having alluded to the Handbill from the Colliers quoted last evening by the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, asked whether he had any objection to produce it, and lay it on the Table?

replied, that it was a mere Printed Handbill, which he could not lay on the Table; but, if the hon. Gentleman wished to have a copy for the purpose of debate, he (Sir R. Peel) would take care to furnish a copy.

having presented numerous Petitions for extension of the Suffrage, to secure the free representation of the people. As he had entered fully into this subject when his Motion was before the House on a lute occasion, he would not long detain the House. The great principle of representative Government was, that some men were entrusted with the natural rights of others to exercise for their benefit. In principle, he contended for Universal Suffrage, although it must necessarily be in some respects limited. Every man ought to have a share in the appointment of those who made the laws, which he was bound to obey, and the natural rights of men must be limited only by the public good. He maintained, therefore, the principle of Universal Suffrage, only limited by such regulations as, in some cases, the manifest good of the community required. The principle for which he contended was, Manhood Suffrage, and the Bill he sought to introduce would declare that all males, twenty-one years of age, should be entitled to a vote for Members of Parliament. This right, however, he would limit by Registration Laws, which would confine the exercise of the Franchise to those who were residents for a certain length of time in certain districts, a restriction which he believed to be required by the common good of the community, and for the safety of the Stale itself. He would, also, exclude from the Franchise all those who were under sentence by verdicts of their countrymen, and he would also, of course, exclude all such persons as were not of sane mind; but his object would be, that no class of the community should be excluded as a class, and he would make all subject to limitations, which would equally affect all classes. The advocates of the complete representation of the people thought that, although there might be Universal Suffrage, there could not be full, fair, and free representation unless the electoral districts were equalized. If a district having one hundred voters, returned as many Members as another district having 1,000 voters, it was impossible to say, that there was a fair representation of the people. Another essential principle in the Bill he now sought to bring forward, was the introduction of the Vote by Ballot, for he considered it would be utterly impossible that an extended suffrage could work satisfactorily without the Vote by Ballot, and at the same time he was of opinion, that the Vote by Ballot was not safe or expedient without extended suffrage. He would, therefore, propose the Vote by Ballot to free the voter from that undue influence which would prevent his voting accordingly to the honest dictates of his conscience. These, then, were the three essential principles of his Bill: — 1. Extension of the Suffrage. 2. A new arrangement, and a more equal distribution of the electoral districts; and 3d. Vote by Ballot. It was not necessary for him to go into any details to enforce the necessity of this change. He need only refer to the Address of the Electors of Liverpool to their Representatives, in which they complain that 500,000 Electors chose a majority of the House, and that the Reform Bill had disappointed all their hopes, and to the Petition which he had presented last evening, complaining that twenty-seven small boroughs, with an aggregate population of 172,000 persons, sent thirty-two Members to that House, whilst Liverpool, with a population of 100,000 more than the whole of those twenty-seven towns, only sent two Members, to show that the constitution of Parliament required amendment. He would ask also any hon. Member in that House, whether, under the present electoral system, justice were done to the people of Ireland? The great practical object, however, which he had in view in the change he now proposed, was the admission of the working classes to the Franchise. He considered, that the working classes were not sufficiently protected by the present state of the representation. They required a protection which the use of the Electoral Franchise and their consequent influence in that House, would give them, whereas he held that they were now in danger of oppression. He saw no reason for refusing the Franchise, in the fact, that the working classes were poor and unlearned. They required the more protection, because, they were poor and unlearned. It was not necessary for a voter to understand State policy, it was enough if he were able to judge of the character of those who offered themselves for his suffrage; and if want of learning were a fatal objection, he would ask, whether many of the present voters were not wholly unlearned? To show that the working classes needed protection, the very vote to which the House had come that morning, was to him, sufficient proof. Three several times had the House declared by its vote that there should be a limitation in the hours of labour. Those votes given in kindness for the working classes, had been revoked by a majority of 138. What was the reason they were rescinded? Did the working classes ask for the revocation? Had they not the unanimous feeling of the working classes expressed at all the public meetings, approving of the limitation of the hours of labour, and urging Members to give to their proposals continued support. If they looked at the last Report from the Committee on Public Petitions, they would find that the people had unanimously petitioned for this limitation. Yet those votes were rescinded, because one section of that House was too powerful, and the other section too weak. It was because the money party had power over the Government, and the Government, having influence with Members, commanded the House to rescind the previous votes, and so those votes were rescinded. It thus appeared, that the House was a very good representation of the Government, but not of the people. Could he believe, that this would have happened if the represen- tation had been free? Could he believe, that Members would have suddenly changed their votes and their opinions if they had before them the prospect of a return to their constituents to be freely elected? He felt, therefore, that he had a claim on those who had supported the noble Lord (Ashley) to support him upon the present occasion. If the limitation of the hours of labour was right, then had a grievous wrong been done to the working classes, and he would ask those hon. Members what was their remedy? He did them justice for their sincerity, but it would be necessary for them to show their sincerity by their votes on this question, which would demonstrate that they were ready to give that influence to the working classes, which was necessary to secure the limitation of their hours of labour. He would claim also the support of the advocates of Household Suffrage, since his own proposal was not very different from theirs, or at least he asked them to allow the introduction of his Bill, and then to discuss its provisions. He would claim the aid more especially of the Irish and Scotch Representatives, because his proposal would secure a just proportion of representatives to every portion of the Empire. He asked for support also from the Repealers of the Corn Laws, for how could they carry out their repeal unless they poured more democratic influence into the House? He must, at the same time say, that there were other points besides those he had enumerated which the people deemed to be necessary for a full and free representation. The first was, a reduction in the duration of Parliament. No man could say that there could be free representation and proper responsibility so long as Parliament subsisted for seven years. There might be difference of opinion as to the time to which Parliament should be limited, but there was no doubt that the duration should be reduced. Another principle laid down was, that a qualification for Members should not be required, and that the ancient principle of the constitution of the payment of Members should be revived. These were all matters of detail, which he would be ready to argue, if he were allowed to introduce his Bill. He was not so absurd as to say, that there could be no improvement in the representation short of what he proposed, but it was his duty to tell the House what the full demands of the people were. The House relied on its majorities, and voted against popular rights, but he warned them that there was a mass of discontent abroad, which might lead to results the most disastrous if the grievances of the people were not redressed. They complained, that they were obliged to obey laws which they had no share in making, and to pay taxes which they did not send representatives. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Parliamentary Suffrages, and to secure the free representation of the people.

had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend. At this moment, when great discontent prevailed amongst the people, this was a subject which ought to receive the peculiar attention of the House. He believed that public opinion, of which that House ought to be the representative, sometimes erred; but he was convinced that they had only to create out of doors a strong popular power, in order to effect the most beneficial changes in the laws of the land; and although the people might occasionally be wrong, he did not think they would permanently be so; on the contrary, he believed, that those who were excluded from the Franchise, would bring a great deal of useful knowledge into the House. He had never been able to understand why the possession of a greater or less amount of wealth should decide the capacity of a man to exercise the duties of an elector. A much greater proportion was taken for State interests from the unrepresented than from the represented. The Member concluded by seconding the Motion.

The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 97: Majority 66.

said, that he was about to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the compensations which had been awarded, under the Statute 5 and 6 Vict., c. 103. That Statute passed on the 8th of August, 1842, and the compensations were awarded by an order of the Lord Chancellor, in December, 1843; so that this application was made as early as possible. By that Statute, the offices of Clerk of the Enrolments, Comptroller of the Hanaper, Riding Clerk, Six Clerks, Sworn Clerks, Waiting Clerks, Agent, or Record Keeper, in the Court of Chancery in England, were abolished; and therein provision was made, for compensation to the persons filling those offices. It was the principle and amount of that compensation of which he complained. It had long been considered that those officers were perfectly useless. These compensations had been valued by a competent authority, and it was calculated that they would cause a charge upon the suitors in the Court of Chancery of one million of money. The annual sum to be paid was 78,741l. 14s. l1d. out of the pockets of the suitors. The offices of the Six Clerks were ancient offices, but latterly the duties had been very small indeed-they might be termed sinecures. They were patent offices, in the appointment of the Master of the Rolls. The number was originally six, but were now reduced to five. They were, from the nature of their office, fit subjects for compensation. In former days, the office had been sold, this had not been the case in modern times. Lord Clarendon mentioned an instance where a person obtained the office from Sir Julius Cæsar, when Master of the Rolls. In 1838 and 1839, his hon. Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, obtained the first insight into their fees. It was with reference to the Clerks of the Six Clerks that he had to call for an inquiry. They were called Sworn Clerks, or Clerks in Court. They were not appointed to any office, they had no pretence to fill an office, they had merely a monopoly of a business, to conduct the business of the Court of Chancery. In the reign of Charles H. there were ninety of these persons; by an order of Jefferys, their number was reduced to sixty. They had little or no duty to perform; in fact, they were an absolute obstruction to the public business. They had little more to do than to attend at their offices in Chancery Lane; and some of those individuals were now receiving upwards of 7,000l. a-year. Several of these Clerks of Six Clerks were declared to be entitled to a compensation of 5,500l. a-year for life; and he did hope the House would think that it was a case which called for the most rigid inquiry. Their fees depended on the number of attorneys employing them. A man might fill the office for fifty years and not re- ceive one shilling; but if he was enabled to conciliate the attorneys, he might make a large income. The Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls had the power of altering the fees, which they were allowed to receive from day to day and from hour to hour. Lord Hardwicke in his time by an order, regulated the amount of their fees, and some alteration was also made in them by Lord Erskine. There was, in fact, no permanence in the fees. Lord Lyndhurst, when he became Chancellor in 1828, made an order that no Clerk in Court should be entitled to a fee for a cause in the paper, unless he actually attended, and then only in case his attendance was absolutely necessary. By this order, the Clerks in Court were at once, and without compensation, deprived of fees, to many hundreds a year. In fact, the fees might be reduced and altered, at the will of the Chancellor. As he had said before the first insight into the profits of this office was obtained by his hon. Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, and then these Clerks were returned, to the astonishment of the profession, some as receiving ten, others six, and others 5,0001. a year. The offices were a positive abuse at that time, and it was for such offices, known to have been an abuse, that this enormous compensation was given. He did not want the House to take his statement, but he would give them the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman, who at the time he gave it sat in that House as Member for Ripon, he meant Mr. Pemberton, now Mr. Pemberton Leigh, who had justly obtained the highest eminence in his profession. In a speech published by him, he stated the duties and emoluments of these offices. The speech was made in 1840, on a motion respecting the two Vice-Chancellors, and it particularly referred to this matter, and he begged the attention of the House to it, for he was sure that there was no Gentleman on that or the other side of the House, who would not attach weight to every opinion which might fall from the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall. He said:—

"The return which I hold in my hand bears the name of Mr. Aglionby. These returns, I confess, have filled me with astonishment, and, I think, will occasion some surprise to the House. There are certain ancient officers of the Court called Six Clerks, who formerly acted as solicitors, and by whom, in that cha- racter, all the business of the Court was transacted. To assist them in performing these duties, they had a certain number of sworn clerks, once sixty, now, I believe, reduced to twenty-five. They were, in truth, the only solicitors recognised by the Courts, and accordingly, to this hour every party in a cause in Chancery is obliged to appoint one of the sworn clerks as his clerk in Court, or nominally as his agent, to represent him through the progress of the suit. But so entirely is the real office of these Gentlemen, both Six Clerks and sworn clerks, changed, that their duties now consist, as far as I can discover, of what I am about to describe to the House. The duty of the Six Clerks consists in signing their names on the records—the bills and answers, pleas and demurrers which are filed. If a Six Clerk is for the plaintiff, he signs his name on the bill—if for the defendant, on the answer —but as the form is purely useless, and serves no purpose of authentication, or any other, it is thought unnecessary for more than one Six Clerk to attend the office at a time; and whoever is in attendance signs all the records for all the plaintiffs and all the defendants, signing his own name for the party for whom he is nominally concerned, and the name of one of the other Six Clerks (per procuration, as it would be termed in mercantile phrase), for the opponent party. For this useless ceremony, it appears that these Gentlemen received, during the last year, in the shape of fees alone (in addition to other emoluments, to which I shall afterwards advert), a net sum of 1,122l. 10s. each. Such being the duties of the Six Clerks, the proper duties of the sworn clerks, would seem to be still less.

'Si minus esse potest quam quod nihil esse videmus.'

As far as I can understand the matter, the only duty which the sworn clerks have to perform, as properly belonging to their office, is to receive and transmit to the solicitors all notices from time to time given in the course of a cause. And for duties such as these, with the addition of one to which I will advert, not properly belonging to their office, what does the House suppose is the gross amount of fees received by these officers, and paid by the unfortunate suitors? The return of the last year makes the amount no less than 59,967l. 6s. 9d. Of this sum, 8,205l. 4s. 6d. is stated to be accounted for to the Six Clerks, and to constitute the amount of fees paid to them, to which I have already alluded. The remainder after deducting 363l. 15s. 1d., stated to be paid 'to the bag-bearer and others,' is retained by the sworn clerks. Now how are these fees constituted."

And to this he would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite.

