict of the jury, which verdict was one of wilful murder against a magistrate, and against eight soldiers who fired upon the people without receiving orders to do so, or without the Riot Act being read, and thus causing the bloody and untimely death of six of Her Majesty's
202
subjects on the spot, and one who died subsequently of the wounds he received. This attempt on the part of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland to quash the verdict of the coroner's jury, has, I fear, an ulterior object, which is, that when the bill of indictment against the magistrate and the eight soldiers, for their trial at the next assizes of the county, is presented, it will render such presentment void, and thereby destroy the only hope of consolation left to those bereaved families, that the perpetrators of so fatal an act should be brought before the courts of justice, to answer the charge ordered against them by the coroner's jury—that of wilful murder. I understand that the plea set forth by the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland, to quash the verdict, is, that the persons of the soldiers who fired the shots at Six-mile Bridge, on the 22nd of July last, were not sufficiently identified. This attempt, I must say, is a most severe and unjust reflection upon a jury, composed of men among the most respectable in the county, and who, regardless of every inconvenience they were put to in a small village, as to the accommodation, delayed their verdict till they had heard all the evidence, and the learned arguments of the counsel on both sides for nearly one fortnight. The next point of argument to which I wish to call the attention of the House is as to what business the soldiers had to be present in any shape or way at an election? The election law is clear and precise on this matter. Roger's election law on interfering at elections, says—
"'From the first establishment of a standing army the jealousy of the House of Commons has been directed to prevent any military interference at elections, or overawing them by their presence. Thus the House of Commons resolved that all elections of any knight or shire, or burgess, to serve in Parliament be made without interruption or molestation by any commander, governor, officer, or soldier.'—17th November, 1645, 4 Journ, 316. Again, 24th, Journ. 37, 22nd December, 1741: 'That the presence of a regular body of soldiers at on election of Members to serve in Parliament is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of the Kingdom.'"
This resolution was passed in consequence of the proceedings at the Westminster election in 1741, The Westminster justices were Ordered into custody and reprimanded by Speaker Onslow, for unnecessarily calling in the military. The concluding part of his address was as follows:—

203
"What you have done is against one of the most essential parts of the law of this Kingdom. Had any real necessity been shown for it? There might be fears—there might be some danger—but did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears and remove those dangers? Did you make use of those powers the law invested you with, as civil magistrates, for the preservation of the public peace? No; you deserted all that, and wantonly, and I hope inadvertently, resorted to that force, the most unnatural of all others, in all respects, to that cause and business you were then attending, and for the freedom of which every Briton Ought to be ready to suffer anything."
See also debate on this subject, April 3, 1827, on the occasion of calling out the military at Carlisle. The whole of the proceedings of the Government in this most calamitous event have been most extraordinary, and might well cause the excitement which did prevail during the last elections in Ireland. But let me ask what raised those excitements? The illegal acts of the Government, infringing on the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, by employing soldiers for the purpose of overawing them, in direct opposition to the law and constitution of this country. Finally, I must draw a contrast as to the manner the Government pursue in this country (England) and in Ireland, in the instance I now submit to the House. Here are a magistrate and eight soldiers, against whom a verdict of wilful murder is given by a coroner's jury. They are imprisoned to answer for so very serious a charge at the next assizes; but what do the Government legal authorities in Ireland? Bail is taken, and the magistrate and the eight soldiers are liberated. Now, mark the different line of conduct pursued here in a similar case. Two foreigners are imprisoned for being implicated in a fatal duel; their counsel makes an appeal for their being liberated on bail, and an instance is brought forward of bail being granted on similar events. What said the Chief Justice of England?—
"He was firmly of opinion that if a person of the highest eminence was found guilty of murder by a jury, no tribunal of the country would liberate him without trial."
Now, Sir, all I ask—all I pray for—is, that a trial may be granted to have this melancholy event thoroughly investigated. It is due to the people of Ireland—it is due to the bereaved families of the unfortunate men who were so inhumanly shot; and, above all, it is due to justice. I therefore move for the report of the evidence given before the Coroner's inquest, held at Six-
204
mile Bridge, in the county of Clare, in July last.
MR. NAPIER: Sir, there will be no objection to lay the evidence in this case on the table of the House when the proper time arrives; but at present the proceedings are under the consideration of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court has not yet given its decision. But judgment will probably be pronounced in a few days, and then the evidence can be furnished. With regard, however, to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member upon the conduct of the Government, I may be permitted to say that the Government had nothing to do with the calling out of the military. They were called out, as is usual, on the requisition of a magistrate of the county, who has shared in the fate of the soldiers, and who, by this very respectable Coroner's jury, has been declared guilty of wilful murder. Sir, before the proceedings of the inquest were laid before me, the soldiers had been committed to the gaol of the county on the Coroner's warrant, and the depositions then came up and were laid before me in the usual course; for whenever any person has been committed on a capital charge the course is to lay the papers before the Attorney General, in order to see whether he makes any objection on the part of the Crown to the parties being admitted to bail. The Crown does not interfere further than this. Whenever parties apply to the Court of Queen's Bench in these matters, the Court is always greatly influenced by the circumstance whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given or refused their assent to the motion to admit to bail. On receiving the depositions I felt it to be my duty not to lose a single moment in applying myself to them, and I read them twice over—an occupation which took me eight hours. I read them through before I went to bed, and I read them again the next morning, and having considered them, I felt it to be my duty to state my opinion that these parties should be admitted to bail. Judge Crampton, after hearing counsel for the next of kin of the persons killed, himself considered the depositions; and he, in pursuance of the authority vested in him as a Judge of the Queen's Bench, made an order admitting the parties to bail—a course for which he had, and has, my full concurrence. I may state, with reference to the case having been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, that that Court was the Supreme Coroner of the Kingdom, and had the su-

205
perintendence of all the Coroners throughout the country. The course I took met the entire concurrence of my colleague, the Solicitor General, who argued the case in the Queen's Bench in my absence; and as the case is now pending, of course it would be highly improper for me to offer one word of comment, one way or the other. With regard to a bill of indictment, I may observe that seldom is the course, even supposing there was no objection to the Coroner's inquisition, to proceed upon that. With hardly one exception, the practice is to send up a bill of indictment, and not act on the Coroners' inquisition; for experience has invariably shown that Coroners' inquisitions obstruct rather than promote the ends of public justice. But whether the inquisition be quashed or not, that will not interfere with a bill of indictment being sent up, and a proceeding is now pending against a newspaper, in which the very question of the hon. and gallant Baronet will be settled. It is to be tried in the sittings after term, and the subject is likely to receive in the Court of Queen's Bench, and before a jury in the city of Dublin, a very full investigation. Throughout those proceedings I have endeavoured, and I shall continue to endeavour, to do my duty; and whilst I am resolved to bring to justice all who have violated the law, and against whom I can procure evidence, I am equally resolved to afford the shelter of the law and constitution to those who have, as I believe, discharged faithfully a most invidious duty under the most harassing and oppressive circumstances. When judgment has been pronounced, the evidence shall be laid on the table.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORbegged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the duration of polling for County Elections in England and Wales. It would be in the recollection of the House that at the close of the last Parliament he had moved for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the days of polling in Counties from two days to one, and that Bill had obtained a first and second reading, and had passed through Committee. The Government, however, had thrown out the measure on the third reading, not because they objected to the principle of it, but because it was contended that the time intervening before the general election was so short that opportunity could not be afforded for
206
the new arrangements. He now moved for leave to bring in a similar Bill, not anticipating any objection on the part of the Government; but he might observe that he intended to carry restriction and reform a little further than in the previous measure. He proposed to reduce the days of polling from two days to one, and the period that elapsed between the nomination and the day of polling from two to one. He proposed also that the declaration of the poll should take place one day after the polling.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."
MR. PALMERdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but he would observe that there was a considerable difference between this Bill and the one of last year. He acquiesced in the Bill of last year with some degree of doubt. He had had some little experience of county elections, and was very much inclined to think that it would be undesirable to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord. At times it would be exceedingly inconvenient to pin down the electors to one day. He would give an instance in his own county, where a poll was demanded without any one expecting it, and it happened that on one of the polling-days an important fair was held in the neighbourhood, which many of the voters were very anxious to attend, and consequently were incapacitated from performing their electoral duties. He had conversed with many of the electors on this subject, and they were of opinion that the change might be attended with considerable inconvenience.
MR. HUMEwould say, that the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman might easily be provided for by the sheriffs not fixing upon inconvenient days. The sheriffs ought to know when fairs took place, and not fix such days for polling.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that, seeing leave was given by the last Parliament to bring in a Bill somewhat similar to this, and that it even went to the third reading, it would be ungracious towards the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex to refuse him leave to bring in the present Bill. There were two points, however, he wished the House to bear in mind: the first was, that the objection taken on the part of the Government to the Bill of last Session was, that a sufficient opportunity was not given to Counties to provide polling places, so that every voter should have an opportunity of recording his vote. It

207
was a matter of great importance that provision should be made for enabling all the votes in every County to be taken. The other point was, that the noble Lord was now going to add to the Bill a new provision, namely, that the period between the nomination and the day of the polling should be reduced from two days to one. He thought that was a matter which would require great consideration. They must remember that there was a great difference between boroughs and counties in that respect. In the boroughs the voters were all living either within the bounds or in the neighbourhood; but in counties the voters had their residence sometimes at a great distance, and assuredly every portion of a County ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether more than one candidate had been put up on the day of nomination, in order that the voters might have an opportunity of coming up and recording their votes. He only pointed out these things in order that the noble Lord might have no reason to complain, should he find the Government opposing the Bill when it was brought forward.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that he thought that, whenever the discussion came on, he should be able to satisfy the House that the further changes he proposed were necessary.
Leave given.

ROCHESTER CONSISTORY COURT, &c.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he rose to move for a return of the appointment of Officers in the Consistory Court, Rochester, and also in the Archdeacon's Court in the same city. He apprehended there would be little or no objection to his Motion; but, inasmuch as the dignity and character of that House was in some measure concerned, he would state the reasons which had induced him to put the notice upon the paper. On the 2nd May, 1850, that House resolved that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that certain returns might be made in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts; and he was informed by the officers connected with the Government of that day, that they had the very greatest difficulty in obtaining the papers from the Officers of those Courts—so much so, that thirteen months elapsed before they were presented to the House. Another Address was agreed to by the House on the 7th August, 1851, praying Her Majesty to order that certain further returns might
208
be made in reference to the same Courts; and similar difficulties had been experienced in obtaining those returns from some of the Courts, whilst others of them had made no return whatever. The fact was that some of these returns were not made until the 10th of May, 1852, exactly nine months after they had been called for by the House. He thought that when an order was made by that House, either through the medium of an Address to the Crown, or directly by the House, the persons to whom such order was sent ought to obey it. And no return having been made by the Ecclesiastical Courts of Rochester, he had no hesitation in submitting this Motion to the House, in order that the information in, question might be obtained. He would also take that opportunity of stating that should that order not be complied with, he should take further steps to compel a compliance with it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, a return had been laid on the table of the House with the fullest information on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts of which the Government were in possession; and he could account for the absence of the returns of which the hon. Baronet complained only in this way. Several returns of that kind had been moved for by the hon. Baronet, and the officers thinking they had already made those returns in full, had neglected to continue the returns which were subsequently asked for. He was further informed that a return which had been moved for by the hon. Baronet in 1849, was presented to the House, and that the hon. Baronet never moved that it should be printed. If the hon. Gentleman would now move to have that return printed, he would gain from it fuller information than he could have from the return which he now asked for.
SIR B. HALLsaid, he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake. During the Session of 1849, he (Sir B. Hall) was unable to attend the House except on one day; he had not made any Motion on the subject except in the years to which he had referred, and the officers of the Ecclesiastical Court of Rochester had made no return whatever to those Motions.
Motion agreed to.