"The statement of these details will show at once the enormity and iniquity of the tax which is thus levied on the suitor;" (and that enormous and iniquitous tax was the subject of compensation. Again, he said) "Another source of the enormous income of this office consists of term fees. These, in the last year, were in number 42,999. The amount in money is Dot stated, but, I believe, the fees are 6s. 8d. each, and if so, they would give a sum of 14,333l. These sums, as far as I can learn, are not paid for any duty, real or nominal, but become due to the clerk in Court, in each of the four terms of the year in which any step is taken in the cause. In addition to this, term fees (I believe of much larger amount) become due in each term to the solicitors, and I request the House to observe how strongly this tells upon the expenses arising out of the years of delay, which are at present occasioned to the suitor by the want of Judges to hear the arrear of causes. The remaining item in this astounding return, is 8,994l., 10s. received for taxation of costs. Now, this business, I believe is actually done, and the amount fairly earned. But the whimsical part of the case is, that the only duty which the Clerks in Court really perform, is that which ought to be, and to appearance actually is, performed by the masters. It is to them, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Galway will satisfy the House, that all bills of costs are referred for taxation. It is by them, that in all their reports, the costs appear to have been actually taxed, so that, of the vast amount received by these officers, about 9,000l. a-year appears to be paid for doing the business of other people, and the rest for doing nothing or next to nothing."

And then he stated the case of some reduction having been made in the fees:—

"Yet, as if in this office the Legislature took a pride in augmenting sinecures instead of reducing them, observe what has happened with respect to the Six Clerks. In 1832, some alteration being made in their fees by the establishment of a Bankruptcy Court, they obtained, as compensation allowed under the Act, from the Lords of the Treasury, 52l. per annum each for life. But in 1833 another Act was passed for abolishing fines and recoveries, and substituting in their stead deeds enrolled in Chancery. This Act, it appears, put into the pocket of each Six Clerk, by means of fees paid for doing nothing, a considerable addition to their incomes arising from fees on enrolments; the amount of the addition does not appear. The total amount of fees paid to each Six Clerk for enrolments in the last year was 527l. 10s., and in the preceding year, 545l.; and yet they are receiving compensation for a loss to the extent of 52l; while their income has been thus most improperly, and I believe, on the part of the Legislature, most unintentionally, increased."

If hon. Gentlemen opposite would not attach any authority to what he said, he hoped they would to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman to whose speech he had referred. It was shown that most enormous fees were received by those Clerks justly characterised by Mr. Pemberton as "enormous and iniquitous." He found a gentleman of the name of Gatty, who had awarded to him for compensation, as long as he lived, the sum of 5,424l., and he was also appointed a taxing-master, with 2,000l. a-year beside; and it was beautifully expressed in the order for compensation that he was to receive as taxing-master 2,0001. a-year, and only 5,232l. in addition. So that this Gentleman received upwards of 7,000l. for taxing costs in Chancery-lane for five or six hours a-day; and this, probably, in the middle of life, when he was able to follow other occupations. The clerks in Court gave long credit to solicitors, and consequently made bad debts, and they often allowed a discount for the payment of ready money; but now there was no chance of their any longer making bad debts. There were others who received about 7,000l. a-year in the same way. By another section of the act, one-half of the compensation so awarded was to be paid for seven years after the Clerks in Court, and so when the Six Clerks Office had closed upon them, their executors or assignees were to receive 2,700l. a year for seven years. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Marylebone, had observed to him, that all the Admirals in the Navy did not get as much, and he was sure, that neither the naval or military service was rewarded in this way. The widow of a flag or general officer killed in battle, received 100l. a-year, here, some of these clients in Court had after their death 2,700l. a-year But he would not stop there; he would ask what officers in the civil department received salaries so enormous? He might appeal to the Chair, which the Speaker himself occupied, and yet, with the high dignity and station which that Chair carried with it, these taxing Masters, who had only to tax six and eight pences for five or six hours in the day, received a salary larger than that of the Speaker of the House of Commons by 2,000l. a-year Why, the whole affair was too ridiculous to be treated seriously. He would ask any Gentleman in that House, if on the 1st of January he had 7,500l. a year in hard cash to spend during the year? he might have large rent-rolls of 10,000l., 15,000l. or 20,000l. a year, but with all that, who after paying tithes, taxes, and charges had 700l. a year to spend? And yet the poor suitors in Chancery had to make up this sum to pay these compensations. Then there were Gentlemen employed as agents, and clerks of these clerks of the Six Clerks, to whom the House gave liberal compensation; they received compensation at the rate of three-fourths of their emoluments when in office. Two or three of them got a compensation of 900l. a year, and others received less amounts. There was one called a waiting-clerk, but what he waited for nobody could tell, unless he was waiting for some better office. Then there was a Mr. David Drew, who was appointed to be agent of one of the Six Clerks, and who, although he had no office, received 1,935l., 2s. 7d. as compensation, and there were other similar cases stated in the Returns on the Table of the House. Was there ever anything so monstrous? The mere agents or servants receiving compensation. They seem to have compensated all the flesh and blood they found in Chancery-lane at the time of the abolition of these offices. The Measure of compensation was passed through Parliament in a most extraordinary way, with most unaccountable haste, and he wondered what his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose could have been about at the time. He would read to the House from the Journals the manner in which the Bill had been hurried on. "Friday, 29th July, 1842. Message from the Lords. That they have passed a Bill, intituled an Act for abolishing certain Offices of the High Court of Chancery in England." "Court of Chancery Officers Bill read a first time, to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed." "Monday, 1st of August —Court of Chancery Officers Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow." Well, then, on Tuesday, the 2nd of August, the day after, they found "Court of Chancery Officers Bill considered in Committee;" fortunately the journals show what is done before, and what after midnight, and the moment after the clock had struck twelve, the Bill was reported and recommitted for that day, the 3rd of August J and it was added —"Bill, as amended, to be printed." There was no debate at all, he believed, on the subject. On the 4th of August, after midnight, they found "Court of Chancery Officers Bill considered in Committee; to be reported this day." "Thursday, the 4th of August, 1842, the Court of Chancery Officers Bill reported; to be read a third time to-morrow." Friday, 5th of August, 1842 (also late in the evening, but before twelve), Court of Chancery Officers Bill read a third time; Clause A added in Committee disagreed to; Bill passed with Amendments." It appeared, then, that this Bill was hurried through Parliament, and on only two occasions was it brought forward before twelve o'clock, and the printed Bill was only in the hands of Members the day before it was read a third time. It appeared further, from the Journals, as might be expected that on Monday, August 8, there was a Message from the Lords, "Amendments to the Court of Chancery Officers Bill without Amendment." Two days afterwards, on Wednesday, August 10, Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to the Court of Chancery Officers Bill. He never recollected any instance of a Bill being hastened so rapidly through the House. He did not charge any one with being guilty of an act of commission, but most assuredly some persons bad been guilty of an act of omission in not inquiring into the amount of compensation, and of stating to the House the nature and amount of the compensation, for it was, to say the least of the matter, the duty of those who introduced the Bill to bring the nature of the compensation especially under the notice of the House. He had taken great blame to himself for not looking into this Measure when it was before Parliament; but it was not brought before that House until the month of August, when he and his learned Friends whose duty it was more particularly to look into a Bill of this kind, were on the circuit. Indeed, by some singular accident, the Bill was introduced into the other House on the very day that they went the circuit. He hoped the House would bear with him if he proceeded to state some further particulars respecting the compensation under this Act. The fees of the Clerks in Court were derived from three sources—1st, term fees; the Clerk in Court receiving a fee of 6s. 8d. each term, in each cause in which he entered an appearance, for these fees nothing was done. 2nd, fees for taxation of costs, these feet amounted to 8,000l. a year. 3rd, other fees for copies, this copy money was charged at l0d. per folio, whereas they got the copy made at 1d. per folio. The taxation of costs, properly belonged to the Master in Chancery, but although no duty of the Clerk in Court, they had the taxation of all the costs. One great complaint against this Bill is, that Six Taxing Masters at 2,000l. a year, each are appointed to tax the costs, making a charge of 12,000l. a year, on the suitors instead of 8,000l. a year, which it cost the public before. The Bill passed in 1841, for the creation of the new Vice-Chancellorships, and at the end of that year those two high judicial offices were filled up. A few months afterwards, it was seen that the two new Vice-Chancellors were sweeping away most rapidly the arrears of business in Chancery. The Clerks received a great portion of their fees from the arrears of business, particularly the term fees, and these amounted to not less than from 14,000l. to 16,000l. a year. He begged the House to observe the especial manner in which this business of compensation was arranged. The amount of compensation was not taken on the average of ten years, as was customary, but of three years only, when there was the greatest amount of arrears that had ever accrued in the Court of Chancery. He would now state the nature of the Measure to the House. He had no hesitation in saying, that the provisions in this Act of Parliament were perfectly unusual in an Act of Parliament. The Compensation Clause directed that each officer was to give in his claim, stating the amount and the nature of the income he derived from his office within twelve calendar months, and then to receive compensation according to the order of the Lord Chancellor, such amount being not less than the amount of three-fourths of his salary. Now, he had compared this Act of Parliament with a number of other Acts of Parliament giving compensation, and he was really astonished at the variations between this and the other Acts of Parliament. It was stated, he believed, on good authority, that one of the Clerks in Court drew this Bill for giving compensation to himself and his fellow clerks, this he did not doubt, we rather would have supposed that a Parliament of Sis Clerks had originated and passed the measure. There were several recent cases before the House, where Acts had passed for giving compensation to Officers of Courts of Justice on the abolition or change in their respective offices. He found it enacted the 11th Geo. IV., and 1st Will. IV. c. 58, entitled "for the future appropriation of fees," that Commissioners should be appointed by the Treasury, to inquire into, as well the legality as the amount of the fees and emoluments contained in account; and also to ascertain the value of the office in the average of ten years. These Commissioners were empowered to examine the claimants of compensation, and other witnesses on oath. Here was no such clause as this act simply gave compensation on an average of three years, when there were the greatest arrears of business, and when, therefore, the fees were at the highest. Under the act he had just mentioned, the parties were to be examined on oath, and a relation of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other Commissioners, used the greatest caution in granting the amount of fees; but, by the other Act, the Lord Chancellor had the power given him to make full compensation, without any restrictions. He believed that this was the first time in which the authority was entrusted to the Lord Chanceller, who was not in the habit of granting compensations, and therefore, could not so readily detect any thing irregular. He would say to the honour of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he believed that no one was so unpopular as himself and those who held that office, with those who were seeking for a change or abolition of the offices they held, because he and his predecessors were in the habit of looking very closely into claims of this kind. It was not to be expected that the Lord Chancellor would look very closely into a matter of this kind, as he was not in the habit of having cases of the kind referred to him. Again, by the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 96, entitled an Act for preventing frivolous writs of error, it was enacted that Commissioners should be appointed, who were to be the three Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, and they were directed to inquire on oath into the lawful fees and emoluments claimed by certain persons affected by the Act, on an average of ten years. Again, by the 3rd and 4th Wm. IV. c, 94, entitled an Act for the Regulation of the Office of the Registrars in Chancery, it is directed that the Lords of the Treasury should investigate, on oath, or otherwise, whether any, and if any, what compensation ought to be made, having regard to condition and notice. By the Act, also, the 5th and 6th Wm. IV. c. 82, respecting the abolition of fines and recoveries, it was enacted that the Commissioners of the Treasury shall grant such compensation, annual or gross, as may appear reasonable to them. Also, by the 3rd and 4th Vict., c. 94, entitled an Act for facilitating the administration of justice in Chancery, the Commissioners of the Treasury were directed to inquire, on oath or otherwise, whether any, and if any, what compensation ought to be made to officers having regard to condition or notice, with full power to investigate into the nature of the office, and the mode of appointment, and also as to the amount of compensation to be granted. Again, by the 5th Vict. c. 5, namely, the Act for abolishing the Equity Court of the Exchequer, it was directed that the Treasury and the Lord Chief Baron should inquire whether any compensation ought to be made to any such claimant; and, if any, what were the lawful fees and emoluments in respect of which the same should be allowed, and to fix compensation at not less than three-fourths of the lawful fees and emoluments. In these cases the Commissioners of the Treasury, and not the Lord Chancellor, were to consider whether such fees, if any, called for compensation. In the Act to which he wished particularly to call the attention of the House, the words "if any" were left out, and there were several important variations, as regarded compensation, from the other Acts. He would challenge any one to show him an Act of Parliament giving compensation in a similar manner as was provided in this Act. The compensation under the Acts that he referred to, was not to be estimated on the average of the three years when they were largest in amount, but the Commissioners of the Treasury, with the other Commissioners named by Act of Parliament, were to give such or any as they deemed just and expedient. He, therefore, felt that he was fully justified in saying that this Clause was a most unusual one in an Act of Parliament. There had lately been laid before Parliament certain returns connected with this subject, which had been prepared at the suggestion of his learned Friend, the Attorney General; and this, he believed, was got up for the purpose of showing that the suitors in the Court of Chancery have benefited by the change that had taken place, and by the compensation which had been given. It appeared by the return moved for by his hon. and learned Friend, that the total amount of fees received in the offices of the Clerk of the Enrolments, Six Clerks, and Sworn Clerks, for the year ending 26th October, 1842, was 77,000l. This was taken in the Act as the average sum received by these officers. The two new Vice Chancellors were then created, and the object of the return was to show that there had been a diminution in the fees. He conceived, however, that this return was entirely fallacious. The object of it was to show that there had been a gain to the public in the year of 248l. 12s. 1d., for this was the amount given of diminution of charge on the suitors and others paying fees. He found, also, that taking the return on the Table respecting the 77,000l., there was a difference between another return, furnished by the Court of Chancery, of several thousands of pounds in one of the items. In the account of the Suitor's Fee Fund laid before Parliament by the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, it was stated that upwards of 30,332l. was received in the year as fees by the taxing-master; whereas, according to the return moved for by the Attorney-General, the amount was stated at 23,533l., making a difference of nearly 7,000l. He also found that, according to the former return, the amount of fees received by the record and writ-clerks was 38,779l., whereas, in the latter return this amount was stated at 36,466l. He was surprised at first at this difference, to the amount of several thousands of pounds, between the two returns, but he at last found that there was a distinction between the period of the year when the returns were made. That moved for by his learned Friend the Attorney-General was made up to the year ending the 29th of October, 1843, whereas that from the Accountant-General was dated November 25th, 1842. This probably accounted for the discrepancy between the two returns. Again, it was stated that the amount of salaries, office expenses, and compensations under the Act 5 and 6, Vic, c. 103, was 76,815l. whereas in the return by the Accountant-General was it given as 78,740l. By this, it was clear, that both in the amount collected, and the amount expended under the new Act, the public were losers to a large amount. But supposing the figures did show that amounts received were less, it must be borne in mind that the amount of the fees received by the Clerks in Court in 1841 and 1842, was not a fixed sum, but fluctuated with the increase and decrease of business. Since the arrears have been removed, the amount of the fees of the Clerks in Court would have been largely decreased. Moreover many of these fees are paid to the attornies, and do not appear in the account. But they would be told that the compensation had proved a benefit to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. The case, however, was, that compensation had been given to the holders of offices which were admitted to be acknowledged abuses in the Court of Chancery, and for which no compensation should have been given? The Act of Parliament giving compensation was not only, in the way which he had described, different from anything he had ever seen before, but it was also the case in another respect. He had never known before a Clause inserted in a public Act of Parliament for the purpose of defraying the charge Of passing this Act: not satisfied with giving compensation in granting them salaries for life, and for seven years after death; the Act directed that the costs and charges incurred in preparing and passing this act shall be paid out of the suitors' fee fund. He also found, from a return upon the Table of the House, that the sum charged as the costs incurred in preparing, procuring, and passing this Act, was 339l. This was the charge made for a bill for taking a million of money from the suitors, to be given to them who drew the Bill. Let the House consider what were the funds from which these compensations and charges were to come. There was a fund called the suitors' fee fund. This was a fund which was formed of the fees received in the various offices of the Court of Chancery. He found that, according to the return, the amount in the year ending Nov. 24th, 1842, was 62,000l.; but for the year 1843, which they were told was the great year of retrenchment for the suitors in the Court of Chancery, it was 153,000l., making an increase in the taxation of the suitors between the two years of not less than 91,000l. There was another fund in the Court of Chancery, called the suitors' fund, which was the amount paid into Court, for which there was no immediate claimants. This fund amounted to 2,869,000l. stock, and it was described as the fund for preserving and securing the funds in the hands of the Court. There were persons who were entitled to every shilling of this fund, and the principle and interest of this fund was charged with the annual amount of 99,170l. to defray the expenses of the Court of Chancery. He considered that it was a most monstrous proceeding thus to invade the suitors' fund in Chancery. It should be recollected that some day or other parties entitled to this property would come forward and claim it, and then the amount, both principle and interest, must be provided for. Here was the property of infants and lunatics, who were almost necessarily suitors in the Court of Chancery, dealt with in this way, and made subject to the most serious charges. Male adults might escape through life without a Chancery Suit; but trustees, widows, married women, infants and lunatics, were necessarily involved in Chancery Suits, they were the peculiar objects of the protection of Chancery, and these persons were to be plundered to pay these compensations. It might be asked, what was the object to be attained by a Committee; was it to call in question the award or order for compensation, or to repeal the Act of Parliament. He did not complain of compensation being given under an Act of Parliament where it was just and reasonable. He contended that the compensation was awarded on a wrong principle. By the Returns, it appeared that the Chancellor had awarded compensation on all the fees of these officers without inquiring whether such fees were properly subject matter of compensation. Look, however, to the words of this Act of Parliament, where it was slated that on the abolition of any office a claim for compensation should be made, within twelve calendar months after the passing of the Act, to the Lord Chancellor, who shall proceed in such manner, and upon such average as he may think proper, to inquire what compensation ought to be made to any such claimant, and what were the fees and emoluments in respect of which an allowance should be made. It was therefore the duty of the Lord Chancellor to investigate every fee, and to see whether they were permanent as regarded their form, and whether the Lord Chancellor had the power of altering the amount or nature of these fees, and then only giving compensation for legitimate fees. If these parties could make out the justice of their claim as regarded the nature of their offices, Parliament should have bought these officers up, and not have left the matter to be settled in the way which he had described, by which a sum, which would amount to nearly 1,000,000l. of money, was charged upon this fund. It was clear that it was the duty of this House to inquire into this award of compensation. By the Constitution, this House was to control the taxation of the subject and the application of the funds raised by taxation. But this Act expressly provided, that the orders for compensation should be laid on the Table of this House within fourteen days after the order was made. This could only be so as to enable the House to investigate and correct orders made under the Act. It might be contended that the Lord Chancellor had no discretion in the matter as to fees, and that the Act of Parliament was imperative on the subject, but he had clearly shown that this was not the case. If that were the true construction of the Act, he might be asked, did he intend to ask for a Committee to inquire into the legality of these fees, and to repeal the Act of Parliament if he made out his case? He most certainly would do so. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, might ask whether that would be doing justice to the Six Clerks? But he (Mr. Watson) would ask, was it justice to the suitors in Chancery to be placed in the situation in which they are by this Act? He was willing to consider the claims of the Six and other Clerks, and he would not object to giving them adequate compensation, if it were shown that they were justly entitled to it; but he demanded justice for the unfortunate Suitors in Chancery. He asked the House to inquire into the subject, and if necessary, with the view to repeal this Act of Parliament, and, by giving assent to his Motion, it would be only doing what was just and reasonable, and undoing what was unjust and unreasonable. The object which he immediately had in view was inquiry. He would appeal to hon. Members of that House to look into the mode in which this Act had been passed, and to consider how great were its variations from any other Act of a similar nature—also to regard the nature of these offices and of the fees, and to the compensation given for life, and for seven years after death, and he thought if they would dispassionately consider the matter, that they would admit that he had made out his case. He trusted that his Motion would not be resisted — he trusted that there would be inquiry, and by doing so, the House would only do what was just and right in getting rid of this enormous tax on the suitors in the Court of Chancery. There was another part of his Motion which opened a very large subject. It had reference to the different funds which formed the suitor's fund, such as the Bankruptcy fund, the Exchequer fund, the Fee fund, and the other funds, and as to the mode in which the accounts were kept. What he wanted was to inquire and consider whether it was wise and expedient to pay the officers of the several Courts through the means of fees. In theory it appeared to him that the sound mode of proceeding would be to pay those charges for the administration of justice out of the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund is charged with 311,000l. annually for the courts of justice, but the public are charged immensely in the shape of fees; but now in these Courts, as well as in the Courts of Common Law, you make the suitor pay many of the charges. He called upon those hon. Members who professed to be fovourable to law reform, to consider that in order to obtain the great object that they had in view, they must not only have good laws and a careful administration of them, but also chief and speedy justice. An opportunity was here afforded of testing the sincerity of those who called for Law Reform, for unless Law was rendered cheap and acceptable to the people it was valueless. He called upon them to assist him in carrying out a cheap administration of justice. He trusted the House would institute inquiry into these compensations so justly termed "enormous and iniquitous." On these grounds he begged leave to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the orders for compensation made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons filling the offices of Clerk of the Enrolments, Comptrollers of the Hanaper, Riding Clerk, Six Clerks, Sworn Clerks, Waiting Clerks, Agent or Record Keeper in the Court of Chancery, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic, c. 103, and to inquire into the nature, duties, and emoluments of those offices before the passing of that Act, and their right to compensation (and if any, to what amount) during their life, and for seven years after the death of such person; and to inquire into the circumstances attending the passing of that Act; and the monies charged on the Suitors' Fee Fund in Chancery for passing that Act; and also to inquire into the taxation of suitors in Courts of Law and Equity, and the application of money raised thereby, and the propriety of continuing the same."

gave his hon. and learned Friend great credit for the industry which he had evinced in the numerous details he had presented to the House, and for the great address and dexterity which he had displayed in using them, but his hon. and learned Friend must forgive him for remarking that he appeared to have stopped short, and to have collected facts which were just sufficient to lay the foundation for the semblance of a charge, and then carefully to have turned away from the case when he approached an explanation. He knew that subjects of this description were dry and uninteresting, particularly when they were involved in details, which in the present case were most necessary, for, inasmuch as his hon. and learned Friend had brought forward a serious charge against the individuals who were concerned in awarding these compensations, he trusted the House would indulge him with their patience, while he laid before them the grounds on which he felt it his duty to call upon the House to resist the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. Now there were some principles on which his hon. and learned Friend and himself were agreed. He was not there to defend the position in which the Six Clerks and the clerks in Court were placed at the time when these compensations were awarded. He admitted to his hon. and learned Friend, that it was a great abuse;—it was an abuse which, if he might use the expression, was consecrated by time; but unquestionably these claims stood in the way of reform and improvement, and it was absolutely necessary, before there could be a prospect of remedying the abuses that existed in the Court of Chancery, and improving the proceedings and practice of the Court, to dispose of these individuals and of their interests, as the only mode in which the way could be cleared. His hon. and learned Friend was perfectly correct in stating that the Six Clerks' was an ancient office, and that it had in process of time become almost a sinecure. He believed, that from the year 1688, nothing was done beyond signing their names to the proceedings in the Court of Chancery; and his hon. and learned Friend was quite correct in saying that so unnecessary and so unimportant were the duties they had to perform, that it was considered sufficient for one out of the number to be present at the office, for the purpose of performing the small duty which remained; and accordingly, by an arrangement amongst themselves, one out of the six attended for two months, so that the whole annual duty of each of these Six Clerks was not for a longer period. These Six Clerks had the power to appoint ten clerks under them, who were called the sixty clerks, or sworn clerks, or clerks in Court. At the time of the passing of the Act to which the attention of the House had been directed, there were only twenty-five sworn clerks. From the year 1688, the sworn clerks performed the duties which originally belonged to the office of the Six Clerks; but in process of time they also abandoned those duties, which consisted in issuing writs, in filing pleadings, in making office copies of different proceedings; and they having been originally employed to represent the solicitors in Court (for no solicitor could practise in the Court of Chancery, except through the intervention of one of those clerks in Court) they were in the habit of attending before the Master in Chancery to tax the bills of the solicitors who employed them; and it was rather strange, that in process of time the duty of attending before the Master for the purpose of taxing the bills of the solicitors devolved entirely upon them, and was the only remaining duty which they had to perform, the remainder of the duties, consisting, as he had already stated, of issuing writs, filing pleadings, taking office copies of different proceedings, devolving upon persons who were called agents. These agents acted not entirely for one of the sworn clerks, but for three or four of them. He (the Solicitor General) did not say that the agent had any legal or vested right in his office. He was not like the Six Clerks or the Sworn Clerks; but practically he was a a person who enjoyed his office for life, and there was no prospect of his being removed by the sworn clerk under whom he acted; and therefore de facto when his office was abolished he had claims to compensation which were unquestionably regarded by the Act of Parliament. He admitted, that that state of things was a very great abuse. He conceded to his hon. and learned Friend, that very considerable fees were not, to use his own expression, exacted by these Sworn Clerks, but there were very considerable sums received by them for doing almost next to nothing. Their office, in fact, had almost become a sinecure, although they had important duties to perform — which belonged originally to the Masters in Chancery, and was no part of the duty belonging to their offices as originally constituted — that of taxing bills. When his hon. and learned Friend said these fees were exacted by the Sworn Clerks, he must say they were exacted by the orders of successive Lord Chancellors from the time of George II. When Lord Hardwicke was Lord Chancellor, a scale of fees was laid down; that scale was remodelled in 1807, and from that year down to the time of the passing of the Act in question the fees were invariably the same. The fees were perfectly well known to the profession. He admitted they were very high—he admitted that persons receiving these fees for duties which they never performed was a great abuse—he admitted that the Six Clerks, and the Sworn Clerks stood in the way of every improvement, and that it was necessary to dispose of their vested interests to make way for those reforms which were considered necessary in the Court of Chancery. This was the state of the public mind with regard to these offices in 1840. At that time Mr. Field, a solicitor of very considerable eminence, and in very considerable practice, in a series of able pamphlets directed to the reforms in the Court of Chancery, which he considered necessary, called the attention of the Government to those fees that existed with regard to the Six Clerks and the Sworn Clerks, and expressed his opinion that it was absolutely necessary as an essential preliminary to any improvement in the proceedings of that Court, to get rid entirely of the vested interests of these parties. He believed it was in consequence of the pamphlets of Mr. Field, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Cockermouth's attention was called to this subject, and in 1840, he moved for a Return of the fees and emoluments, not of the Six Clerks, as his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kinsale, supposed, but the fees and emoluments of the Sworn Clerks. [Mr. Watson: Both.] It made no very great difference. It was a Return, then, of the fees of the Six Clerks and of the Sixty Clerks. The Return was made by numbers, and the names of the individuals were not given, and it appeared that some of them received enormous sums in the shape of fees. One of them, Mr. Gatty, received between 10,000l. and 11,000l. a year. Others received smaller sums of 9,000l., 7,000l., and 6,000l., down to the small sum of only 20l. [Mr. Aglionby: The names were given in the original Return, but not printed.] He now came to the time when the present Lord Chancellor came into office in 1841. A Commission was either then in existence, or was established by him, consisting of the present Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale), Vice Chancellor Wigram, his right hon. Friend Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and the late Mr. Sulton Sharpe; whether that Commission was formed by the Lord Chancellor or found existing by him was wholly immaterial. But his attention having been drawn to the necessity of reforming the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, he referred the matter to the discretion of those learned persons; and it was hardly possible to find any persons better fitted for the business. There was existing at that time a Committee at the Law Institution, which, as hon. Gentlemen knew, was an incorporation of solicitors. That Committee was formed for the purpose of taking into consideration the various Law Reforms which might be necessary. To that Committee the Commissioners referred the subject of any reforms which they might think fit to introduce into the practice and proceedings of the Court of Chancery; and that Committee made a Report to the Commissioners, recommending, as absolutely essential to any improvement, the abolition of the offices of the Six Clerks, and of the Sworn Clerks, together with some other Clerks and Offices in the Court of Chancery, to which he need not particularly refer. In consequence of this communication from the Committee, some of the Sworn Clerks were spoken to on the sub- ject, and were informed of the recommendation of the Committee; and those Clerks were disposed, upon the distinct understanding that their vested interests were to be respected, and that they were to receive that compensation to which they were fairly entitled, to assist in the work of improvement. Accordingly a Bill was prepared,—and his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly correct, for there was nothing whatever in the matter to be concealed,—a Bill was prepared by Mr. Wainwright, who had been one of the Sworn Clerks. But it was not at all a true or correct representation to say that Mr. Wainwright was the legislator, and that he sent his Bill through Parliament. Because, that Bill having been prepared by Mr. Wainwright, was submitted to the Committee at the Law Institution. It was examined by them, clause by clause; the compensation clauses particularly, he believed, were framed under their control and supervision, and a Report was made to the Commissioners, that Report being accompanied with a number of cases of compensation to the abolished officers from the year 1803 downwards, to the time when that Report was made. Those clauses were considered by the Commissioners; and now let him pause here and draw the attention of the House to the persons who composed that body of Commissioners, because it was of essential importance that the House should consider the careful mode in which this Bill was introduced into the other House, and came afterwards to this, and ultimately received the sanction of the Legislature. Mr. Pemberton Leigh was a most eminent Member of that body; and in 1840, after the Return had been moved for by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, he had undoubtedly addressed himself in very strong language with regard to the offices and duties of these Clerks; he had spoken of the enormous incomes they derived in the terms which the House had heard read by the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale; he knew the whole merits—or, if his hon. and learned Friend pleased, demerits of the case; he knew perfectly well upon what footing those offices existed, what duties were performed, and what emoluments were received; and he himself was a party to the bargain which was made, by which their offices were to be abolished, upon giving them a fair and just compen- sation. He would not shrink from that expression. He said it was a fair and just compensation. He admitted the existence of the abuse; that it was wrong to allow those persons to continue to receive those large emoluments, not performing any commensurate duties. But they had a vested right and interest in the emoluments of their office, sanctioned by the orders of successive Lord Chancellors, recognised and acknowledged by the whole profession, and made the subject of transfer and sale, parties giving very considerable sums of money. [Mr. Jervis: "No, no."] His Friend cried "No;" but he said yes; large sums of money were given for even a share in the business. In one instance, as much as 27,000l., and, in another, 15,000l. was given for only a portion of the business of a Sworn Clerk. It was so much considered a matter of succession and of family arrangement, that settlements were made with respect to the offices, and wills were made with reference to the benefit such parties derived from being installed by their predecessors in office; and actually in one instance, and it was a very remarkable circumstance, showing how completely it was considered a matter of succession, that, having mentioned Mr. Wainwright's name, he would slate, a party of the same name was a Sworn Clerk in the time of the Commonwealth, and the office had devolved from father to son in lineal descent down to Mr. Wainwright himself. Under these circumstances, whatever might have been the abuses which existed with regard to the emolument derived by these parties, they had vested interests and rights, which in other similar cases had been repeatedly recognised by the Legislature. He would allude to a case which was perfectly familiar to his hon. and learned Friends on the other side of the House,—the office which more than one noble Lord had held in the Courts of Common Law in this country, for which there were no duties whatever, and with respect to which the salary and fees were very considerable. When those sinecure offices were abolished, very large compensation was given to their noble possessors. Now, undoubtedly, the existence of those sinecure offices was a very great abuse; but no one ever dreamt that, because it was an abuse, the persons who had been regularly invested in those offices, and who by law received the fees and salaries attached to them, were not to be fully compensated for the loss they would sustain by the abolition of their offices. But it was reserved for the present occasion to say that; and it was solely, he believed, on account of the peculiar circumstances in which the Six Clerks stood, that this attempt was made by the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale, to rip up an inquiry which was instituted prior to the passing of the Act, and to do the grosest injustice by the repeal of that Act. There were only twenty-five clerks at the time of the passing of the Act, and only a few of those derived considerable emoluments. It was the same thing to the public, whether those emoluments were distributed regularly over the whole body or whether a few only obtained the greater share; but not so he admitted, to the individuals. But had the sums received by the Six Clerks and the Sworn Clerks, amounting to about 77,000l., been spread over all of them, and each had received an equal amount, although the total compensation would have been precisely the same, he ventured to say, that no complaint whatever would have been made. At all events, if any complaint had been made, there would have been no ground for exciting the House as his hon. and learned Friend had done, by calling its attention to the enormous amount of the fees received by those officers. But all these things were perfectly well known to Mr. Pemberton Leigh, to Lord Langdale, to Mr. Sutton Sharpe, and to Vice-Chancellor Wigram, yet they made no objection to the Bill, neither was it objected to in the House of Lords. The Measure, after being fully considered by the Commissioners, was introduced into that House by Lord Lang-dale, and little or no discussion took place. No objection was raised to it by the noble and learned Lord who took so great a part in the discussions in that House (Lord Brougham), nor by another noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), who was much on the alert to detect any improprieties. In the progress of the