DAY MAIL TO LEICESTER.
MR. FREWENsaid, that the House was doubtless aware, from the statements which had recently appeared in the public

209
prints, that great injury had been done to certain lines of railway within the last few days, in consequence of the heavy rains, and in certain districts great inconvenience was occasioned, not only by the stopping of the regular communications, hut also by the delay of the usual mails. It appeared to him that there was some want of proper caution on the part of the Post Office authorities in not forwarding the mails with that expedition which they might have used; for even though some of the great lines had been damaged, the mails should have been forwarded in the old way—by the turnpike roads—until they had reached such parts of the railway as might be made available for communicating with the metropolis. During the last week several lines of railway in the Midland Counties were, he believed, stopped, in consequence of the damage that was done to them. At one place in particular within about four or five miles of Leicester a viaduct was carried away, which was not likely to be restored for about a fortnight or three weeks. The greatest inconvenience had arisen, in consequence, to the people of Leicester, from the non-adoption of proper measures for the forwarding of the mails by some other route. He knew himself of letters containing intelligence of the deepest importance and interest, posted in Leicester on Friday, not reaching London until Monday morning. The day mail, which was forwarded from London on Saturday morning, did not reach Leicester until seven o'clock in the evening. Now where there was another line open, the mails might have been conveyed at almost the same degree of speed with which they were forwarded for many years past. He was informed that the great line of communication near Tamworth had been stopped by an injury which had occurred to a bridge in the neighbourhood. He wished to call public attention to the subject, and more particularly to urge that everything should be done to facilitate the conveyance of the mails. He should conclude by moving that the Postmaster General be requested to order that the day mail between London and Leicester should be conveyed by way of Peterborough, Stamford, and Melton Mowbray, until the line of railway between Leicester and Rugby (which has been stopped in consequence of the injury done to it, caused by the late heavy rains) be re-opened.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was sure that the House would not agree in
210
the terms of this Motion when he informed them that the fact was, the Post Office authorities had used the greatest possible exertions to expedite the conveyance of the mails. He had just received a communication which stated that the day mail from Leicester had arrived on that day without the delay of a single hour. Under such circumstances he thought that the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to persevere in his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN TERRITORIES.
MR. HERRIESmoved that the Select Committee on Indian Territories do consist of thirty-one Members.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbegged to suggest that the name of Sir Thomas Herbert Maddock be added to the Com-mittee, as the hon. Member was thoroughly conversant with the subject, having resided for several years in India.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he had intended to move the addition of two or three names to the Committee, in order that the groat commercial ports might be represented; but when he saw the names of the eminent persons nominated, he thought it unnecessary to persist in that intention.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that all the new Members of the Committee should be put into possession of the whole evidence which had come before the former Committee on this subject. He wished to know whether any steps had been taken by the Government towards effecting this object?
SIR THOMAS MADDOCKsaid, he would also beg to suggest that natives of India capable of affording valuable information to the Select Committee should be summoned to give evidence before it. He was aware that among the educated inhabitants there was a large proportion of Hindoos who were precluded by the prejudices of caste from undertaking a sea voyage. But there were many who would not be so precluded could give evidence before the Committee; and he imagined with respect to the others that there could be no serions difficulty in obtaining the testimony of those Hindoo gentlemen of attainments and qualifications on the spot in India. That was the more important, because the evidence that had already been given, and the evidence which would in all probability be taken by the present Committee, had been and would be derived

211
from persons who had been officially engaged in the administration of the affairs of India, whether in this country or in that. It might be very useful that the evidence of all experienced persons should be made available for laying down the plan so far as concerned the machinery of Government; but in reference to all those matters which had regard to the welfare and happiness of the people of India, on which it was really the great primary duty of the Government in this country to legislate, their legislation could not be either complete or satisfactory unless the class of natives of India to whom he had referred were furnished with an opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee.
MR. HERRIESsaid, with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the best mode of proceeding would be to leave the matter to the Committee themselves, who would know what was necessary for the requirements of the House; and with regard to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir T. Mad-dock), it would be the duty of the Committee to determine what witnesses they should bring before them, and what evidence bearing upon the inquiry it would be desirable to have.
Motion for nominating the Committee was then agreed to.

FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF, WELLINGTON.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. HUMEsaid, before the Order of the Day was proceeded with, he wished to state that he had made a request on a former night, that some estimate of the expenses of the funeral of the Duke of Wellington should be laid upon the table of the House. He found, upon referring to the journals of the House, that an estimate was laid on the table by Mr. Vansittart of the expenses of the funeral of Lord Nelson, and also of that of Mr. Pitt. The House was not sitting at the time of Lord Nelson's funeral, and therefore the estimate was not laid on the table until after the occasion; but as the House was now sitting, they ought to have an estimate laid before them. Not that he was desirous to abridge or to throw any difficulty in the way of a public demonstration, but they ought to relieve and disabuse the public mind of the extravagant ideas that had been formed as to the amount of the ex-
212
pense. The department upon whom the trust was devolved should be prepared to lay before them an estimate in some degree approximating to the amount.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not forgotten the intimation given some days ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, but, from the pressure of circumstances connected with this solemnity, it was quite impossible to lay an estimate before the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if the public money could not be accounted for, it appeared to him there must be great blame somewhere.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend had greatly misconstrued what he had stated, in supposing that the public money could not be accounted for. If the public money were expended in this manner, it would be accounted for to the last shilling; but, from the pressure of circumstances, it was impossible at the present moment to lay an estimate before the House.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTthought the House had heard a most extraordinary statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they had been treated in a most extraordinary way by the refusal given to the request of his hon. Friend that an estimate should be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the expenses of the funeral of the late Duke of Wellington, all persons in the country were unanimous in wishing, by every possible means, to testify their respect for the memory of that great and illustrious man; but he did not think that respect would in any degree be diminished by the constitutional course of giving to that House, who held the purse strings of the country, an estimate of the probable expense attending the solemnity of Thursday. They all recollected the letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary on the occasion of the death of the Duke. In that letter, which he thought most admirable, and he believed was generally Be considered, the reason given for delaying the funeral from what appeared to be the natural time, shortly after the death of the illustrious hero, was, that it would be better and more constitutional to delay it until Parliament should be assembled, in order that Parliament might give its consent and approbation to the manner in which it was to be performed. He was sorry to see that

213
the proceeding of the Government on this occasion appeared to be like some other of their modes of proceeding—not characterised by much sincerity, but to be something of a deceptive character. ["Oh, oh!"] The Prime Minister was for waiting until Parliament could be consulted, and express its opinion on the subject. But had Parliament been consulted as to the arrangement or expense of this great national solemnity? On the contrary, everything had been done by prerogative. All the orders had been given and the expense incurred, and now the House of Commons, after being thus bamboozled—["Oh, oh!"]— was left without information, and had no alternative but to wait until after the expenses were incurred. ["Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for the adherents of the Ministry to cry "Oh, oh!" but he was sure the people were with him, and having to pay the bill, they would say the Government had done wrong in not being prepared to answer the appeal so properly made by his hon. Friend.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, he should be wanting in his duty to his constituents if he did not protest against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had delayed the funeral solemnity for more than two months for the purpose of consulting Parliament, and yet was not now prepared to say whether the expenses would be 10,000 l. or 100,000 l., or whether, as some people said, they would amount to a quarter of a million. It seemed a somewhat invidious and ungracious task to address the House on that subject. But he was bound to say he felt last night he had not done his duty to his own conscience, in not having stood up when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer poured out, in well-turned periods, his eulogium on the Duke of Wellington, and resisted that which he (Mr. S. Carter) felt to be a national folly—for he could only term a national funeral a national folly. The right hon. Gentleman said the feelings of a great people could only find vent in a splendid pageant. If that was the only way in which they could express their feelings, it would be far better, in his opinion, not to express them at all. He thought it would have been much more to the credit of that House and of the country if the money expended on that funeral had been applied to some object of public usefulness, rather than for the pageantry,
214
parade, and pomp of a public funeral. He thought all this wore the aspect of impiety —it was man paying almost idolatrous worship to the clay of his fellow worm. He had availed himself of his privilege as a Member of that House to witness the ceremony of the lying in state. He did so from no idle curiosity, hut for the purpose of observation and reflection; but he confessed, when he looked upon all its pomp, the feeling in his mind was only one of deep disgust, to see the clay of a departed man hung round with all those emblems of heraldry, with jewellery and emblazonments, as if in mockery, and all to do honour to a being who was placed beyond the honour of this world, and could receive it no more, hut who, perhaps, had received more in his lifetime than any man of this or any other age. It was nothing more than a solemn mockery. The late Duke was now beyond the power of praise or the incense they might choose to bestow, therefore the pageant was a mockery, and ought to be put down. [Cries of "Oh!"] Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" hut they would find it impossible to oh him down. The pageant could only be justified on one of two grounds: first, upon the plea that it was a tribute to the dead; and, secondly, upon the allegation that it would be a benefit to the living. Now, he denied that it was in the power of that House to confer any honour upon the dead, and he also denied that it was likely to confer any benefit upon the living. The eulogists of the Duke of Wellington told them that his virtues were too great for imitation. They told them that he was the greatest man of a great age, and to a certain extent debarred emulation. The only thing which the pageant would do, in his opinion, would be to stimulate the military spirit of the people, and make militiamen come forward, and also foster in the minds of the poorer classes the love for expensive funerals, a folly to which they were already too prone. He must again protest against Government taking a carte blanche for the expense, and then coming to the people and saying the bill must be paid, as the debt had been incurred. He had not that confidence in hon. Gentlemen opposite; he had not that confidence in any Government, and although they might not spend more money than the Whigs, if in power, his want of confidence was an additional reason for this protest.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that Mr. Wilson Patten take the Chair of the Committee.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion. He was not aware that there was any person better qualified for the office than the hon. Gentleman, whose devotion to the business of the House had been unceasing; and although he (Mr. Hume) regretted the loss from that House of his hon. Friend the late Member for Rochester (Mr. Bernal), still he did not consider that they could have a better chairman than Mr. Wilson Patten.
MR. WILSON PATTEN(having taken the Chair), read the following extract from the Queen's Speech:—
"The advancement of the Fine Arts and of Practical Science will be readily recognised by you as worthy of the attention of a great and enlightened nation. I have directed that a comprehensive scheme shall be laid before you, having in view the promotion of these objects, towards which I invite your aid and co-operation."
The hon. Gentleman then read the following from the Address in reply:—
"To assure Her Majesty that we readily recognise that the advancement of the Fine Arts and of Practical Science is worthy of a great and enlightened nation; and to thank Her Majesty for having given directions that a comprehensive scheme shall be laid before us, having in view the promotion of these objects, to which Her Majesty invites our aid and co-operation."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved that a Supply be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. HUMEwould remind the Committee that they were not bound by the passage of the Royal Speech just read, to the adoption of any specific scheme for the purpose mentioned; for when the question should come before the House for discussion, it would be his duty to submit a plan for their consideration very different from that which he had understood was suggested, and which, he thought, would be the means of their availing themselves of public property for the purpose, without coming unnecessarily upon the public funds.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, due notice would be given for taking that paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech into consideration.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwished to express, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen connected with the militia, their discontent that some measures had not been adopted
216
for their attendance, by a deputation, at the solemn ceremony of Thursday next.
Motion agreed to; Resolution to be reported To-morrow. House resumed.