Measure, Mr. Wainwright conceiving it necessary to draw the attention of the noble Lord who had presided in the Court of Chancery, procured an interview with Lord Cottenham, and went through the Bill, clause by Clause, with his Lordship, calling his attention particularly to the circumstances of the case. Mr. Wainwright informed Lord Cottenham that there were two Clauses different from the provisions of the Act for making compensation when certain offices in the Exchequer were abolished, and he showed that compensation was given for seven years after death to the Sworn Clerks and also compensation to the agents who were not recognised officers. Lord Cottenham discussed the matter with Mr. Wainwright, and he had his Lordship's authority to state that his attention was called to the Bill, and that the effect of these clauses was pointed out to him; and he thought he was entitled to say, that they received his Lordship's sanction, because he did not find, that either directly or indirectly. Lord Cottenham made the slightest objection to them during the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords. So much for the introduction of the Measure. His hon. and learned Friend had said he did not complain so much of sins of commission as of sins of omission. What sins of omission had there been in this particular instance? Would his hon. Friend mention any Bill that had been watched more jealously or that had been more carefully examined and sanctioned before its introduction by persons of competent experience and judgment to protect the public interest? It passed through the Lords, because that House was satisfied that its provisions were grounded in justice. The Bill then came down to that House, late in the Session he admitted, but still there was time enough and competent Members in sufficient numbers in attendance to, discuss, to weigh, and to decide upon its merits. He was not disposed to undervalue the services of his learned Friend the Member for Kinsale on an occasion of this kind, but he thought he might venture to say, that matters of this description were not quite familiar to either of them. His hon. and learned Friend had received his instructions on the present occasion, and had been able in the management of them; but before he received those instructions and the information they contained, he would venture to say, that his hon. and learned Friend knew nothing whatever of the constitution of the Six Clerks, the Sworn Clerks, and other officers included in his Motion. Though he was ready to admit that the Bill passed rapidly through its several stages, he must observe that it was not passed sub silentio. In the first place, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield made a comparison, which was repeated that evening by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kinsale, between the remuneration for professional and political services. The hon. and learned Member for Kinsale, reasonably enough, demanded to know where was the hon. Member for Montrose on that occasion. Now when that observation was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, the hon. Member for Montrose rose in his place—he was sorry the hon. Gentleman was not now present—and said that he had examined the Bill and found it perfectly correct both in its principle and details. In the next place, although the Bill, he believed, was not subjected to another discussion, yet the attention of the House was called to it by a Motion made or a suggestion thrown out by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard, who was desirous of introducing a clause for compensating the agents in the Court of Exchequer, whose offices had been previously abolished, and who were very properly, he conceived, entitled to compensation, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed some dissatisfaction at persons not having a legally vested right being compensated under an Act of Parliament. He said very properly, because those persons had always been considered to have held their offices de facto for life, and would undoubtedly have held them for life, had they not been abolished. Such was the mode in which the Bill found its way to that House from the House of Lords, and had been passed through that House. It was not introduced clandestinely, nor was it hurried through the House hastily, but it was introduced under the auspices of an individual whose attention had been directed to its details, who acknowledged the abuses, but who felt that it would be unjust to deprive the parties of the offices which they held without granting them compensation for the emoluments arising therefrom. Here he might rest his case, because all that followed depended on the Act itself. If blame could be attributed to any party, it must be shared by the whole Legislature, and every hon. Member must, in that case, be considered guilty of the sin of omission, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had preferred against particular parties. With regard to the measure itself, he thought the principle of compensation would be admitted by all, No one could surely object to compensation being awarded to those persons who had so long enjoyed the emoluments of the offices which they held on perfectly legal grounds. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinsale, however, objected to the amount of compensation, saying, that the Act of Parliament made no provision for examining into the legality of the different fees and emoluments. Granted; but that again was the fault of the Legislature. His hon. and learned Friend had no right to fix neglect on any individual regarding this particular Measure. He would not, however, rest his reply to the objection on that point alone. Surely his hon. and learned Friend must have been informed that the amount of fees was perfectly well known in the profession, and that there was not the slightest difficulty in checking this amount. He asserted that until the Returns moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, no one knew what their amount was. That was quite a mistake, for Mr. Field, in a pamphlet which he published long before that Return was made, stated that he had little doubt that the gross amount which they produced would not be much under 63,000l., and that the incomes varied from 3,000l. to 8,000l. Regarding compensation, it was arranged that the amount which the Clerks of Court and the Six Clerks should receive under the Act of Parliament was to be not less than three-fourths, and the Clerks of Record, and the Agents not less than two-thirds. His hon. and learned Friend was in error in this point also, for it was the minimum amount which was adopted—and so far from any attempt having been made to overrate the amount of emoluments, both the bad and doubtful debts were taken into account, the bad deducted altogether, and a proportionate reduction made for the doubtful, so as to reduce the emolument to its actual amount, and not allow the compensation to exceed the intention of the act. He thought too, that what he had stated would show that due caution had been taken in drawing up the provisions of the Act. With regard to the offices of the Six Clerks, be would ask if it was true that these offices had been matter of transfer and sale? Was it true, that in a variety of instances, where the parties were in extremis, their situations as Clerks in Court were sold for a considerable sum? Was it true that when a Clerk of Court died, leav- ing a son under articles, that some person acted as a trustee in keeping the business together until the son became qualified for the office? Were these things true or not true? If they were true, every candid and honourable man must admit that there was, with regard to these offices, an interest beyond the life of the possessor. One liked occasionally to have precedents to guide him, especially in cases of this description, and when his learned Friend was enabled to raise a cheer on his side of the House when he spoke of the extravagant and unusual mode in which compensation had been administered in this case, perhaps he was not aware of what was done on the abolition of the office of Six Clerks in Ireland, in 1836. The Bill which effected that object was introduced by Lord Plunket, and received the sanction of the Government of the day. He was sorry the noble Lord, the Member for London, was not present to support his statement, but in that Bill was contained the very principle against which his hon. and learned Friend inveighed, and that too in a more striking manner than it appeared in the Act in question. What was done in that case? The Six Clerks in Ireland, like the Sworn Clerks in this country, had a vested interest in their offices, and the power of transfer, which was recognized by the Legislature—and how were they compensated? He believed the emoluments of their offices were not more than 600l. a-year, and yet they had the round sum of 4,000l. paid to them in present money, and an annual sum calculated upon the average of their salaries for the last three years awarded them during life. Here was a complete precedent and direct authority for the very clause in the Act of which his hon. and learned Friend complained. But, as he before said, it was perfectly immaterial to him what his hon. and learned Friend said respecting this Act, unless he could show that it had not been fairly introduced into or considered by the House. His hon. and learned Friend had endeavoured to excite the compassion of the House by talking about the Poor Suitors' Fund, and said that it was burthened to the extent of 1,000,000l. by means of the compensations awarded under this Act. He was quite certain his hon. and learned Friend could not have considered this matter well, or he would not have ventured to make such an assertion. The Suitors' Fee Fund, which his hon. and learned Friend had properly distinguished from the Suitors' Fund, was, in point of fact, taxed to the amount of 77,000l. for the different fees received by the Six Clerks and Sworn Clerks and other officers abolished under the Act, and, unless the Legislature had interposed, those fees which were established by legal authority, and had become a permanent incumbrance, could not be diminished. His hon. and learned Friend was quite mistaken in supposing that they could, at least without inflicting the grossest injustice. He would not trespass on the House by observing again upon the right which the parties in question had to a large compensation, and upon the fact of its being wholly immaterial to the public. He need only say that this sum of 77,000l. had become a permanent tax upon the suitor, that it was dependent upon the continuance of those offices, which consequently presented an invincible obstacle to all improvement, and that the result of their having been abolished was the payment instead of something less than 46,000l., in the shape of compensation. The suitors of the Court had been permanently taxed by reason of the existence of these offices, and the object of this Act of Parliament was, by abolishing them, gradually to diminish the charge on the suitors, which, he was happy to say, had already been effected to a very considerable extent; 45,000l. having been awarded as compensation, of course that sum had to be provided for. There were certain fees which pressed heavily on the suitors, which were abolished. The Clerk in Court for every cause set down was entitled to the term-fee of 6s. 8d.; and the sum of 15,000l. per annum was realised from that source. In addition to this, there was a sum of 6s. 8d. upon every warrant of taxation, which amounted to 8,000l. per annum. These term-fees and fees on the warrants were abolished by the Lord Chancellor. Thus 23,000l. per annum had to be provided for, and the mode adopted which was considered least chargeable to the suitors, was to put a small additional fee on the pleadings, the copies in the Master's Office were raised from 1½d. to 4d. per folio, and to prove the care and caution used in the steps taken to abolish the old fees and institute new ones, the result of the calculation brought the sum raised to 77,071l. per annum, while the amount under the old system was 77,319l. The permanent tax on this fund was 23,000l. per annum for the salaries of the new officers; the 45,000l. per annum would gradually diminish; as the lives dropped, of course there would be less compensation to bear. When the seven years were ended, in addition to the lives, all the compensation would be at an end, and the Suitors' Fee Fund would be permanently relieved from this enormous burthen of upwards of 45,000l. What was the object of this Motion? His hon. and learned Friend could not deny that the provisions of the Act of Parliament had been strictly fulfilled; but he proposed to unravel all the proceedings connected with the introduction and history of this Act of Parliament, for the purpose of calling on the House to repeal it. Now, no case whatever had been made out which would justify such an extraordinary course. If an Act of Parliament gave compensation to certain individuals whose offices had been abolished, even supposing a mistake had been committed, which he did not admit, would it be just or equitable to repeal a solemn act of the Legislature, and thus deprive the parties of all those advantages they expected to derive under the Act which abolished their offices? His hon. and learned Friend, although he had not directly made the charge, had insinuated that there had been some sinister motives at work in getting that Act hastily and clandestinely passed through Parliament. Now, let them see how the offices created by the Act had been bestowed. His hon. and learned Friend was quite correct in saying that the Six Clerks were appointed by the Master of the Rolls. They had or were generally considered to have, about 2,000l. a year. Their offices were abolished, and certain persons who were called Clerks of Writs and Clerks of Records were established by the Act with salaries of 1,200l. a-year; and these offices were in the gift of the Master of the Rolls. There were six Taxing Officers established also, and the appointment of those offices was vested in the Lord Chancellor. What had the Lord Chancellor done in reference to those offices? He had refused to make any selection on the subject, and he had referred the matter to the Commissioners. The result was, that four Clerks in Court and two solicitors were appointed as the new Taxing Officers. Now he would ask the House whether his hon. and learned Friend had satisfied them that, in the passing of that Act of Parliament, advantage had been taken of them, and that no attention had been paid to its provisions. He did say, for his part, that the Act had been framed with due caution, and by persons of experience and skill, who were not likely to be misled upon such a subject, or to neglect the public interest. He believed that no earthly advantage could be derived from the Committee for which his hon. and learned Friend had moved. He believed that the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was worse than useless. He trusted that he had been enabled to show that his hon. and learned Friend had not fairly put before the House all the circumstances of the case, and that it had only been by keeping out of view the facts which he had thought it his duty to state, that he had been able to make a temporary impression on the House. He felt persuaded that the House would not consider that that was a proper case for the course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend.