MR. VILLIERS' MOTION.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) was present, but if he was not, perhaps some hon. Friend of his was who could give him an answer. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had yesterday expressed an opinion that it would be convenient to the House that the terms of the Motion of which the hon. Member had given notice, should be communicated to the House at as early a period as possible. He had expected that yesterday they would have been furnished with its terms; but they had not, and now another day had elapsed and the terms of the Motion had not been placed before the House. Tomorrow (Wednesday) the House would only meet for a morning sitting, when it was not usual to communicate such Motions of importance to the House. On Thursday the House would not meet at all, and unless they were furnished that night with the terms of the Motion, they could not have them before Friday, if even then they might count on possessing them. He was sure the hon. Gentleman or some of his Friends would answer this inquiry. But hon. Gentlemen must feel that a Motion of that kind ought not, as far as its expressions were concerned, to be kept from their knowledge.
MR. SPEAKERthen put the question that the House do now adjourn.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that before the House adjourned he begged to take the occasion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Wilson Patten) being placed in the Chair of the Committees of the House, to advert to a subject which he had on a former occasion brought before the House. The House had enjoyed the services of its Speakers for an unusully long time without a single day's interruption of the proceedings. During the last seventy years, there had been but two occasions on which the illness of the Speaker had caused an interruption to the proceedings of the House, and then two subsequent occasions on which the Speaker, on account of the death of a near relative, had been obliged to absent himself. But, with these exceptions, the attendance of the Speaker had been unin-

217
terrupted. However, they could not always rely upon the continuance of such unbroken services; and it was obvious that the absence of the Speaker from illness or any other cause, without there being any person to supply his place, might occur at a crisis of our history when it might be of vital importance to the constitution of the country that the House should be sitting. It was in the recollection of many that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act being deemed necessary, that measure was on one occasion passed, he believed, through all its stages on one day. If, at the period of such necessity, Mr. Speaker had been ill, there could have been no House; and a Bill essential to the welfare, and even to the safety, of the State, could not have become law. No provision had been made for the appointment of a Speaker under those circumstances, and he now submitted both to the present leader of the House, and those hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who had lately formed the Administration, whether it were not expedient to provide for such a contingency. The details of such a provision he would not presume to specify; but he thought they might obviate the difficulty by appointing two Privy Councillors on each side of the House, who, in case of any contingency such as he had referred to, might supply, as far as it was in the power of man to supply, the loss which the House and the country would sustain by the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. If that were a fit suggestion to make, he thought it better to make it at a time when there was little likelihood that they would be deprived of the advantages of the Speaker's presence.
The House adjourned at half-after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. Sat First in Parliament —The Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Oaths in Chancery; Law of Evidence and Procedure; County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction; County Courts Further Extension; District Courts of Bankruptcy Abolition.
2a and 3a, and passed, Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis).

MANNING THE NAVY.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to put a question to the noble Duke opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty. He believed that towards the close of last Session a Commission or Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of manning the Navy. He now wished to ask whether any steps had been taken by that Commission or Committee, and whether any report would be laid before Parliament? The subject was one of the most important of those connected with that most important of all questions—the effective force of our Navy, and it was one upon which he felt not an inordinate but a rational anxiety. He hoped above all things that expense would be no obstacle to the improvements which might be required in this department. If there were a man in the House who grudged the money necessary for this purpose, let not that man be listened to.
The DUKE of NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, that he had no difficulty whatever in answering the question of his noble and learned Friend. There was a Committee,

165
not a Commission, under the Board of Admiralty now sitting, to inquire generally into the state of the manning of the Navy, and embracing everything connected with the condition of our seamen. It had been sitting for several months, but no report had yet been made. The Committee was of a private nature, for the purpose of informing the Admiralty, and was composed of many most distinguished officers, in whose judgment the greatest confidence could be placed, and who would ever have prominently in view the good of the service. He entirely agreed that the question was one of great importance.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, when he spoke of the expense, he had in his eye the undoubted fact of the wages being so much better in other branches of the sea service than in our Navy; and, not only in our own mercantile marine, but in the American service.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
The EARL of DERBYthen moved the Second Reading of the Bill with respect to the presentation and payment of Bills falling due on Thursday next.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, entirely approving the Bill, he wished to make one observation with a view of removing some apprehensions which had been expressed with respect to it. It had been suggested that foreign acceptors and endorsers of bills might be released from their liabilities if the bills due on the 18th were presented on any other than the day on which they originally became due. He apprehended, however, that it was a maxim of modern law that that which was done in each country must be taken according to the law of that country. Now, the 17th inst. would be the day for the presentation of bills falling due in England on the 18th, according to the law of this country; and he thought, therefore that the acceptor and endorser would be as much liable if the bill were then presented as if it were presented on the 18th.
LORD TRUROsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill; but he was afraid that some inconvenience might arise. There could be no doubt that the provisions of this Bill, by which bills falling due on the 18th instant might be presented the day previously, would be attended with no evil consequences in relation to British bills. Let them, however, take the case of bills drawn in foreign parts on British subjects. Suppose that one of these bills
166
was in the hands of a British subject, who had to look to the foreign endorser in default of the English acceptor, or suppose the English holder got payment from the foreign endorser, hut that endorser had to look to a prior endorser, and that that remedy had to be enforced in a foreign court —the effect of this Bill would be to alter the nature of the contract which had been made abroad between the parties to the bill. Now a bill of exchange drawn upon a British subject, so far as concerned a British subject, enured according to the British law. Although, however, the general principle of the law was that contracts depended on the law of the country where they were made, there was an exception. If a bill was drawn in one country upon the subject of another in that country, the law of the country where the bill was to be paid was that which regulated the liability of the acceptor. But in this case the foreign endorser had engaged that the acceptor should pay if the bill was presented according to the tenor of the bill; and it was very doubtful if the foreign courts would enforce the contract as altered by an ex post facto law in this country. He wished therefore to suggest that it would behave all holders of bills due on the 18th, whose bills were not paid on Wednesday, to present them again on Friday. Generally speaking, presentation was excused for a reasonable cause, and it had been held that, whore there was a physical restraint on the party holding the bill—such as riots on the day when the bill was duo —nonprcsentation on the day on which it fell due was excused, provided the bill was presented as soon as the physical restraint was withdrawn, and at the earliest practicable moment. Now the effect of this Bill was, if not to render the presentation of bills on the 18th instant unlawful on the day on which they fell due, at least to show that the Legislature intended they should not be presented on that day. That might not be considered equivalent to a restraint by force by the foreign courts. It was therefore important that holders of foreign bills falling due on Thursday should present them on Friday, as the earliest period possible after they fell due, in order to place themselves in the best possible situation,
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he must express his confidence that the foreign endorsers and drawers were liable, according to what would be a good presentation by the law of England when that presentation had to be made. Now, as there were three

167
days of grace there was no necessity for a presentation on the day when the hill fell due; and, therefore, according to the law of England, the presentation would now he good either on the 17th or 19thinst.
LORD TRUROsaid, he referred only to foreign contracts.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that when two Judges gave opinions not exactly the same, he hoped they would not consider themselves hound by the opinions which they might there express, if the point was ever brought before them judicially.
Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; and Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; and Bill read 3a, and passed.

FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
LORD REDESDALEbrought up the First Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the best mode in which the House could assist at the ceremony of the funeral of the late Duke of Wellington.
The Clerk at the table then read the Report:—

"1. That the House be represented in the Procession by the Lord Chancellor only.

"2. That the Lords attending the Ceremony in the Cathedral do appear in Mourning in the Places reserved for them.

"3. That arrangements be made for such Lords as desire to go to the Cathedral by Water to proceed from the House to Paul's Wharf, at a Quarter past Nine o'Clock.

"4. That Tickets be ready for Delivery to all Lords proposing to attend the Ceremony, 'till Five o'Clock To-morrow, at the Earl Marshal's Office, No. 1, Parliament Street; such Tickets will be required by all who go to the Cathedral, whether by Land or Water.

"5. That similar Tickets be also delivered to all Peers of Scotland and Ireland."

Ordered to be printed.
Moved to resolve—
"That this House be represented in the Procession by the Lord Chancellor only."
On Question, agreed to.

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of stating to your Lordships what steps have been taken since we last met for the purpose of carrying into operation the Acts which were passed last Session having reference to the Court of Chancery, and various matters connected therewith. I rise also to state to your Lordships what are the further measures which Her Majesty's Govern-
168
ment propose to adopt for the further prosecution of the objects which your Lordships and the other House of Parliament had then in view. My Lords, the Acts which your Lordships passed last Session with regard to the proceedings of the Court of Chancery were three in number. One Act was for the abolition of the office of Master in Chancery, and for introducing an altogether new system of Chamber practice with regard to matters which, up to that time, had been prosecuted by the Masters in their own Chambers. The next Act was for the Improvement of the Jurisdiction in Equity; and the third Act was called the Suitors in Chancery Relief Act; and it certainly did afford a great relief, by the reduction of salaries and the abolition of useless and unnecessary offices. Now, my Lords, it has been very much the practice of Parliament, and it is a very easy mode (whatever other difficulties it may involve) of getting through the business of legislation on such subjects, not to fill up in detail the outline of the Bills, but to leave almost everything beyond their leading subjects to be carried into execution by Orders to be made by the Court after the Bills themselves have passed. This was the course adopted by Parliament with respect to the measures of last Session; and I can assure your Lordships, therefore, that my vacation has been principally occupied in a species of legislation—sometimes with and sometimes without the assistance of my learned Colleagues—in order to supply what was necessary to give full effect to these Acts of Parliament. My Lords, they are now in full operation; and I think I can assure your Lordships, from what I have already seen, that they will fully effect everything which the country and Parliament have had in view. And I think I may venture to assert that the celerity with which matters will be decided in Chancery will be such as to make the old proverb entirely forgotten, and to lead to the introduction of a new one. I think there is no Court in this country in which questions of property will be decided with such rapidity as there—and by rapidity I do not mean haste, which above all other things is to be deprecated in the administration of justice; I mean really good speed—speed so far as is consistent with the most mature deliberation; and that such speed can now be given to matters coming before the Court of Chancery I hope to show your Lordships before I sit down, as well as that the expense may yet be greatly diminished, so as to render that Court, and every portion of

169
it, at once rapid in its operation and truly cheap to the suitor.
My Lords, independently of the general objects of the Acts in question, there was a very crying evil which has been remedied by the Orders which have been issued by myself and my learned Colleagues. It is a subject which I always had very much at heart—and respecting which I carried my views into effect as far as I could in Ireland. It is this—that there should be a statute of limitations, as it were, within the Court, as well as a statute of limitations without the Court. You pass an Act of Parliament to prevent the bringing forward of old claims; but in the Court itself when once made they may be kept alive and brought forward at a period highly inconvenient and unjust. Your Lordships have an order regarding appeals, which is to this effect—that there shall he no appeal from a decree or order of the Court of Chancery after the lapse of five years after enrolment. Under the early orders of the Court of Chancery, the arrangement was such that the enrolment was intended to take place at once. The intention of your Lordships' House, therefore, at a very early date, was to compel the party to come to this House, if he wanted relief, within five years after he or the other litigating party had first actually got a decree. But, so far from this being practically carried out, the course, up to this last twelvemonth, has been that parties have been allowed in the Court of Chancery to enrol nunc pro tunc, and then the party desiring to appeal to your Lordships' House himself enrols the order, though adverse to himself, and at the end of, it may be, fifteen or seventeen years, he comes to your Lordships' House, and presents an appeal to the House at that distant period; all which leads to great evils and great injustice. There should be no taking away of a man's right to appeal; but there should be no door left open to him for unnecessarily continuing a long and irritating litigation. This evil has been met by Orders to this effect, and I believe they will work most beneficially: In the first place, nobody is to have the right of appeal within the Court of Chancery itself after five years. In the next place, every man is to enrol a decree or order within six months; and after five years have elapsed he is not to be at liberty to enrol at all, except by a special order of the Lord Chancellor, so as to meet what may be a case sometimes of necessity, yet at the same
170
time to prevent different decisions, and keep the subject closely within the time within which he ought to appeal. Therefore, my Lords, there will henceforward be a statute of limitations, as it were, within the Court, as well as one without the Court.
My Lords, the Act for the Relief of the Suitors in Chancery, as I told your Lordships, has also been followed out by orders of the Court. The fees under these Acts have been settled, and they have been greatly reduced in number, and very considerably simplified. A great burden was imposed upon the suitors in having to pay a great many fees upon every occasion at many offices. That evil has been corrected, and the parties will have fewer fees to pay, and the whole system is exceedingly simplified, which in itself will be found to be a very great benefit. I mention this, because I wish clearly to show your Lordships the state of the funds which we have in our Court, and the purposes to which they are applied.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention, and the attention of everybody in the country, to the state of our funds, the nature of the fund out of which the costs of the Court are paid, the costs of the administration of justice, and the means by which I hope still further to reduce those costs. Your Lordships must bear in mind that the additional sum of 9,000 l. a year in the shape of compensation has been thrown upon the funds by the late improvements. You have given large compensations, and at the same time created new offices, so that, although the fees are greatly reduced, yet the immediate expenses have also greatly increased. But, notwithstanding that, my Lords, the saving to the suitors between the fees which were imposed last year, and the fees which will now be imposed under the scale which has just been issued, will be not less than 30,000 l. a year. That is accounted for in some measure by the sum of 26,000 l. a year, for the salaries of the several Judges of the Court, having been transferred to the Consolidated Fund, upon the ground that the Judges ought to be paid by the country, and not by the suitors. And so, unquestionably, the administration of justice ought to be paid for by the public funds, and not by the funds of the suitors. But then there is this clear distinction: the costs of the administration of justice, properly speaking, ought undoubtedly to be paid by the country; but the costs of

171
the administration of the property of a party within the Court ought not to be paid by the public. Every man ought to have a right to go into the Court itself free from expense, if it may be, and to have the decision of the Judge. But, if he has accounts to be taken—if he has estates to be guarded and watched, and kept in order, he is no more entitled to have the expense of that paid for him in Court, than he would be if the operation had taken place out of Court. Keeping in mind that essential distinction, I must call your Lordships' attention a little to the state of the funds, as I shall have occasion afterwards to call your Lordships' particular attention to the operation of them.
There are two funds upon which the Court draws for sums for which it has occasion. One is called the Suitors' Fund, and the other is called the Suitors' Fee Fund. The Suitors' Fund arose in this way—there are in the Court sums of money sometimes of a large amount, which the persons interested in them never require to be invested. The Court, therefore, under the authority of various Acts of Parliament, has been in the habit of itself investing from time to time that portion of the Suitors' "unemployed cash," as it is called, which the Suitor has not required, or directed to be invested on his account. The consequence of the party not requiring it to be invested is, that of course he cannot be entitled to the dividends upon that which he has not had invested, and he is not liable to any loss; but he can demand the amount simply of his cash whenever he thinks proper to do so. The dividends on the stock thus procured are partly applied by the Court in payment of the salaries of officers and expenses of the Court, and the surplus of those dividends is again invested on a separate account, though as part of the same Fund. Nearly 4,000,000 l. has been invested in this way, and the sums standing on these two accounts constitute what is called the Suitors' Fund; and the result is, that at this time there is a fund producing an income of 111,000 l. and a fraction, which is appropriated to the payment of the expenses of the Court and of the administration of justice. Now, my Lords, the sums which by Parliament have been thrown upon this fund amount to 48,320 l. a year. The annual dividend of the fund is 111,843 l.; that leaves a surplus of 63,523 l., which by the Act of last Session—the Suitors' in Chancery Relief
172
Act—was directed to be carried over to the next fund, that is, the Suitors' Fee Fund. My Lords, the Suitors' Fee Fund is a fund— as the very name of it intimates—which arises from fees imposed by the authority of Parliament, and payable by the suitors. That balance of 63,523 l. came in aid of that fund, and the sum which this year will have to be provided for as charges upon the fee fund will amount to 157,450 l. Then, if you take the balance which is to be carried to the credit of the fee fund, 63,523 l., that will leave an amount of 93,927 l., to be levied upon all the Suitors in the Court of Chancery. Now, my Lords, I have no occasion to tell your Lordships that that is a very large sum; yet it is a small sum compared with the actual business done. My Lords, the amount of fees levied last year was 133,842 l. The estimated amount, I have told your Lordships, of the fees this year is 93,241 l.; that is, a saving of 40,601 l.; and then there is to be added 3,838 l. to that for fees hitherto received by the officers for their own use, which have been abolished, and which the suitors will not have to pay. That makes a sum of 44,439 l., which would be the saving in the year. But, my Lords, the Court have received copy money; they have had to copy documents, and have charged a certain amount per folio as copy money, and that sum altogether has produced 10,000 l. a year. The solicitors have complained very much of this. They thought it was taking their own proper business from them, and that they could do it better as between themselves and their clients, if it were left to them. My Lords, it is now left to them, and they will have the benefit of it. The solicitors are themselves to furnish the copies, the expense of which will, as heretofore, amount to 10,000 l. a year. Your Lordships will see it is not a saving to the suitors, because the suitors will still have to pay for copies; but it is not a sum raised by the Court in any manner upon fees which the Court imposes. The result is, that, taking that 10,000 l. off the 44,439 l., because the suitors will still have to pay it, there is a saving of 34,439 l. in this year's estimate between the costs to be paid in the coming year by the general body of suitors, and the costs paid in last year.
My Lords, it is necessary, in order to show to your Lordships what I propose, to state to your Lordships, in some little detail, the particulars of the management

173
of the fund under the care and in the name of the Accountant General. In the first place, I will observe that there has been some complaint made, and justly enough— not as regards the officers, because they have been inclined to give every facility and to do more than officers generally have been in the habit of doing—but complaints have been made that the Accountant General's office is shut the whole of the long vacation, and that when there are persons who have moneys to receive, it is a great hardship that they cannot receive them. I have no doubt we shall be able to make arrangements which, without pressing— as we ought not to press—improperly upon officers who are already sufficiently worked, will enable us to meet the just demands of the public, and to clear the Court from that imputation. I must now draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the state of the Funds standing in the name of the Accountant General. The Accountant General has at this moment standing in his name the sum of 48,015,826 l. stock—an enormous sum to be under the jurisdiction and under the care of the Court; and I have the satisfaction of telling your Lordships that no human being has a claim upon that fund which it is not fully sufficient to answer. With all the burdens thrown upon them, the funds of the Court are more than sufficient to meet them. With a view of seeing whether I could not make an arrangement which should further ease the suitors and very much simplify the management, I have taken great pains to understand the accounts, and to see what further could be done. Taking this last year, the stock and cash "turned over" exceeded 21,000,000 l. of money, and the accounts are upwards of 17,000 in number. Your Lordships will suppose, therefore, what without great care would be the difficulties incident to the management of such vast accounts. The amount of cash which was received by the Court during last year, including that received in respect of sales of securities, was 5,973,769 l.; the amount of cash paid by the Court, including that paid upon purchases, was 5,993,539 l., and I invite your Lordships' attention to the consideration how very nearly those two sums are balanced. Then we come to the stock. The stock, considered With respect to the dealings with it, is of two classes. The first class comprises stock purchased by the Court, and stock sold by the Court; the second class comprises stock accepted
174
by the Court, and stock transferred by the Court, from or to the accounts of different parties. The result of that is as follows:—The stock purchased by the Court last year was 2,181,249 l. The stock sold by the Court was 1,829,009 l., making together 4,010,258 l. The stock accepted was 2,382,591 l., the stock transferred was 2,964,869 l. Upon a comparison of these figures, you will find that by keeping that stock together in one great account, instead of keeping the accounts in the different causes separately, the Court would not have occasion to buy for the whole year more than 230,000 l. stock to meet all those various claims; and yet your Lordships will observe that the real transactions, namely, the actual purchases and sales of stock amounted to 4,000,000 l. and upwards. In order that I may be fully understood, I must explain to your Lordships the way in which transactions are carried on between the Bank and the Accountant General. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, are perfectly aware that certain transactions at the Stock Exchange are carried on by two descriptions of persons, the broker and the jobber. The jobber, unlike the broker, buys and sells stock the whole day long, and has what is called the "turn of the market" upon each transaction, so that buying at l–8th less and selling at l–8th more, in the result he makes l–8th per cent, each way, and that is his profit. Now the Accountant General, having in his hands this vast sum of 48,000,000 l. stock, goes every day into the Stock Exchange, and there buys in the market all the stock which he requires to buy, and sells in the market the stock which is called for, and which has to be sold. Your Lordships may guess how very expensive is this operation, if he has to pay the broker and give the jobber his profit both ways—in fact, it costs 12,000 l. a year—and yet no individual has a right to complain, because no more is done in each particular transaction than the individual himself would have done if he were dealing with his own funds. What I hope to be able to accomplish is this, to get rid, as nearly as possible, of all sales and all purchases. I have had the scheme examined by the experienced officers in the different departments. And I may say here, with reference to this as to all the other subjects which I have to mention, that I have not had occasion to apply to any officer of the Court, from the highest in office to the lowest in station, who has not most readily