thought his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor General, had added two very important facts to those which had been adduced by the Mover, and which called imperatively for inquiry into this matter. With respect to the nature of the claims of those who were or were not entitled to compensation, and its amount, his hon. and learned Friend had stated nothing new, but he had informed the House by whom and under what circumstances this Bill had been suggested and drawn. The construction which the Lord Chancellor had put on the Act he was bound to administer legally, he was prepared to show was inaccurate. A grave charge, not of commission, but of omission, had in his opinion been made out against that high legal functionary. He had allowed those deeply interested to settle their own emoluments—he took their construction of the Act, and carried it out accordingly; while he was bound himself to inquire into the legality of the fees. He admitted that those entitled should be fully and liberally, but not illegally compensated; but the profession, which was intimately acquainted with the working of the Act from the beginning to the end, and whose clients were paying enormously for the purpose of raising a fee-fund, denounced the Measure and called for inquiry, either to lull the suspicions which prevailed, or, by showing them to be well-founded, to rectify the evil by a repeal of the Act itself. If the Measure had been so correctly framed and so deliberately passed, and if those who had received compensation were clearly entitled to it, why prevent inquiry? The profession and the public would not be satisfied without a searching investigation of this case. The precedent which would otherwise be established would be a most dangerous one, as applicable to all law reforms. He contended that the case in Ireland which had been quoted was not analogous. What was the nature of those offices which the Bill proposed to abolish? They were certainly most scandalous abuses, most detestable sinecures, which long since ought to have been swept away. The Six Clerks originally were persons admitted in the Court of Chancery, holding patent offices as the sole solicitors for managing the business of Chancery; and it was necessary originally that every solicitor who had business to do should do it through the agency of these parties, as had until lately been the practice in the Court of Exchequer. In progress of time, the solicitors carried on the business themselves, and the Six Clerks shared the emoluments. As business increased, it was necessary that these Six Clerks should have assistants, and by an Order of the Court they were allowed to have ten assistants each, making in all sixty. The same Order of the Lord Chancellor which allowed ten to each might have allowed them twenty. At one time they had fifteen each, and the very day before this Act of Parliament passed, the Lord Chancellor might have given every solicitor in England a seat in the Six Clerks'-office, by which means their fees would have been gone for ever. He denied that these sixty Clerks had any freehold interest in their offices. The Commissioners got the information from Mr. Jackson that the sixty Clerks had a freehold interest in their offices—he being one of the body to be compensated—and they immediately adopted his view of the matter without further inquiry, and awarded them compensation. He was surprised to hear from the Solicitor General that these offices were the subject of sale and transfer. That would have been directly in the teeth of two Acts of Parliament—the statute of Edward III., and the 49th of George III. Colourably to evade those statutes he was aware that negociations had been entered into, but the offices themselves were never the subject of sale or transfer. Besides the sixty clerks, there were also agents or waiting-Clerks, who were merely common clerks to the sixty Clerks, and had no more a vested interest than a law-stationer would have. The attorneys were bound to take from the sixty Clerks (reduced afterwards to twenty-five) office copies of all documents in the suit, for which they were charged 10d. a folio, and 2d. extra for having them examined. The waiting-clerks received 1½d. a folio for making these copies. The sixty Clerks had also fees on the taxation of costs, and 6s. 8d. every time a cause was in the paper. This last, at least, was originally the case; and, as in the time of Lord Eldon, the cause list was a lengthy paper, containing almost every cause before the Court, although one case frequently occupied several days, they used to receive their 6s. 8d. a-day upon each cause; but Lord Lyndhurst made an order that this fee of 6s. 8d. should not be paid unless the cause was set down for hearing and they themselves attended. This order, it was said, deprived them of 100,000l. a-year. Surely, if they had had any vested right, if they had been clearly entitled to these fees, Lord Lyndhurst would not have dared to make such an order, nor would they have submitted to it. Yet they were to be allowed to claim l,300,000l. for compensation, and the House were told that the payment of the compensation was obligatory, and that there ought to be no inquiry into the justice of their claims. These agents or waiting-clerks, however, as he had said, had enjoyed a monopoly of the supply to the sixty Clerks of the office copies and they charged 1½d. a folio. What right had they to compensation, merely employed as an individual employs a law stationer? They had no more a vested right than any person would have who went into a stationer's as a copyist, and would hope to retain his situation as long as he was able to write well and conducted himself properly. The Solicitor General had said, that this Bill was sanctioned by a Committee of the Law Association. That body had notoriously taken an active part in the Measure, and were deeply interested in the result of it. Before the Bill, a country or London attorney in comparatively small practice might through his Clerk in Court, carry on a suit in Chancery; but now the large agency offices must be resorted to for that purpose, and thus it was manifestly their interest to carry the measure at any price. Mr. Wainwright, himself one of those Clerks, drew the Bill, and he (Mr. Jervis) must say he could not suppose that, had the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government been fully aware of the nature of the proposed compensations, he could scarcely have approved of thus letting the London attorneys and the sixty Clerks settle between them on what principle the offices should be abolished, and compensation awarded. Yet Mr. Wainwright, who himself received 7,000l. a-year by the change, was allowed to draw the Bill, and the matter was settled with the Committee of the Law Association, who, to say the least of it, as being attorneys, were exposed to some suspicion as to their position relatively to the affair. But, as the Solicitor-General had said, these matters were brought before the Committee, and Mr. Field, in a letter to the profession on the subject, gives as a reason for the compensation to the agents, that it was a reproach to the profession to see the respectable agents, formerly in the Exchequer, walking in the streets without means, and deprived of their employment. This, forsooth, was the ground on which a new principle was to be introduced—on which the Suitors' Fund and the public were to pay compensation to men who had never had any right to it, and on which all inquiry was refused. He must condemn the manner in which the Act had been introduced, drawn as it was by Mr. Wainwright, one of the Six Clerks, and negotiated and settled by the Law Association, who had a direct interest in the matter. Did his hon. and learned Friend mean to say that Mr. Pemberton Leigh had shared in the settlement of the Act? [The Solicitor General. "Yes."]—His hon. and learned Friend had gone to Ireland for a precedent; but, in the case he referred to, the offices were patent and saleable offices: so far from giving anything like the amount of the actual fees as compensation, the Act expressly directed that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into what were the legal fees, and the compensation was to be awarded on that principle. But in the Act of which he complained a totally new principle was introduced, and one totally at variance with that which had invariably been laid down and acted upon with respect to compensations. Why had not this been fairly stated to the House by those who introduced the Bill? Why had the measure been smuggled through the House? He maintained that it was hurried through with indecent haste. It was brought in on the 29th of July, and read a first time immediately. On the 1st of August it was read a second time, it not having then been printed. On the 2nd it was considered in Committee, when the Compensation Clauses were added (without their having been printed and circulated among Members) and those Clauses were not printed until the morning of the day on which the third reading of the Bill took place. What opportunity was given the House to ascertain the provisions of the Bill? It was a mockery to say that the Bill was deliberately passed, or that these Compensation Clauses came before the House in a way to allow of their being properly discussed in Committee. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department—prepared to abandon that great principle of supervision in these cases of compensation which had been acted on in all Law Reforms, and also in the case of the Corporations? He said, give compensation to all who were fairly entitled to it; but he must add, that had the public interests been properly attended to, this Bill would never have been passed. All he asked for was inquiry. Let there be inquiry, if it were only to come to the conclusion that the old principle was a wrong one, and that the principle acted on in that Bill was a right one. If so, let it be adopted in future; but do not let one principle regulate all other cases, and a separate and a new principle rule in this single instance alone. He thought, notwithstanding the speech of the Solicitor General, that the public mind would not be satisfied on this subject without inquiry. With respect to these Six Clerks, he did not deny their right to compensation, though he thought it would be more satisfactory, if the right amount were properly ascertained. But where was the vested interest of the Sworn Clerks? He defied the Solicitor General to show an instance of their office being legally saleable or legally sold. He knew that a sort of sale had been effected; but it was by selling the connexion of the office and introducing the parties to the buyers. Again, it appeared that the compensations had been arranged on unfair principles; fees which depended on the caprice of attorneys and on account of matters which were about to be finally wound up were made the basis of a calculation of compensation not merely to last during the life of the party, but seven years afterwards. The Equity Exchequer had been abolished—the officers of that Court compensated, and the business transferred to the Court of Chancery. For this, the public were again to pay in compensation to these officers. The Court of Chancery had been burthened with arrears, and new Judges having been appointed to clear off the business, the arrears thus disposed of, were taken as a general average of the profits of the Clerks. His hon. and learned Friend had told them that the Lord Chancellor had no option in the matter—that he was fettered by the terms of the Act. Why, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to examine on oath into the amount and average of the fees, and to determine on what compensation should be given,—the only limitation being, that the rate of compensation should be three-fourths of the amount on which the compensation was to be granted. Now, did the Lord Chancellor so inquire? [The Solicitor General had not said the Lord Chancellor was fettered.] His hon. and learned Friend might not in express terms have applied his remarks to the Lord Chancellor; but he left it for the House to understand that there was no discretion. Now, he contended, that the Act did not merely leave a discretion, but that it imposed a bounden duty on the Lord Chancellor to examine on oath as to the proper amount of the compensation to be granted. The public were very deeply interested in this subject, for the poor suitor, who ought to have justice cheap, was taxed in the charges of the Court, in order to pay these compensations. With regard to the agents, he had already said, he could not see on what ground they were to receive compensation at all. If they were now to be compensated, a crying injustice was done to those offices in the Equity Exchequer who had been similarly situated. A general principle was laid down, and it ought to be adhered to in all cases, however much individual suffering might be regretted. Were they prepared to adopt this principle in the case of future law reforms? If the hon. Member for Finsbury succeeded in his Motion with respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts, were they prepared not only to compensate proctors and agents, but also writing clerks? Were they prepared to give to the person who was a mere servant at the option of an employer, the same compensation they gave to the holder of a patent office? Far better would it be to encounter inconvenience than to perpetrate public injustice. It might be difficult to carry Law Reform without liberal compensation, but the price paid might deter the public from further attempt at reform. It was nothing to say, that a saving had been effected by this Measure. That saving would have been far greater had a different principle been acted upon—20,000l. at least. But the evil effect of this pernicious principle was evinced in the vicious system it had produced of burthening the already over burthened suitors with additional taxes, aggravating the mischiefs of the protracted procrastination of the proceedings in Chancery: 4 per cent. was levied on the total amount of costs taxed, and, instead of 8,000l. formerly received in the year from the taxing office, 30,000l. and upwards had last year been received thence, arising not from increase of business, but of fees. A few specimens of these impositions would exemplify their character. "Filing the bill," which used to be only a few shillings, had been increased to a pound. [The Solicitor General: The term fee made 14s.] And is not the augmentation to 20s. increase enough? So with the "filing the answer," which used to be 3s. 4d., it is now 10s. [The Solicitor General: The term Court fee, made it up to 6s. 8d.] And is there not now (in addition to the accounts I am reading,) a lumping sum for all the items once again? [The Solicitor General: "No, no."] Yes, as he could show. Proceeding, however, with his specimens, he found such instances as these:—