175
afforded me every aid in his power. Now, my Lords, this subject was a few years ago under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons. I will quote what is said in their Report, which is called "the Second Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons upon Fees in the Courts of Law and Equity" in May, 1848. They there recommend—
"That the system of brokerage on the suitors' fund should be discontinued, and that the Accountant General should be paid by a salary, and that only the balance of the stock required to be bought or sold in each day should be bought or sold by the broker, and that the one-eighth per cent on the funds transferred thereby saved to the suitor, and which, but for this alteration, would have been actually bought and sold, should be paid to the suitors' fee fund for the benefit of the suitors."
Now, my Lords, the Committee of the House of Commons having this subject under their consideration evidently took for their guidance the practice of the jobber. A jobber never goes home with more stock than he wishes to retain. They say, therefore, that the Accountant General should go each day, and buy or sell only the balance of the stock, and they say also that the saving thereby made ought to go to the Suitors' Fee Fund. I beg leave to differ from that Report upon both these points. I see no necessity whatever for the Accountant General so buying and selling every day or any day, unless cash is actually wanted for current purposes. If he wants cash, he must of course go and sell stock to obtain it; but with 48,000,000 l. of stock he never can want to buy stock. The plan I propose has been fully worked out upon paper, and I have no doubt will work equally well in practice. It does not involve going to the Bank at all, nor putting the party to the expense of a broker; but, without that, everything may be kept perfectly right and regular, and there will be a saving of 12,000 l. a year to the suitors. That is a saving which I think should go—not, as that Report proposes, for the benefit of the suitors generally, but—to the individual suitor. I cannot understand, if you can work a suit without expense, why you are to throw that saving into the general fund. Why should not the man himself have the benefit of it? You charge him dear enough for some things, and if you can let him have other things a little cheaper, why should he not have the benefit? By the plan I propose, then, upon the whole year's transactions it will probably only
176
be necessary to sell some 100,000 l. or 200,000 l. stock. The transactions will, of course, vary from day to day, but not to such an extent as to create any difficulty. It is not until cash is actually wanted that there will be any sale at all. I believe the effect will be that the accounts will be simplified, vast expense will be saved, and the suitors will be benefited. I must mention to your Lordships that one difficulty thrown in the way of this arrangement was, that you would not ascertain what is the price to be paid or accepted by the different persons when there is no longer a real sale or purchase, but only one existing on paper. Fortunately, my Lords, we are enabled to meet the difficulty in the most satisfactory manner. The Bank of England takes the fluctuations every day of the price of each fund up to 1 o'clock in the day, and then it strikes the average. I propose, therefore, to take that 1 o'clock average as the price which every man who sells is to receive, and the price every man who buys is to offer. That will make it very fair as respects all parties, and it will bring this further advantage: Very often sums are ordered to be transferred at the price of a given day. For the computation the broker charges a percentage. The same 1 o'clock price will be adapted to those transactions, and so the suitor will be saved a very considerable sum.
I have told your Lordships that the fund which pays so much of the expenses of the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery consists of a sum which produces 110,000 l. a year. That has been produced by cash paid into Court belonging to suitors which the suitor himself has not required to be invested. I confess during a great part of my professional life I have thought that that was a way in which the money of the suitors ought not to be dealt with. The Court of Chancery itself never permits the trustee of a fund to derive any benefit from that fund. If he were to say, "This money, of which I am trustee, I have invested for my own benefit, taking the corresponding risk"—the Court would, without any hesitation, declare it a breach of trust, and compel him to give up all the benefit which he might have received. Now the Court acts differently with this fund; for, being itself a guardian and trustee of these moneys, because they are not required to be invested, the Court does not therefore decline to invest them;

177
but the Court does invest them, and the interest and dividends are appropriated to its own purposes. The argument in favour of this is of this nature, that the Court acts as banker of the suitors, and, as ordinarily hankers are entitled to employ a balance left in their hands, so the Court itself is entitled to use for the benefit of the suitors generally the money which is thus intrusted to it. There is, no doubt, something in that argument; but I propose to adopt the following plan—that for the future any unemployed cash shall be laid out by the Court when it is not required to be invested, and the Court shall have the benefit of that investment for two years, treating the Court as a banker for that purpose; and if at the end of two years there shall not be any requisition not to lay out the money, the party entitled shall have, as from that period, the benefit and risk of the past investments. Very often this unemployed cash is not invested, owing to the neglect of other parties having no personal interest in it, a neglect of which the persons having such an interest, and who are thereby deprived of dividends to which they are entitled, have cause to complain. I believe that the course which I have suggested will meet the justice of the case without any inconvenience.
My Lords, I have now reached another proposal which I hope will enable me to afford still further relief to suitors. There was an account moved for in the House of Commons in 1851, which I hold in my hand, which is called a "Return from the Accountant General, showing the amount of cash standing to different accounts in his name, and not dealt with during the periods of 10, 25, and 50 years respectively prior to the 1st day of August, 1850; and the amount of stock or other securities standing to different accounts in his name, the dividends on which have not been dealt with during the same periods respectively." It gives the cash and stock in different columns, which have "not been dealt with," as the expression is, during 10 years; those not dealt with during 25 years, and those not dealt with during 50 years. I have to explain to your Lordships that the first line, those not dealt with during 10 years, means not dealt with for 10 years, but within 25 years. The next line, not dealt with for 25 years, means not dealt with for 25 years, but within 50 years; and in the next line 50 years means 50 years and
178
upwards. I wish to bring all those separate accounts together. Many of those sums are so circumstanced that the parties can never call for them—they are in the nature of unclaimed stock. The Court has dealt with them in this manner: Suppose there has been a sum invested: when the dividends are received they are carried to the dead account; so that if it should ever become a living account by a claim upon it by a person justly entitled, that man will find his original sum, with all the dividends received from time to time added to the capital sum he would be entitled to receive. But as fast as those dividends come in, they fall under the head of "cash not invested," and therefore they are invested in a common fund, the produce of which the Court applies to its own purposes. But I propose that in ease of the suitors —and only in ease of the suitors and for no other purpose—the Lord Chancellor shall himself investigate all the accounts, and shall direct that the dividends shall from time to time, instead of being invested, be applied to the expense of the administration of justice, so as to relieve the suitors. Such an investigation I propose shall take place every five years. Independently of other circumstances, the cash was originally invested at an average of 86, and the profit, therefore, on that stock would now be very large. That will yield a large sum in relief of the suitor; and I propose that it shall be applied to his relief, and ultimately to the relief also of the Consolidated Fund.
My Lords, I cannot pass from this topic without declaring my belief, not only that it is impossible that justice can be anywhere administered more speedily than it can be, and will be, in the Court of Chancery, but moreover that the hour will come, and is not far distant, when the suitors in the Court of Chancery will have no costs whatever to pay for the administration of justice—irrespective, of course, of those costs which must always exist between solicitor and client—if it be considered expedient to wholly relieve them. I think I am entitled to say, that I have always been decidedly adverse to Government putting its hands upon this fund. I remember perfectly well in the other House, many years ago, my ear being caught by a conversation between Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Goulburn and Lord Ashburton, then Mr. Baring, the purport of which was, that the Government should, as it was said they

179
could, without any danger to anybody, avail themselves of the funds in the Court of Chancery, adopting a system of inscription in a public book, somewhat, I suppose, on the French system, by which the debt would be altered in its nature, and the country would have the use of the fund without any prejudice to the suitor. I opposed it as strongly as I could, and pointed out the danger which it would involve, not only to the interests of the public creditor, but also to the administration of justice itself. I told Mr. Huskisson that the Equitable also had eight millions of stock, and I said, "perhaps you would like to take that too." The day may come when the Consolidated Fund will be relieved from the payments for the salaries of the Judges; and, if the funds of the Court, properly applicable in that way, are sufficient, I should think it not objectionable. If they are not sufficient, I think the salaries of the Judges should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but if you have a fund in Court which will pay them, which I have no doubt this fund eventually will, there is no reason why the public should not be relieved from their payment.
I shall lay before your Lordships a Bill for the purpose of carrying into effect the several measures to which I have referred.
There is one small measure to which I will take the opportunity of alluding. It is with reference to the persons who are called Masters Extraordinary in Chancery. I have taken some trouble to look into this subject, and I find that a great many of the parties who are so called assume this title for the purpose of giving themselves the appearance of being in a peculiar manner trusted by the Court of Chancery. It costs 8l. or 9l, and the appointment is gazetted. I propose to take away from them their high-sounding title, and to give them the plainer name of "country agents to administer oaths in Chancery," and that they shall not be gazetted. I propose, also, that officers should be appointed to discharge similar functions in the metropolitan district. The fees now paid on their appointment are exorbitant, and my plan is that they should pay one fee of 1l. once for all. That will be another great benefit to the solicitors.
I have now to state to your Lordships what Her Majesty's Government have done for the purpose of carrying into effect the wish of your Lordships and the other House of Parliament in regard to the further improvement of the jurisdiction in
180
Chancery. We have had the misfortune, since we met, to lose the services of a very learned and excellent person, from whom most valuable assistance has been derived on these subjects. Her Majesty's Government have thought it right to issue a new Commission, including the surviving members of the former Commission, and adding others; among them one of the Vice-Chancellors, and Mr. Rolt, Sir John Dodson, Dr. Lushington, and Dr. Harding; the object of the Government being not only that the inquiries already commenced should be prosecuted, but that there should be an inquiry into the working of the jurisdiction in testamentary matters in the different courts of the country. It is a great misfortune that a man's will has to be subjected to the jurisdiction of different tribunals, whose principles of procedure cannot be reconciled. There have been many cases in which great hardship has resulted from the variety of jurisdictions. There was, for instance, a case of Dew V. Clark, which is well known to my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), and doubtless to many others of your Lordships, and in which I was counsel. There, a man being affected by partial insanity, which manifested itself in some delusions respecting his daughter, left his property, both real and personal, to his nephews, passing by his daughter. The will was disputed, and successfully disputed, in the Ecclesiastical Court, having jurisdiction over the personal estate, and was set aside. The matter came, by way of appeal, before my noble and learned Friend, and he refused a Commission of Review. But then the parties upholding the will declared that they had, as no doubt they had, the right to take the case before a jury in a Court of Common Law with reference to a small real estate, and that they would exercise that right. And after all this litigation, and these solemn decisions, the daughter, under the advice of her counsel, of whom I was one, was driven to convey the real estate to the nephews who claimed under the will, as the only way of preventing the whole case being tried over again before a different tribunal. And further, my Lords, now that the appeal from the Ecclesiastical Courts lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not to your Lordships' House, you have a complete separation of two jurisdictions which it is impossible to reconcile. This is a state of things which is discreditable to the country, and ought not to be

181
allowed to continue. There ought to be one plain rule by which the proceedings of all Courts should be guided, and the Government have thought it their duty to see whether some means cannot be found of bringing more into harmony on this subject the different powers of the different Courts. It is of no use, however, attempting to disguise that a more extended investigation into the working of the Ecclesiastical Courts must follow at no distant period.
There is one short Bill which the Government will think it desirable to introduce with reference to the Patent Law. I regret to say that some of the inferior clerks in the Court of Chancery have at times received public money and have not accounted for it. This evil has been wholly obviated by the late substitution of stamps for money payments, and we propose to apply the same system under the Patent Law Amendment Act of last Session.
I will now call your Lordships' attention to a very different subject, one in which many of your Lordships, and especially my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) take a deep interest—I mean the subject of Lunacy. My Lords, there is a great deal of machinery at work (but perhaps not too much) on this subject. There is not only the authority of the Great Seal acting under the authority of the Queen's Sign-manual, but there are two Masters in Lunacy, and a Registrar in Lunacy, and there are three Visitors, whose duty it is, under the Act of Parliament of 1833, to visit persons who are lunatics, by inquisition. Besides that, there are, under another Act of Parliament (commonly called Lord Shaftesbury's Act), eleven Commissioners, five of whom are unpaid and six are paid, that body being presided over by the noble Earl himself (the Earl of Shaftesbury); of whoso zeal and the dedication of whose time to this service it is impossible to speak too highly. Their duty is to license asylums, to visit those asylums, and generally to have the supervision of them. That system has worked well; but in the course of time has been found to require considerable amendment. Those amendments are now in progress, under my direction, with the full co-operation of the noble Earl and his colleagues; and I have every reason to believe that all the difficulties which have hitherto been found to arise in the working of the Commission will be removed by the assistance of Parliament. The Masters, who are attached to the Lord Chancellor in a more particular
182
manner than those Commissioners are, execute all Commissions of Lunacy, and also receive orders and make inquiries. They are very fully employed, and are persons very competent to their duties. The Registrar also has important duties to perform, which he performs very much to my satisfaction. However, when the system is that the Lord Chancellor has, as a matter of course, to send everything to the Master for inquiry, and that then the Master has to inquire, and when he has made inquiries to send it back to the Lord Chancellor, and that then there is to be a hearing in Court before him, there must be undoubtedly a very considerable loss of time, and much unnecessary expense. Then, again, there are many cases in which, on the execution of a Commission of Lunacy, the intervention of a Jury is not only unnecessary but absurd. My Lords, too great anxiety cannot be felt, with regard to the liberty of the subject, not to dispense too hastily with a jury as a universal rule; but there are cases in which, upon the mere sight of a person, it is manifestly a solemn mockery to summon a jury to inquire whether he is of sane mind or not, and, for that purpose, to bring him before the jury, paining unnecessary the feelings of relatives and friends without the slightest object. I propose to do away, as far as may be, with this evil by means which I will presently explain to your Lordships in detail. There are three classes of criminal lunatics for whose care and maintenance it is necessary to make provision: criminals who have been acquitted on the ground of insanity; criminals who are in custody, and have never been tried because they are lunatic; and persons who are dangerous and at large. I could not entirely agree with what was proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) last Session in the Bill which he introduced for a very excellent purpose—namely, for enabling a person who was evidently insane and dangerous to be at once taken and confined, and also to provide for the maintenance of persons who were in lunatic asylums, and were left there by their friends, and who, for the want of funds, were liable to be turned out by the keepers of such asylums, even though their being at large might be attended with danger. I hope to devise a plan which, while it will save the public from the danger to be apprehended from a person clearly insane being left at large till proper steps can be taken to confine

183
him, shall, on the other hand, involve no danger of the infringement of the liberty of the subject in any way.
At present, with respect to Commissions of Lunacy, the course pursued is this: In the case of each person supposed to be a lunatic, a commission issues, directed to the Masters, to inquire with a Jury whether the person is of unsound mind or not. I propose to issue one standing commission, and to refer every case as it occurs to it. By that means there will be saved at once a very considerable expense. I then propose that in every case there shall be notice given to the person respecting whom the inquiry is to be made, and that he shall be at liberty to require a jury; and that unless the Lord Chancellor himself, upon personal inspection of him, shall be of opinion that his infirmity of mind is so great as to render him incapable of forming a rational wish, he shall be allowed to have the intervention of a jury. The examination by the Lord Chancellor would be analogous to that which he now makes in cases of application for a traverse. Such an application my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord Cran-worth) will remember was made in the case of Mrs. Cumming, when he and I and our learned Colleague held that a party was entitled to a traverse as of right, subject to an inspection by the Lord Chancellor, the object of such an inspection being to ascertain, not whether the party is of sound mind or not, but simply whether he is so far sane as that the traverse may appear to be really desired by himself, and not merely by some other interested party. In like manner I propose that, if upon a similar examination in the case of an application for an inquiry, the Lord Chancellor sees that the party himself really wishes for it, he shall direct a jury; but that if no such requisition is made by the party, or the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, on such personal examination, that the party is not competent to express a desire upon it, and that it is unnecessary, the Master shall proceed with the inquiry without a jury—and that the finding of the Master that the party is insane shall operate as an inquisition taken before a jury. And I propose, besides, that the Master should in any case have power to summon a jury, if, on investigation, he think it necessary. In that way an enormous expense will be saved, while the rights of this unhappy class of persons will be entirely preserved. Again, my
184
Lords, a large expense is now incurred by the inquiry at what time the party first became of unsound mind. This originated, no doubt, in a desire to protect the rights of the Crown; but the Crown no longer takes any beneficial interest in the estates of lunatics. The result of the inquiry on this point is in nine times out of ten of no value at all, and in no case is it of any value beyond its being primâ facie evidence. It very often happens that after all these inquiries have been made, and every protection has been carefully and laboriously thrown around the lunatic, you have not left him enough of his property to provide for his hare maintenance. My intention therefore is, that it should be provided that the inquiry as to the sanity or insanity should have relation only to the time present, unless under a special Order of the Lord Chancellor for carrying it back to a particular date. I propose, further, under the power given by an Act of last Session, to substitute a percentage on the incomes of lunatics for the fees now paid; and, my Lords, I think I may say that the application of that principle may be safely intrusted to my hands, because I have always been of opinion that it is most unjust to make a rich man who is afflicted with lunacy liable to pay the expenses of a poor man who is similarly afflicted, merely for that reason. I also propose to get rid of unnecessary attendances by the next of kin. The next of kin have a sort of inchoate right to look after the property of a lunatic, because if he die without leaving a will, they may be entitled to inherit. I do not mean, therefore, that the attendance of the next of kin should be altogether prevented, but that in proper cases a certain number should be allowed to appear. The next thing to be attempted is, to save those unnecessary references which I have already alluded to. The great difficulty is, to improve the working of the Masters' Office, by extending their powers without trenching on the authority of the person acting under the Queen's Sign-manual, which authority it is impossible to give up. A man petitions for an inquiry—the Lord Chancellor sends it to the Master—the Master makes a report, which goes again before the Lord Chancellor. I shall propose that, for the future, wherever the Masters are of opinion that if a petition went to the Lord Chancellor he would send it to them as a matter of course for inquiry, they shall have power to proceed with the inquiry without any order of reference at all, of

185
course subject to objection by any party— and I think that may be accomplished. The last question with which I have to trouble your Lordships on the subject that I am now dealing with is this: a great many matters are brought before the Lord Chancellor at a public hearing in Court, which may be appropriately disposed of at Chambers. If, my Lords, we adopted a system in perfect harmony with the provisions of the Masters in Chancery Abolition Act of last Session, the Masters in Lunacy should have chambers in immediate connexion with the Lord Chancellor; but that is impracticable. I propose, however, that when the report of a Master is not objected to, that report, instead of being made the subject of a petition which must be heard by the Lord Chancellor in Court, shall be transmitted from the office of the Master to the Lord Chancellor by the hands of the Registrar. If it is a matter which requires public investigation, either party will have the right to require it to be so investigated. In that way no expense will be incurred by an order so made in Chambers beyond the necessary cost of the order itself. My Lords, there is a class of small cases in Lunacy with respect to which a great deal of feeling has been naturally excited. Several very painful cases were stated to your Lordships last year—for instance, the case of a household servant who had saved a small sum in the course of his service, and who became a lunatic. A commission issued in his case, and the various expenses left scarcely anything of his hard-earned savings for his support. I propose to deal with the cases of such persons with great tenderness. In cases where the amount of property is under 700 l., for the income under 50 l., I propose that it shall be charged nothing under the scale of percentage till the fund is called for out of Court on the death of the party himself, and then only such a small percentage as will be a fair contribution towards the expenses of the establishment. There is only one point further on the subject of Lunacy which I will mention. Your Lordships are aware that in the Act which I have already mentioned as Lord Shaftesbury's Act, there is an exception of Bethlehem Hospital from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, and one of the proposed amendments of that Act is to give the Commissioners power to visit that Hospital. I say this without the slightest intention of implying any censure upon the governors of that institution. Charges have been made
186
against them: it may be my duty to investigate those charges; but it has not been so hitherto, and I can sincerely say that I am altogether ignorant of the merits of the charges against them.
Another subject on which I have some observations to make to your Lordships is that of Bankruptcy. The Act of 1849 established an entire code of bankruptcy law. It required Orders, however, for the purpose of putting that Act into full operation, which Orders have only recently been issued by the Commissioners, with my approval, as the Act required. Great difficulty was experienced in obtaining the concurrence of eight Commissioners, which the Act rendered necessary. I, however, set about the matter with some earnestness, and 163 orders have been issued, which complete the system that the Act of 1849 introduced. One great difficulty which has been felt is with respect to the payment of the official assignees. It is a subject which has very much engaged, not your Lordships' attention, but the attention of merchants in the City of London. The Act of Parliament seemed to give to each Commissioner the power of fixing the allowances to the official assignees in his own Court, which led to variation of the scales in the Courts of the different Commissioners; but I propose that the Lord Chancellor should have power, with the advice and consent of the Lords Justices, to adopt one scale binding in the Courts of all the Commissioners throughout the country. With regard to their remuneration, the official assignees have been placed in a false position. When those officers were first appointed, there were great arrears of bankrupts' estates outstanding, from which the official assignees received a large income; in some cases, I believe, so large as to exceed the incomes of the Commissioners, the Registrar, and all the other officers of the Court. In the course of time that source of profit ceased, and they now complain that their emoluments are too small. I have been reluctantly induced to agree to an order which gives them a certain percentage upon each debt. For a long while I objected, and wished the allowance to be upon the gross receipts; but I was told that that would be a very insufficient amount, and that it could not in justice be adopted, and therefore I gave it up. But the new system must be subject to this condition: I propose not to fill up the appointment of any official assignee, which being left vacant would enable the other