And, above all, office copies of documents—which formed, of course, an enormous item of charge, owing to the immense extent of the documents—these, which used to cost only 1½d. per folio, were now 4d., being done by the stationer for 1d. Then, in addition to all this increase, there was the charge of 4 per cent. on the taxed costs; so that going through the taxing office, which used to cost some shillings, now must involve large sums (proportioned to the amount taxed)of 30l.,40l., 50l., &c. It was, however, a fallacy to judge of the expenditure by the Returns which had been laid upon the Table of the House, for many fees formerly received by the Clerks of the Court, were now allowed to the solicitors. But one little yet significant circumstance sufficiently showed what an opinion was entertained by the framers of the Measure themselves—how much they felt it savoured of a private job. They had inserted in this, (a public Act), a clause enacting, that the cost of "procuring, preparing, and passing the Measure should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund." He felt this to be altogether a gross case of omission on the part of those who should have attended to, and examined the Measure; and he declared it to be his belief, that without inquiry, the profession, who knew all about it, and the public, who too fatally felt the evil effects of it, would never be satisfied.

observed, it would be exceedingly improper in any unlearned Member to go into so technical a subject; but he merely desired to declare that he had considered this Measure as extremely suspicious, and had consulted a lawyer of some celebrity, who asserted it was "advisable"— not at all an unaccountable affirmation, seeing that he had since discovered his "learned Friend" had got 1,500l. a year by the Bill. Now, however, he should deem it his duty to do all that he could for the public by supporting the inquiry, which never was, he considered, more imperatively called for than in the present instance, and he believed the Government would incur a heavy responsibility by resisting it.

declared, that though unversed in the technicalities with which, of course, the subject was more or less connected, he should feel it his duty to state shortly the ground supon which he opposed the Motion. He deprecated the idea that time gave sanction to abuses in the administration of justice; but time might give a prescriptive right, in law and equity, to recover fees not primarily legal. And with respect to the "Sworn Clerks" they were recognised as far back as 1668 (he believed), or soon after the Restoration. The question generally, however, might be divided under two heads—the circumstances attending the passing of the Measure, and the nature and operation of its provisions. The able speech delivered by Mr. Pemberton Leigh in 1840 upon Chancery Reform, had recommended the abolition of the offices alluded to, to be accompanied by fair and liberal compensation. And one of the first acts of the present Lord Chancellor, on his accession to office, was to appoint as a Commission on the subject Lord Langdale, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, Vice-Chancellor Wigram, and Mr. Sharp, who were responsible for the Measure—the result of these deliberations—whoever's was the hand that drew it up. The Chancellor being, after he introduced it, unable, from ill health, to attend to it, it was passed through the Lords mainly under Lord Langdale's supervision, with the concurrence and cognizance of an eminent equity authority, Lord Cottenham; and their attention was specifically drawn to the particular provision complained of; nor was it at all true, that the Measure had passed with any precipitation or carelessness through the Lower House. In the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General of that day—now the Lord Chief Baron—he might be permitted to observe what he was sure would elicit the approbation of the House—that, if ever there was one who, in discharging the duties of the high office of Attorney General, conducted himself with perfect propriety on all occasions, it was his right hon. and learned Friend, who was utterly incapable of attempting to impose upon, or mislead the House. [Mr. R. Yorke: "Yes; but he had a prepossession for the Bill."] Sir,—continued the right hon. Baronet—I am never sorry to be interrupted when I understand the precise nature of the interruption; but, if all the hon. Gentleman means is, that my right hon. and learned Friend had "a prepossession for the Bill," why, of course he had,—seeing that as law officer of the Crown it had been his duty to consider the Bill, and he had approved of it. His "prepossession" therefore, was the inevitable result of reflection. The Measure had attracted the attention of the great guardian of the public purse, and also of the learned Member for Liskeard, who had actually considered that compensa- tion was not carried far enough. Now, with all respect for the learned Member for Chester, certain of his statements were quite unfounded; as, for instance, about the offices in question never having been legally saleable,—when in fact the sale had been recognised regularly in the 14th Clause of the Act. Then, as respected the giving compensation to the agents, as a precedent for that, he would cite at once the Act of 3rd and 4th of William IV. Far from the Bill having been smuggled through Parliament, it had been fully considered, and with that view sent to the Law Association. He was quite satisfied, that it could not be fairly represented that this Measure was smuggled through Parliament, or that it was surreptitiously passed. The Measure was prepared with the sanction of high legal authorities, and therefore the case resolved itself into the question whether or not the provisions of the Bill had been carried fairly into operation. The power to adjudicate on the amount of compensation to be given was vested in the Lord Chancellor. That noble and learned Lord called to his aid the assistance of the Master of the Rolls, and Vice-Chancellor Wigram; he investigated the title to these fees, and decided that they were legal; and his award, which was in the nature of a judgment, admitting the fees to be legal, was the minimum compensation allowed by the Act of Parliament. There was no question that 6,000l. a year of the gross sum previously paid by suitors had ceased to be received, and, progressively, in the lapse of time—say about twenty years—45,000l. a year, or two thirds of the whole amount paid before this Measure was introduced, would be remitted. Two branches of fees had been abolished—the fee on taxation and the term fee. On the whole, he could not think, after these enactments had been deliberately passed by both Houses of Parliament, that any inquiry which the House could now institute would have any other effect on the public mind, than to induce it to regard the Motion as an impeachment of the conduct of the noble and learned Lord holding the Great Seal, against whom it was not alleged that he had committed any abuse in the administration of the law. For these reasons he should resist the Motion.

wished to ask whether the legal Gentlemen, whose names had been referred to, had sanctioned the pay- ment of 7,000l. a year to a Clerk, and 2,500l. to four of them, for seven years after their death?

in answer to the question, said, that by the 14th Clause, which he had read and the House had sanctioned, giving compensation for the right of sale and transfer, the attention of Lord Cottenham had been expressly called to that particular enactment before it became law. That particular provision had been framed by Lord Langdale, by Mr. Pemberton Leigh, Mr. Sharpe, and Vice-Chancellor Wigram. That was before it became law. Since then the amount had been fixed by the Lord Chancellor, aided by the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor Wigram.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question.

observed, that the House and the public had been in full possession of information on this subject. Mr. Pemberton Leigh, in his speech made by him in that House on a former year, had particularly referred to the emoluments of one individual as being 8,000l. a year, and there had been, also, a return moved for, by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, stating the whole of the emoluments of these persons. That return had been laid on the Table of the House.

said that, unless they introduced a better system of passing Bills through that House, it would be impossible to prevent jobs of this kind. There was no one, he was sure, but must admit that every one of these persons had received enormous compensation. It was monstrous to think that a clerk, sitting in Chancery-lane, and working for five hours a-day, should be paid for what he there did 1,500l. a-year more than the First Lord of the Treasury, and 2,500l. more than the right hon. Gentleman himself, who certainly worked more than twelve hours a-day. This was now shown to be a great job; and, looking to its character and the manner in which it had passed through that House, it became the duty of the Government to support the Motion.

was prepared to defend the vote which he was about to give that night in support of Her Majesty's Government, and against the first part of the Motion of the hon. Member for Kinsale. He must say that the House would discuss this question in a very vague manner, if it considered it upon the grounds alone that had been urged by the hon. Member for Coventry, who could see nothing in it but an addition to the taxation of the country, and who, in his desire to carry out his views of economy, would throw aside all other considerations of the question. He, on the contrary, asked of them to look at the general question of Law Reform? He asked of the House to consider what were the important interests that were concerned in a reform of the law, and how much the happiness of individuals and the prosperity of the country were involved in the present mode of procedure in these courts of law and equity? He asked of them to consider how much the evils in litigation were aggravated by the cumbrous and bad modes of procedure, and how much of those evils might be mitigated by reforms, which, when carried out, must affect the interests of individuals? It was on these grounds that he had taken the part he had done on the Motion with regard to Mr. Scarlett and the Exchequer Clerks; and he did say, that if they were honest about the subject of Law Reform— if they were serious in their desire to carry that Reform into effect—then they must not encumber the great question of Law Reform by exciting against them the hostility of vested interests. They had already to contend against the prejudices of those who were wedded to the present practice of the Law. They had against them the prejudices of those who thought that the Law as it was at present was perfect; and they had, too, to contend against the prejudices of every one whose livelihood depended upon the present administration of justice; and he therefore said, in addition to all those impediments, let them not allow pecuniary considerations to stand in their way, when these Law Reforms must affect those who had vested interests in the existing system. If the House were in earnest in its Law Reform— if it were serious in this work—then it ought to lay down the principle that it would be liberal in its compensation to those who bad vested interests, or what were to be treated as vested interests. He came now to the present question. It had been denounced as a job by the present Government, whilst he knew that the whole of it had emanated from persons who were as sincere law reformers as the country had ever seen. When he had interrupted the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the course of his speech, it was for the purpose of intimating his opinion, that the Gentlemen named by the present Lord Chancellor, with powers to inquire and propose Reforms in the Courts of Equity, were not nominated solely by the now Lord Chancellor, but were intrusted with the same duty by Lord Cottenham. When, then, they assailed this plan, they were assailing a plan devised by four honest, competent Reformers, acting not solely under the sanction of Lord Lyndhurst, but also of Lord Cottenham. The charge made was as to the amount of compensation; but they ought not to look to that alone. They ought to see what was the whole of the change made, and whether it was worth the expense. He did not mean to expatiate on the advantages of the change that had been made. It was, he thought, obvious to every one who inquired into the matter. He did not advocate the increased expense by the plan, for the public had to pay no more than it did before. But what was the great difference between the present and the old plan? That they had substituted an annuity in place of a permanent payment. The sum paid was constantly diminishing instead of there being an increase to it. 77,000l. was paid under the old system, 76,000l. was paid under the new, and in the course of eighteen months that sum had happened to be diminished by 6,000l. They had then, that much saved already, with the certainty that more would be saved hereafter. Gentlemen had been pleased to say, that as to these officers and their fees, they could not see what right they had, to claim compensation for them. Now, he did say, that if ever they meant to carry out reform with the consent of persons interested in the present administration of the law, they must adopt liberal views of compensation. If they let it be known that such were their views, they would find the way facilitated for them in working out the system of reform. He had been told, for instance, by persons connected with the Court of Chancery, that since this Act had passed, there never had arisen a question as to the working of it out; whereas, in every other Act of the same kind, there had arisen innumerable questions of litigation. Instead, then, of this being, as it has been designated, a job, it had been recommended by persons who had no interest in it, who had acted from no political bias, and whose only desire was to effect a reform in the law. There was another part of the Motion— that which professed a general inquiry into the general taxation arising out of costs in the Courts of Law and Equity, and the payment of fees. This really was a subject which was well worthy of inquiry in that House. The mode of taking fees in these courts did require investigation. It was very desirable, in the first place, that wherever fees were taken, no opportunity should be afforded for peculation. It was, too, a great object that the number of fee-takers should be as few as possible. It would be found that in these Courts of Law and Equity there were 203 persons receiving fees, to the amount of 300,000l.. per annum, and of these several had small incomes. He must say, then, that if the House continued the custom of taking fees, they ought to diminish the number of fee-takers, for the purpose of preventing peculation. This was a large question for consideration. Why did they take any fees from the suitors in Courts of Law and Equity? If he were knocked down in the street, he had not to go to the expense of paying a police-officer, the police-officer employed by him to give him relief was not feed by the individual, but salaried by Government. Nobody could pretend that the expense of the police was paid by the individual; and why, then, he asked, if he had the misfortune to have a right unjustly refused, or a right unjustly assailed, was he to have the whole of the expense of that which was for the benefit of the public? If he vindicated his right, it was for the benefit of the public, and they ought to guard him in doing that, as a matter of policy. The whole system of fees was as bad as possible, and the object of good government should be to abolish the evil. He wished, therefore, to see this subject inquired into. This portion of the Motion had his support, whilst he felt it to be his duty to vote against the first part of it, as affecting a Law Reform which was useful and advantageous to the public.