187
official assignees to obtain a sufficient remuneration. In the case of Manchester, one of the official assignees has been unfortunately dismissed. I have not filled up the vacancy so occasioned, because the income arising from that particular office is not sufficient to remunerate a gentleman for his labour and time; but by this addition to the remuneration of the others the difficulty will be overcome. I propose, also, that the Lord Chancellor shall be empowered to refrain from filling up vacancies which may occur in the number of Commissioners in the country, so as to bring the number more into accordance with the requirements of the district. My Lords, I have been very anxiously inquiring what can be the reason why the business in the Court of Bankruptcy has fallen off, especially when I perceive that the fees received in respect of business in that Court are insufficient to meet the expenses. At the same time, my Lords, it must be borne in mind that the payments include an amount of 18,000 l. a year for compensations to gentlemen whose offices have been abolished by Parliament. Therefore it is not fair to attribute to the present administration of justice in bankruptcy the expense represented by the whole amount of those payments. As these compensations drop, the funds of the Court of Bankruptcy will become more capable of defraying its current expenses. One reason assigned for the falling-off of the business, has been, that the system of giving different classes of certificates operates as a stigma upon the trader. The first commercial men in the City of London, merchant princes as they are, men of the highest feelings, may fall into misfortune; but in order to obtain a first-class certificate it is requisite that nothing but unavoidable misfortune shall have contributed to the bankruptcy of the party. Now, the very heart and soul of commerce is enterprise, and it is very difficult to say where enterprise ends, and want of due caution begins. I am persuaded that one of the effects of the present system is to keep out of the Court of Bankruptcy many cases where persons would gladly avail themselves of it, were it not for fear of the stigma which might be unjustly inflicted upon those who by their instrumentality become exposed to it. The Act of Parliament enacts that "the Court, having regard to the conformity of the bankrupt to the law of bankruptcy, and to his conduct as a trader before as well as
188
after his bankruptcy, and whether the allowance of his certificate be opposed by any creditor or not, shall judge of any objection against allowing such certificate, and either find the bankrupt entitled thereto and allow the same, or refuse or suspend the allowance thereof, or annex such conditions thereto as the justice of the case may require." It is, therefore, imposible to say that a very large power is not here given to the Commissioner. It is enacted in the next section that the certificate shall be in the form given in the schedule, and from that schedule all the difficulty has arisen. The Commissioner is directed by the schedule to certify that the bankruptcy has arisen from unavoidable losses and misfortunes, and thereupon to award a first-class certificate; or that the bankruptcy has arisen not wholly from unavoidable losses and misfortunes, in which case he is to award a certificate of the second class; or that the bankruptcy has not arisen from unavoidable losses and misfortunes, in which case he is to award a certificate of the third class. The consequence of this is, that the Commissioners have the power to examine into all the acts of the bankrupt, including his personal conduct, and to scrutinise it in a way which has led to very great objection on the part of many persons to bring those with whom they have had commercial dealings into the Court. I propose to repeal so much of the Act as gives the Commissioners power to grant 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class Certificates, but to leave untouched the power of refusing or suspending the allowance of the certificate. The second reason alleged for the falling-off of business in the Court of Bankruptcy is, that the percentage is unduly high where the property exceeds 1,000 l. This objection I propose 'to obviate, if I find the allegation is well-founded. I may mention another thing which has led to a falling-off of the funds of that Court. Parties have been in the habit of entering the Court and availing themselves of its jurisdiction up to a certain point, and then, when it was convenient to themselves, of withdrawing from it and settling matters privately. I am far from desiring to interfere with their power of doing so, but I think they ought not to be allowed to throw serious labour upon the officers of the Court, without paying a just contribution towards the expenses of the Court.
It was proposed last Session by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), that certain of the powers of the Court of Chan-

189
cery should be exercised by the Judges of the County Courts. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that those powers may properly be given in aid of the Court of Chancery; but I propose to give them to the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy instead of to the County Court Judges, because I think that the Commissioners, from the nature of their jurisdiction, will be likely to perform those duties with more satisfaction to the Court of Chancery itself. I also propose to give to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy jurisdiction under what are called the Dead Men's Clauses. Under those clauses the Court would have the same jurisdiction after the man's death as during his life, subject to this restriction, that the man had been a trader within the bankrupt laws at the time of his death, and that his debts remained unpaid for a certain time after his death. One difficulty in the way of the adoption of this course is, that I have ascertained that the costs of such proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy would be considerably higher than the costs of similar proceedings in the Court of Chancery. Another difficulty is, that under the administration of bankruptcy specialty debts are cut down to an equality with simple contract debts. This is not objectionable in the administration of bankruptcy when the trader is alive, but of course it cannot be allowed after his death. It will therefore be necessary, my Lords, to take care to reserve to the specialty creditor the rights which he would now have in the Court of Chancery after the death of his debtor.
Another point to which I would refer before passing from the subject of Bankruptcy is this: Solicitors are now permitted to appear as advocates before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy. I propose to put the same restriction as is now put upon attorneys under the County Courts Act. That is, my Lords, I object to what are called attorney-advocates. I do not object to a man's attorney arguing his case for him, but I do object to an attorney being turned into a barrister, and acting as an advocate. There is no fair play in that. I desire to see the profession stand upon its proper basis. I wish the barrister not to trench upon the province of the attorney, nor the attorney upon the province of the barrister. Let each stand in his own place. Depend upon it, my Lords, if the system which has so long prevailed be broken in upon, great evils will ensue. It will necessarily lower the character of the Bar. Whether it will elevate
190
the character of attorneys, I will not stay to determine; but, at any rate, there must be equality. Your Lordships had, in the course of last Session, to decide whether you would continue the restriction upon counsel from acting in the County Courts without attorneys, or whether you would leave the etiquette of the profession and the honour of the Bar to maintain things as they have hitherto existed. It so happened that the decision of that question, if I may say so, devolved upon myself. My noble and learned Friends were divided in opinion, two and two, and as the matter was left by the House to the decision of the Law Lords, it necessarily fell to the fifth to give the casting vote, if I may call it so, upon the question. I did give that vote with great reluctance in favour of repealing the law which prohibited counsel from acting without attorneys; but while I did so I took care expressly to state that I gave that vote upon the distinct statement that attorneys had threatened the Bar that if they took business in the County Courts, they should not have business elsewhere. I meant to leave it, therefore, to the honour of the Bar to act as they had always acted, not intending to open the door at all, unless there be an absolute necessity for it, to the practice of barristers acting without the intervention of attorneys—a practice, in my view, highly objectionable, and one which I should be the last person to countenance. Certain barristers, however, I re-grot to hear, have since then taken upon themselves to decide that they will thus act without attorneys. That is a practice, my Lords, which cannot be too highly reprobated. I am far from saying that, in the present state of the law, the Bar, as a body, may not properly meet and consider what it becomes them in their station to do. But if any such serious change in the long-established usage of the Bar is to be made, it ought at any rate to be made with the concurrence of a large majority; and I entirely object to any small number, or even to any considerable number, taking upon themselves to act contrary to the general rule of the profession, now so long established. My Lords, the Bar at the present moment is in a state of transition, and I would recommend everybody having any voice or any influence in this matter to consider where—if you allow the Bar to lower its own station or dignity—you are to look for learned persons to fill your Benches and carry on the administration of justice.

191
With respect to the County Courts, my Lords, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government at present to propose any change in them. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) wished for an appointment of a commission of inquiry as to their operation; but I think so many changes have already been made in them by the Legislature that we ought now for a time to leave them alone, especially as there is so much that is useful in other ways to be accomplished.
The same noble and learned Lord will be glad to hear that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with what is called a "Digest of the Criminal Law." Your Lordships are aware that this is a subject which has been very much considered. Two Commissions have been appointed, whose labours have occupied, in the whole, some fifteen years, and have produced thirteen blue books, in which is to be found much valuable information. The country has already expended 40,000 l. in the acquisition of this information; and it is desirable that that expenditure should not be thrown away. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government do not feel it necessary to renew the Commission: such a step they consider would only lead to expense, delay, and difficulty, and they therefore propose to proceed with measures founded upon the existing reports, which contain abundant and well-considered materials for legislation. I am, as my noble and learned Friend well knows, no friend to codification in general. But, if that principle can be properly applied in any case, it surely may be so in the case of the Criminal Law. Even there, however, we must proceed with much caution, with regard as well to the substance as to the form of the Digest. My noble and learned Friend, I observe from a printed letter of his, seems to think that we should not attempt to improve or alter the subject, but take the propositions as we find them. My Lords, unless we are careful, we may collect a set of bad treatises and give them a binding effect. Valuable treatises are now resorted to by the Judges for information, but they are not bound by them; they can, therefore, extract the principle, and adapt and mould the relief as justice may require. But if effect be given to like treatises as statute-law, the Judges must follow them implicitly, and thus great difficulty will arise: for it would be dangerous to allow the Judges to depart from the rule as digested, and yet
192
without that power it would constantly be found necessary to resort to Parliament to amend the law, than which nothing can be more prejudicial. I propose, therefore, without attempting anything like the Code Napoleon —for it is impossible for us with our system of legislation to revise the law in the manner in which the laws of France were discussed and revised before binding effect was given to the Code— to correct any anomaly or error which we discover, and to make the Digest as accurate in point of law as if we were passing enactments in the ordinary way, although it is manifestly hopeless to expect the same accuracy in all the details of a vast subject as if we were dealing with only a branch of it. It may, after all, be a dangerous experiment, and it must not be considered as a pledge on the part of the Government to proceed beyond the Digest of the Criminal Law. I have, however, the satisfaction of now informing my noble and learned Friend, that, consistently with these views, the first part of such a Digest has been actually prepared in the form of a Bill relating to Offences against the Person. The subject of the Criminal Law is a very large one, and it would be a vain attempt to deal with the whole of it at once, and to pass the entire Digest in one Bill. The subject, therefore, must be broken up into parts to be dealt with in separate Bills. And we propose, as I have said, to begin with Offences against the Person. This course will have the further advantage that it will give an opportunity of introducing those amendments which will, doubtless, be found necessary from time to time, before the several Bills have been gone through. When all the Bills have been passed, I would not consolidate them into one Act, because a very long Act of Parliament is a very great evil; but, on the other hand, it is no less an evil to be obliged to search for different Acts on the same subject, scattered through many volumes of the Statute-book. Therefore, at the end, the course will be to repeal all the Bills which have been enacted, and to re-enact them at one time, with the corrections and amendments, numbering them consecutively, so that they may be found with convenience, following one another in a proper order, in the same volume of the Statutes. In that way you will gain great facility of reference, and will have all the advantages of a single Act of Parliament without its cumbrousness and inconvenience.
The only remaining subject to which I need refer, is the Patent Law Amendment