remembered, he said, to have once read in the memoirs of the Due de Saint Simon, that Louis XIV. was anxious to introduce a reform into his laws; but upon consulting with his Chancellor, the Chancellor said, " If you carry your law reforms into effect, there are so many clerks, and so many officers to be dismissed, and to be deprived of the emoluments which they now enjoy under the present system, that I cannot reconcile it to myself to be guilty of such hard-heartedness towards them;" and in this way the reform of the law was abandoned in the reign of Louis XIV. Such seemed to be the feeling of the hon. Member for Liskeard on this subject; for he was so afraid of doing injustice to those who held office, that unless they gave unlimited compensation to such persons, he was not willing to enter upon the question of law reform at all. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for if they gave monstrous compensation to individuals, whether they were entitled to it or not, they would disgust the public with the principle of law reforms. He had heard the First Lord of the Treasury refer, not by name, to this particular case; but on the question of compensation he had heard him refer to this subject—when speaking of the enormous compensation they gave to public officers, and expressing on that occasion almost a disinclination to the money clauses in such Bills, because of the enormous compensation which they awarded in particular cases. As to the great names that had been mentioned as belonging to the Law Commission, he knew of their high character as well as his hon. Friend. But what had they to do with this compensation? They took up the whole question of Law Reform—they devised the plan by which it was to be carried out—but what had they to do on that account with determining the actual amount of the compensation? It appeared clear, from the admissions made to-night, that the Lord Chancellor had the control over them. This enormous and exorbitant amount of compensation was completely under the control of the Lord Chancellor. The extreme point of the enormous fees of the Clerks was taken. The annual income of these individuals was estimated at the extreme point, and by that was determined the amount of compensation to be received by them. This sort of Law Reform, he said, would disgust the public with the very name of Law Reform. Everybody admitted the principle of compensation, and that the Law Reform could not be carried into effect without it. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion said they ought to award compensation; but then it should be a just compensation. The sole question, however, was, was the compensation that bad been awarded a just compensation? When they heard that the Bill in this case had been brought into the House on the 29th July, and that it was read a third time on the 5th August, every one must know how little time and attention could have been bestowed upon it. What prospect, at such a time, was there for an hon. Gentleman in opposing the Bill, of drawing attention to it, when the House and the country were alike exhausted with the discussions in Parliament. Considering as he did that the whole responsibility of these proceedings rested with the Government, he thought that they were bound to vote for this Committee, in order that at least, if they could not undo the Measure which had been passed, they might ascertain what abuses were carried on under it.

replied. With respect to the objection to this inquiry, he asked why were these Returns ordered by the Act 5 & 6 Viet. c. 103, to be presented to the House, if it was not competent to them to investigate them. Neither of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had opposed his Motion had answered any of the principal grounds by which he supported it. He asked again, why Mr. Wainwright should be paid 339l. by the country for drawing, preparing, and passing this public Act of Parliament, which imposed a charge of one million sterling upon the public? It was as bad as making a criminal pay for a gallows. It was pretended that the fees of the Clerks in Court were of a permanent nature. He denied it altogether. The Lord Chancellor might have altered them, and he should have done so, and they would have had no compensation. Moreover, no Clerk in Court could compel the Solicitors to employ him. Their business was dependent on the favour of the Solicitors. They had been altered from time to time, and were in reality not worth ten days' purchase. It was said by the Solicitor General that these fees had fallen off since the change. This also he denied. He maintained that they had been increased very considerably, and he had shown it by figures from the Returns on the Table of the House. The Taxing-Masters were put down at 2,000l. a-year, whilst those belonging to Courts of Law, and who had a great deal more to do, got only 1,200/. a year. He went into a detail of the duties of the Common Law Masters and contrasted them with the duties of the Taxing Masters in Chancery, and con- tended that the former had more onerous duties. It was the duty of the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department to have looked into these compensation clauses before he allowed them to be proposed to the House upon his authority. As to the compensation after death to the Six Clerks in the Chancery in Ireland.— it was strange that it was necessary to import jobs from Ireland-but the cases were dissimilar, those were Patent Offices legally bought and sold. Here the Clerks in Court held no office, and they could not by law sell them; it was against the Statutes 5 & 6 Edw. 4, cap. 16; 46 Geo. 3, cap. 126. In conclusion, he must say that he was surprised that any opposition should be offered to this inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard said that it would suspend the progress of Law Reform; but he, for one, should suspect all Law Reform if such things were allowed to accompany them.

The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 68; Noes 84—Majority 16.

brought forward, pursuant to notice, his Motion for the nomination of the Select Committee on the working of the Poor Law system in Ireland, granted by the House on that night fortnight. The House and the Government had already agreed to the appointment of the Committee that he then sought to have nominated; bat he understood that it was, notwithstanding, the intention of the Government, on that occasion, to resist his Motion. It had been said that the Committee which he wished to have appointed was intended to act in hostility to the Poor Law system in Ireland, but he had utterly to deny that the subject had been brought before the House under any such spirit or feeling. He required the House to do no more than had been done with regard to the English Poor-Law, with respect to which a Committee of Inquiry had been appointed before it had been more than three or four years in operation. The present Poor Law had been at that time introduced into England as an experiment, to ascertain how far the expenses of the former system could be reduced, and the House granted an inquiry as soon as it was required, for the purpose of ascertaining how far that experiment had succeeded. The Irish Poor Law was introduced still more avowedly as a mere experiment, and all he asked on the part of the people of Ireland was for a similar Committee to that given for England, to inquire how far it was likely to succeed, and what alterations and improvements it would be advisable to have made in it. The Government, however, had now decided on refusing to allow such an inquiry to be made, and he would assert that that refusal was made in the most improper manner and on the most unsubstantial grounds that could possibly have been devised. They first granted the Committee, and then because his right hon. Friend opposite thought proper to object, they were about to rescind their former act. He would repeat they had no other ground whatever to justify their change of opinion, or to warrant them in rescinding their own act solemnly agreed to only a few days before, save the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and the allegation that some half dozen of Irish Members— or, he was reminded by an hon. Friend near, a still less number—had expressed themselves unfavourable to the appointment of a Committee at the present period. He would say that as the Ministers of the Crown, they had a right, if they thought the time had come for an inquiry for ascertaining whether the experiment had worked well, to have followed out their intention despite any opposition they might have met with from individual Members; and if they were of a contrary opinion, and thought that the time had not arrived for making that inquiry, then they should not in the first instance have consented to the appointment of the Committee. He contended that the reasons which he had heard from his hon. Friends who had opposed his Motion appeared to be altogether inapplicable as arguments why an inquiry should not take place, whatever weight they might have if used against a Motion for the entire subversion of the Poor Law system in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had opposed his Motion because he had heard from one or two respectable Gentlemen in Dublin that the system was working well in their districts; but it should be borne in mind that there was probably no system of law so bad that by great pains, it might not be attended with some beneficial results in particular localities. Much stress had also been laid on the fact of public attention in Ireland not having been so much directed to the question of Poor Laws during the present Session as in the preceding year; but it appeared to be forgotten that the public mind in Ireland had been latterly so much engaged with another subject as to have left no time for consideration upon anything else. The Irish people appeared to have for a time gone to sleep on the subject of the Poor Law, but that was no proof that the system was becoming more popular in the country, or that the people were growing more reconciled to it; and he would add, that he did not think the opposition given to the appointment of the present Committee calculated to render the system more agreeable to the people than before. It was said that the Bill of last year had not yet been tried, but he was willing to let that measure of the last Session be regarded as being so perfect that no room for improvement was left in it, or else as being the most useless and worthless amendment ever introduced to any law; and in either case he was prepared to contend that there were still ample grounds why the Committee ought to be appointed. He held in his hand an account which he had received from a Poor Law Union in the south of Ireland, that gave a rather curious illustration of the success which was likely to attend the Act of last year. The principal feature in that Act was the exclusion from liability to the rate of 41. occupiers in the rural districts, and of 8l. occupiers in the municipal districts; but in both cases all persons who hold by lease, even when under the prescribed amount, are made liable, and he wished to show the consequences that were likely to result from that exemption. In the Cork Union, which was that from which he had received the return alluded to, it appeared, that the reviser of rates for the Union, had been called before the Board of Guardians, and asked how many per- sons had served notices on him to have the tenants' names inserted instead of those of the landlords, in consequence of the tenements, though valued below 8l., being held by lease. His reply was, that he had as yet received no fewer than ninety-four such notices. He was then asked, how long these applications would continue to be made, and he said for about twelve months, and that he expected they would amount altogether to about 12,000. He did not think there could be a stronger proof given of the manner in which the measure of last year was likely to operate, than that which was there given. He thought hon. Gentlemen who opposed the appointment of the Committee on the ground of the Measure of last Session not having yet had a fair trial, were confounding the mere mechanical working of the law with the great results that were likely to ensue from the system. He was anxious to take that opportunity of stating the views on which he had originally moved for the appointment of the Committee, and which, he did not bring forward in the first instance, because he thought it would be better to allow the Committee, if it were to be appointed, to enter upon their labour free and uncontrolled by any discussion that might have taken place in the House before their appointment. In the first place, he thought that a Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of Poor Laws in Ireland would have to consider the grounds which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had put forward as their basis when they were first introduced by him. He thought the Committee should take into consideration what those grounds were—what were the results that had actually taken place—and how far those results had corresponded with the anticipations which the noble Lord had held out. The noble Lord on that occasion made use of a kind of circle of arguments to show the cause of distress existing in Ireland. He had stated that there was distress because there was want of employment—that there was want of employment because there was want of capital—that there was an absence of capital because there was an insecurity for property—and that insecurity existed because, there was destitution in the country. The noble Lord having thus made the cause of the distress in Ireland his own (and he always remedied the evils which he did make his own), discovered by that manner of argument the necessity of a Poor Law in Ireland. Having ascertained the existence of that magic circle, he thought he was conjuror enough to break the ring, and thus to remedy the entire mischief. He thought that by removing a single link of the circle all the evil would be cured, and he therefore supposed that all that was required to remove the spell that hung over the country was to put an end to destitution by the introduction of a Poor Law, and that security being thus established, capital would flow in and employment become general. How far these views of the noble Lord were borne out by the result would, he thought, form one legitimate ground of inquiry for the Committee; for though the law had not yet come generally into operation throughout the country, still he was sure the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would allow that there were sufficient means of testing the effect which it was calculated to have, both on the destitute and on the industrious classes. If the Committee found that the destitution relieved in the workhouse, was not the description of destitution which the noble Lord had anticipated —that prostitutes and their children were principally the women who sought workhouse relief—and that, where the system had been in operation for three or four years, the effect often was, that the wife was deserted by her husband, for the sole purpose of breaking those ties that bound him to industry and exertion, in order to throw his family upon the Union—if the Committee discovered such results as these to be the consequence of the system, it was not to be supposed they would come to the conclusion that Poor Laws should be done away with altogether, though they might be inclined to ask if the discipline of the workhouse was such as to counteract the tendency to idleness, and they would probably ascertain whether industry and good habits were sufficiently inculcated in the workhouses at present. This might lead them to inquire whether workhouses were at all the best mode of relieving the destitution of the country. They would also probably find that if the workhouses were all filled, they would contain somewhat about 50,000 children and young persons—the workhouses being calculated to hold 100,000 persons—and would it not be a fit subject for inquiry by the Committee, to ascertain whether those children were trained in the work- houses in such a manner as to render them useful members of society, when they were afterwards sent forth into the world. Would it not be important for the Committee to examine whether the system of training children in the workhouses was such as was likely to make those children skilful agriculturists or able artizans, or to make the young women become good servants and useful members of the community in after life. Another subject of inquiry he thought should be, the manner in which the expenses of each Union was borne by different districts. They would find that in some Unions, particular districts paid as much as 2s. 6d. in the pound, while the other districts paid nothing at all. They might then inquire, if there was anything connected with the past management of property in particular districts requiring explanation, and whether any justifiable reasons existed, why one portion of the property of a Union should be taxed more than another. Again, one of the chief misfortunes of Ireland was, that some localities were subject to periodical returns of famine and of disease, and it would be important for the Committee to inquire how these returns might be best averted. Another important subject for investigation would be that of vagrancy, as one of the reasons on which the noble Lord founded the introduction of the Poor Laws into Ireland was, that they would act as a species of police system in putting an end to the bad habit of paupers moving from place to place, by means of which the entire population was likely to be corrupted, and the introduction of capital prevented. It would be a question for the Committee to consider whether it would not be practicable to introduce a system of vagrancy laws even without the existence of Poor Laws. There were many other matters of detail which he need not trouble the House by going into, but which would form ground for most useful inquiry before the Committee. Such, for instance, as the subject of the Union accounts, which he could defy any gentlemen who had devoted his attention to the subject to approve of as satisfactory. He found that the maintenance of each pauper in the workhouse, cost the country from 6l. 10s. to 7l.. annually, but the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) would recollect, that that sum was altogether exclusive of the sum expended in the building of the workhouse. He would venture to challenge the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eliot), to show that paupers were maintained for less than 7l. each in workhouses, and if 100,000 paupers be supported in all the Unions in Ireland, the expense on the country will be 700,000l. But in addition to that sum there was 1,300,000l. expended in erecting the workhouses, the annual charge on which might be considered to be 40,000l., thus leaving 740,000l. as the annual cost of supporting the 100,000 paupers. If they tested the workhouse system in that manner, what result did they arrive at? He believed no gentleman would deny that a family consisting of a husband and wife, and five children, would be very far, indeed, from destitution—such destitution as exists in Ireland—if the man earned l0d. a-day, and two of his children 5d. a-day each at permanent employment, making for 300 working days at 20d a-day for the entire family, about 22l. 10s. a-year. Such a sum would support that family in comfort out of the workhouse, but if those seven persons received workhouse relief, they would cost the Union 49l. a-year. If they applied the same calculation to the 740,000l. they would find that instead of supporting 100,000 persons, it would be sufficient to support more than twice that number. These were some of the reasons that made him doubt whether the Poor Law that had been introduced into Ireland was the most useful that could be devised for that country. If the Committee were appointed, he had no doubt many persons would be found willing to come before it, who would probably be able to substantiate very serious charges against the Poor Law Commissioners, but independent of that portion of the inquiry, he thought it most important that the Committee should be appointed to consider the probable results of the general working of the system, how far it was likely to meet the objects for which it was intended, and what were the abuses that had crept into it. As he understood that there would be no Committee appointed, he had only to hope that there would be more unanimity found existing among Irish Members on the subject, whenever it was again introduced before the House. After mentioning some other instances in which the present law required inquiry, the hon. Baronet concluded by observing that, instead of en- deavouring to select a system of Poor Laws that would be best adapted for the condition of Ireland, they had applied their own patchwork system to that country, not because it was the most useful, but because they had it ready at their hand at the moment. His Motion was, that the Committee on the Poor Laws in Ireland should consist of the following Members:—Sir Denham Norreys, Lord Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Young, Mr. French, Viscount Bernard, Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Claude Hamilton, Mr. Tuite, Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes, Sir Arthur Brooke, and Mr. E. P. Shirley.