193
Act of last Session. Orders have been requisite for the purpose of bringing it into complete operation, and to the issuing of those Orders I and my learned Colleagues the Commissioners are now addressing ourselves.
My Lords, I know that Her Majesty's Government will have the assistance of noble Lords on both sides of the House in maturing and carrying into execution the various measures to which I have referred. Fortunately, they have nothing to do with politics, but relate only to a subject which we all must regard as of paramount importance—the administration of justice. I feel that I owe no apology to your Lordships for the length at which I have detained you, but I must express my gratitude for the patience with which your Lordships have listened to me.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was quite sure that never was debt of gratitude less due than on the part of his noble and learned Friend; for no one could have listened to him without being fully aware that they must express their gratitude to him, not he to their Lordships. The great variety of the subjects opened, he might say largely discussed, by him, and their importance, their variety, the difficulty of some, the importance of all of them—might well be a reason for his not following him over the field which he had so ably and so learnedly gone over. He must reserve his opinion, as their Lordships also would do, on the subjects touched upon, until the Bills themselves, embodying the suggestions made, were before the House, only he could not entirely concur with his noble and learned Friend on some of the subjects, and he entertained considerable doubt in regard to others; but he would advert to one or two merely by way of sample. As to lunacy, for instance, he had no doubt that the object proposed was highly desirable, but he felt considerable doubt as to the modus operandi. He believed, in the matter of bankruptcy, that great improvement might be effected in the circumstances of those holding the office of official assignee, although it had not been stated how that was proposed to be done; but he gave his noble and learned Friend credit for the course he intended to adopt in respect to those highly useful officers in not filling up vacancies, except so far as the business of the Court required, with a view to an increase of the fund for the relief of those who remained in as
194
official assignees. There was another instance in which he concurred in part, and as to portion differed, from his noble and learned Friend. He had great doubt as to the question respecting certificates. He admitted that the falling-off in bankruptcy business was mainly to be attributed to the establishment of three classes of certificates, and some improvement might possibly be effected in that part of the system; at the same time he affirmed that a more useful improvement never was made than that which was introduced by the establishment of these three classes of certificates in the Act of 1849. This system might be improved—abandoned it never could be. As to the Suitors' Bill which his noble and learned Friend proposed, as it would be doing for the suitor no more than the strictest justice, so it would be a great improvement generally; upon that there could be no doubt. Upon one point he felt gratitude was due from all amenders of the law to his noble and learned Friend. After his long experience of the profession, and now charged with its highest judicial duties, he had recognised the great principle in express terms, that the suitors ought to be enabled to obtain their just rights, when withheld, or to defend them when attacked, without paying taxes of any kind as suitors for the administration of the law—which it was the bounden duty of the Government to provide, not of the unfortunate suitor, it being the condition of the subject's allegiance that he should be protected. There were some other questions upon which he would have made a few remarks, had it not already been so late; but another opportunity would offer when the measures themselves were under the discussion of the House. He was sorry to find his noble and learned Friend avowing he was not a friend of codification; but he hoped his noble and learned Friend would not imagine that his objections could not be satisfactorily and triumphantly answered. He would not refer to those objections which he had urged, further than to say they were old, and had often been answered: suffice it for him to express his great satisfaction that his noble and learned Friend made an exception in favour of the criminal law, whether consistently or not was immaterial. He (Lord Brougham) thought there was no inconsistency, though he knew that some considered the criminal law less fit for a digest than any other branch. In that he did not concur. The

195
course which the noble Lord proposed to adopt upon that, by taking the subject not as a whole but piecemeal, was the same suggested by one of the learned Commissioners, Mr. B. Ker, who some time ago convinced his noble Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) and himself that it was advisable to pass the digest which he (Lord Brougham) had on the report of the Commissioners twice brought in as a Bill, in separate Bills, beginning with the great chapter of Offences against the Person, prefaced, of course, by the preliminary chapter applicable to all offences; and that Procedure should come last. The discussions they had held at the beginning of the recess had led to this opinion, and also to the necessity of having the whole statutes repealed and enacted as one digest, in the manner now proposed (with the numbers running through it). He said he did not despair of seeing his noble and learned Friend come round to the opinions which he and others held upon codification of the law. But there was another subject on which he differed, he feared, yet more widely from his noble and learned Friend—he meant Registration. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: Hear, hear!] However, even here he was not without hope. He had known instances in. our history, he would not say at what period, of great changes of opinion on subjects if possible more important—certainly more interesting to the community at large. He recollected, in those passages of history, mention being made of many persons, bodies of men important both from their number and their value, holding very strong opinions on subjects still more exciting than that of cheap law; and after living some few years in these very decided, and even vehement, opinions, all at once coming round to the views he and others held, so that now there really was no difference whatever between them; and, to his unspeakable satisfaction, he found himself ranged at the same side on the very important and interesting, and even exciting, subject of cheap—he would not say what, but he might call it, for the present, cheap law, as if they had never differed about it. He hoped that a like conversion awaited his noble and learned Friend upon the subject of registration, when it should be called for by public opinion, just as the kind of cheap law had been to which he now referred. He could not sit down without expressing his opinion of the great merit of his noble and learned Friend with regard to the measures of last Session;
196
it would be the height of ingratitude in him, and all desirous of improving the law, were he not to recognise the extraordinary labour—the skilful and learned labour— which he had bestowed in carrying those Bills into execution, and in that labour the self-denial, as to any increase of his patronage, which had prevailed through the whole course of the last autumn's labours, in preparing the orders under the Patent Laws Bill, the Suitors' Bill, and the Masters Abolition Bill. Speaking of the Patent Laws, without the least dis-trust of his noble and learned Friend proceeding with the measures now announced, he proposed to pursue as to some of them the same course he had taken last Session on the Patent Laws; namely, to present his Bankruptcy Bill and County Courts Extension Bill again, while his noble and learned Friend presented his Bills on those subjects; just as formerly his (Lord Brougham's) Patent Law Bill had been presented along with the Bill of the Government; and their Lordships would see which of the two Bills was best, or prefer, as they did in the Patent Laws, a combination of both. He would therefore bring before their Lordships that part of the County Courts Extension Bill of last year and the year before, which was not passed last Session, but was postponed not to disturb the great Bill for the improvement of the Jurisdiction of the Equity Courts. He would add a third Bill, which was two years ago before them, for extending the Jurisdiction of the County Courts to equitable matters, for it was difficult to justify, and the pub-lie were ill reconciled to, a system which suffered them to obtain justice at their own door without delay and at little cost upon rights of one kind, as on one sort of debt or claim, and yet on another kind of debt or claim drove them, not only from their own door, but into the expense and delay of the Court of Chancery. And, lastly, he proposed to lay upon the table a Bill for the further improvement of the law of evidence and procedure, which would contain the following provisions upon that important subject, namely, making competent the evidences of husband and wife—competent and compellable in all cases except criminal trials and adultery, and except in matters communicated by either to the other during coverture; regulating all matters connected with the payment of money into court, and providing that the payment into court should be no admission upon the ques-

197
tion at issue; regulating the examination and cross-examination of witnesses with respect to the objection of raising collateral issues; regulating, partly by declaration, partly by enactment, what was known as the rule in the Queen's case, the cross examination of witnesses upon the contents of written documents; depriving witnesses of the protection afforded them at present by law against answering questions where their answers might criminate themselves, and preventing any such answer being given in evidence against them in any prosecution, except for perjury upon those answers. Then as to procedure in all cases between the Crown and the subject, to place them both on the same footing with regard to the right of reply, and other privileges now claimed by the Crown; next, where a party has been acquitted, whether upon a proceeding for penalties, or a criminal procedure, that he should be entitled to his costs against the Crown, subject to the discretion of the Court; and, lastly, to facilitate under the authority of the Court, or a Judge, the change of the venue in criminal cases. He had great doubts whether he ought not to go a step further in dealing with these matters; for it was found in the County Courts that the result was that not three in a hundred of the cases were tried by jury, where either of the parties had the option; and he really felt that in cases of debt and contract, not of tort, it should be left optional with the parties in the Superior Courts, as it was in the County Courts, to try by a jury, or content themselves with the opinion of the Judge. On one subject more he must detain their Lordships. He must express his earnest hope that strenuous efforts would at length be made to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, by some other mode than that now adopted. This could not be done in the two ways proposed for effecting it; it could not be done either by the ballot or by a large increase of the constituent body. As to the ballot, he said he had, he would not say an irre-moveable objection, but a very great repugnance to it on various grounds. Respecting these, doubt3 might be entertained, but of one thing he was quite certain —the ballot was no cure for bribery. It would not prevent bribery, but it would prevent prosecution for it. The promise would be given to pay so much if a certain person was elected, and thus every voter taking the bribe would be converted into an agent for the bribing party, as well as being him-
198
self a corrupt voter. He also saw no kind of security against bribery in the increase of the constituent body. He was, and ever had been, decidedly favourable to that increase, so it were made upon safe and well-considered principles; and especially if it were so made as to improve the representative body itself; but he expected no benefit from it as regarded the prevention of bribery. It was only when parties were somewhat nearly balanced that bribery was rife—and a few hundreds turned the scale in a very large body of voters. A certain number to turn the scale would be found in a body of 10,000 as well as one of 400 or 500, and these would be the persons bribed. He was, therefore, of opinion that more stringent measures ought to be taken for the prevention of this most pernicious practice. The criminal law against it must be made more severe, and the new law of evidence would, with that increased severity, extirpate the offence, one of the most crying evils of these times. His Lordship then introduced, 1st, a Bill for further amending the Law of Evidence and Procedure; 2nd, a Bill for Extending the Jurisdiction of the County Courts to certain Matters cognizable in the Court of Chancery; 3rd, a Bill further to extend the Jurisdiction of the Judges of the County Courts, and to facilitate Proceedings in the High Court of Chancery; and 4th, a Bill to limit the Jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Court of Bankruptcy, to abolish the Courts of Bankruptcy for the County Districts, and to give to the Judges of the County Courts Jurisdiction in Matters of Arrangement and of Bankruptcy in certain cases; which were severally read a first time, and ordered to be printed. House adjourned to Friday next.