The question that Sir D. Norreys be a Member of the Committee having been put,

considered that there were already before the House proofs of the working of the Poor Law in Ireland; and, fearing that the proposed inquiry would only tend to lessen the confidence of the people in that law, or in any improvement in its operation, he objected to the nomination of the Committee. He agreed that the Commissioners had failed in carrying out the instructions contained in Lord J. Russell's Letter, in which he advised the Commissioners to conciliate the feelings and prejudices of the people on introducing the law, and to that circumstance he attributed much of its unpopularity. The law had, however, been attended with some good results, and had been beneficial in bringing the upper and lower classes into a more intimate connection, and he was confident the people were becoming more and more reconciled to it.

hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys), having delivered his speech, would now be more at ease. With respect, however, to the Motion, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which he felt it to be his duty to refuse the proposed inquiry. The House would be aware that an extensive alteration of the Irish Poor Law had passed in the last Session of Parliament, and that the Measure had gone up to the House of Lords, at a period of the Session so advanced, that it would have been impossible for it to become law if any great amount of opposition had been offered to it—and that an assurance was in consequence given to the other House that, if any general wish should be expressed on the part of Irish Peers and Irish Members for an inquiry into the operation of the law during the present Session, such a proposition would not be opposed by the Government. Such an assurance having been given in the other House, he did not think he would have been justified in refusing the inquiry, had he found a general feeling in favour of it on the part of the Irish Members of both Houses. But how stood the fact? In the House of Lords no wish had been expressed for the appointment of a Committee, on the part of the Irish Peers; nor had any such Motion been made; and in the House of Commons, so far from there being a general feeling in favour of the inquiry on the part of the hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland, they found the hon. Member for Waterford, the hon. Member for Donegal, the hon. Member for the Queen's County, his right hon. Friend the Recorder of Dublin, and a great many other hon. Gentlemen connected with that country, and taking a deep interest in its welfare, decidedly objecting to any such investigation, as tending to impede and throw difficulties in the way of the working of the Poor Law. Under these circumstances, being of opinion that it would he most unwise to disturb the Amendment of the Law, which was passed last year, and that it would be equally unwise and unnecessary, now to enter into such a voluminous inquiry as that proposed by the hon. Baronet—an inquiry involving not only every detail in any way connected with the law, but the whole policy of the Poor Law itself—considering that to enter upon such an inquiry now would tend materially to disturb and impede the operations of the Amendment Act so lately passed, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion.

said, the course Her Majesty's Government was about to pursue, appeared to him as novel, and as much opposed to precedent as the reasons the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been pleased to assign for its adoption. A Committee had been appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into and report on the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland. This inquiry had been suggested and sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Baronet himself had fixed upon the names of the persons by whom that investigation was to be carried out, and now, flushed with re- cent triumph, in opposition to the wishes of the hon. Baronet, on whose Motion the Committee had been appointed—he called upon the House at his mere will and pleasure to stultify its proceedings, and without a single reason adduced to rescind its own order. The right hon. Baronet endeavoured to convey to the House that he was acting in deference to the wishes of his supporters. It might be so, as his hon. Friends appeared to imagine, but they must admit it was a course foreign to the usual policy of Her Majesty's Government, who, since their advent to power, had not introduced any Measure in accordance with or in deference to the feelings of their party. Was it in deference to the feelings of his supporters that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government brought forward his uncalled-for Tariff", a Measure by which the agricultural interest had been so severely injured, without the manufacturers being in the slightest degree served? Was it in deference to the wishes of his supporters, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, forced through that House his Canada Corn Bill—and notwithstanding the inexplicable, and to the character of the House, damaging victory of the night before, the Factories Bill? After three defeats, the hon. Secretary for the Home Department would scarcely venture to class his Twelve Hours' Labour Bill amongst measures sought for by his political adherents. Hitherto in legislating for Ireland, from an absence of that knowledge so essential on the part of the Legislature, of the feelings and habits of the people, for whose benefit the laws were proposed to be made, or perchance from a total disregard of both, scarcely any measure received the sanction of Parliament which did not contain in it some provisions calculated to keep alive that early feeling, that law was to them an instrument of oppression, rather than a source of protection. Was the course Her Majesty's Ministers were now about to pursue, that night likely to weaken or remove that impression? A law neither suited nor suitable to the country, based as they themselves admitted on unfounded predictions, and on inaccurate calculations, has at all hazards to be maintained. A Law by which every existing evil of which the Irish people complained had been aggravated, was neither to be altered, nor inquired into, because some three or four Members in that House were enabled to state that it was not in their districts, as it was elsewhere, generating insurrection. He defied these Gentlemen, or any person else, to show that in any portion of the country it was administering the relief which the destitution of the people required. The right hon. Baronet could not have assented to this Committee in ignorance of the light in which the present Poor Law was regarded by the Irish people. The resolutions of Boards of Guardians, of Grand Juries, and of other public bodies, had told him how inapplicable the law was to Ireland. The employment of seven thousand or eight thousand bayonets in forcing in a few hundred pounds of Poor Rate, must have shown him how distasteful it was to the peasantry. The extraordinary and unprecedented agreement on this question of the press in Ireland, differing as it did on every other subject, ought to have convinced him that the condemnation of this law was unanimous. The Evening Mail, Post, Pilot, Freeman, all concurred in regarding it as a puny and imbecile tampering with a great moral evil. The Monitor, a paper supposed to represent the views of the moderate party in Ireland, thus speaks of it—

"It is admitted the law does not work well —that it is unpopular—that it is in many points unjust in its pressure—that it is a heavy tax, requiring the presence of an armed force amongst an excitable people to collect it—that its machinery is cumbrous, expensive, and inoperative—that the relief afforded is comparatively trifling, and unwillingly, nay, thanklessly received. That it reverses the attribute of mercy, neither blessing him that gives nor him that takes. But, although these things be admitted, it is useless to hope for any remedy for the evils, until some authentic evidence of their existence shall be placed formally upon the Records of the House of Commons, which can only be done by an investigation before a Committee."

The Rev. Mr. O'Malley, a Gentleman to whose writings the disposition of the Irish people to receive a Poor Law, was chiefly owing, says—

"It is now universally conceded our Poor Law requires to be amended—a necessary preliminary step would be a Parliamentary investigation of the working of the law as it now stands. It is of the utmost importance that the inquiry should take place immediately. The mischiefs arising out of the present state of the law are too manifold and too manifest to allow it to endure for another year. It purports ' to provide for the more effectual re- lief of the destitute poor in Ireland.' Does it effect any such purpose? Far, very far from it, indeed. On the estimate of its framers, workhouse accommodation has been provided for about 90,000 paupers, but actual relief has not been given to a third of that number. Taking the elements of the calculation upon which that estimate was formed, it scarcely gives a sixth of the whole destitution of the country; but even the third of that sixth the Poor Law does not relieve, and this is what it calls ' providing for the more effectual relief of the destititute poor in Ireland. The poor are worse off than ever."

Such are the opinions forced by experience on one to whom the noble Lord, the (Member for London) and the Poor Law Commissioners were mainly indebted for the indulgent trial their law had received. Laws to be beneficial, must be consonant to the habits and feelings of those for whom they were enacted. Vain would be at all times the attempt to modify the habits of a people to a law. A Poor Law of all others, interfered so much, and so constantly with the humbler classes, that if it did not conciliate, it was sure to exasperate them. Let them legislate in accordance with public opinion, and their laws would be cheerfully obeyed. It was both unwise and expensive—a fact they ought to have discovered long since—to govern solely through the terror of physical force. Even in a pecuniary point of view there was grave cause for inquiry. Mr. Nicholls had estimated the cost of building the work-houses at 700,000l. to be repaid by an assessment of 35,000l.. a-year. He had taken upon himself to expend in this way, 1,300,000l. without the authority or sanction of Parliament; and Ireland was now called on to submit to an annual assessment of 60,000l. for these houses. Mr. Nicholls staled the cost of maintaining the paupers for whom he was providing work-house accommodation—should these houses be fully and constantly occupied— could not by possibility exceed 312,000l. a-year: in the course of a debate in the last Session of Parliament, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, admitted that it would amount to 700,000l. annually. He had at that time shown from indisputable data, that double the amount, 1,400,000l. would be a more correct estimate. The House might judge of the advantages derived from the establishment of the Commissioners' authority, for which the nation had already in salaries paid 100,000l.— from the fact, as stated in the Petition from the South Dublin Union, that under this central power the cost of maintaining paupers had increased in that city from 3l.. 13s. 10d.. per head, which was the amount at the Mendicity Association, to 1l. 16s., the cost per head, at the South Dublin Workhouse. Mr. Nicholls calculated the number of persons likely to require relief at 80,000 annually. The Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry, men of superior ability, higher knowledge, and far greater experience, rated them at upwards of a million: and, he (Mr. French) contended the accuracy of their views was strikingly borne out in the important information contained in the account of the last census taken for Ireland. By this document it appeared that 516,931 families, consisting of 2,868,966 persons, resided in mud cabins. There were besides 108,427 families, consisting of 601,779 individuals, each family dwelling in one room, making above two-fifths of the entire population in this most wretched condition. At the commencement of the present year, 104 workhouses had been opened. The population of the districts in which they were situated was 6,386,813. The number of paupers, two-thirds of whom were infants and children running about the yards, was 30,494. The official returns showed that although the workhouses had been built to accommodate 92,000 paupers, the total number receiving relief on the 1st of January, 1842, was 15,372—on the 1st of January, 1843, 31,572; and on the 2nd of December last, 30,494. In the year 1843, the stationary number was, on an average, 30,000, being in the proportion of one to 272 of the entire population, or as one to 115 of those dwelling in single rooms—whilst in England, the richer country, out-door relief was afforded to one in fourteen, and indoor relief to one in seventy-seven of the population. Those official data would enable the public to judge if the relief afforded at the end of five years' working of the law was such as the really destitute stood in need of, or was likely to answer the purposes desired by those who wished for a really effective Poor Law. The law was working well in the North, had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Donegal, when this subject was last under debate; and the two counties referred to now, Fermanagh and Donegal, he had since inquired into, and found in the former couuty 148 individuals receiving workhouse relief, though in that county there were 55,511 beings now living in wretched mud cabins; and in the latter county, represented by his hon. and gallant Friend, although 128,776 were the residents of single rooms and cabins, but thirty-two persons in the entire county were receiving work_house relief. So much for the examples quoted. Much good, he thought, would have resulted from an inquiry before a Committee into the objects of the Poor Law, after the experience of five years' working, with a view-to their remedy; but the investigation should be a real one, if Government were interested in the welfare of Ireland—at all events, the truth would have been elicited as to the operation and effects of the law; it would have been seen—were it possible that, by any alterations, this law could be made to minister to the necessities of the people in place of the luxuries of the Commissioners—if some means might not be devised for the improvement of a system under which the energies which fit youth for the duties of active life must inevitably be chilled and cramped for ever. He regretted the course Her Majesty's Government were pursuing—it was plainly telling the people of Ireland neither to expect redress for, nor inquiry into, their grievances—that as long as they were tranquil, and payment of the rates, through armed intervention, could be enforced, so long would a law imposing a heavy amount of taxation on the country, without anything of a corresponding amount of benefit to the people, be continued. If they wanted to get rid of it, they must agitate—convulse the country from one end to the other—then, and not till then, would their complaints be attended to by Her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Member sat down declaring he cordially gave his support to his hon. Friend's Motion.

was perfectly satisfied, as the Government had withdrawn their consent to the appointment of the Committee, and would not have risen at all but that he bad authentic documents in his possession —he had that day received them from Ireland—which were calculated to remove some very erroneous impressions that might be taken from the statements made in that House, respecting the present condition of he Irish Poor Laws—first, in answer to his hon. Friend, who had moved for the Committee (Sir D. Norreys), he must say, that his hon. Friend attributed to his ne- gative an influence to which he had no claim. He had certainly expressed in that House reasons against the granting of the Committee as strongly as he felt them; but his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) was quite justified in saying, that on both sides of the House, the Irish Members who were in favour of giving a fair trial to the present law before they condemned it, were unanimously opposed to the Committee; while those who supported the Committee, were Gentlemen who, from the first, had been hostile to the whole principle of the law. To grant a Committee, therefore, under those circumstances, must, in his opinion, have disparaged the law itself, and been a discouragement to those who were endeavouring to carry it into useful operation —the more so, as in some parts of Ireland the rate had not yet been levied, nor the workhouses opened. They were those parts where the greatest opposition had been experienced, and if the Government seemed to hesitate with regard to the stability of the law, which their consent to such a Committee would indicate, those who opposed the law would be encouraged to expect that it was not to be enforced. The facts to which he wished to draw the attention of the House were the following: —There were in the 130 unions, of which Ireland consisted, on the 27th of last month, 109 workhouses open, and only 21 not yet opened. In those workhouses there were then receiving relief 36,603 paupers; and there had been relieved during the half year, which ended on the 29th of last September, 60,906 cases. Of the 109 unions in which the workhouses were open, his returns showed, that in 76 the law was working satisfactorily—that was, independently of some differences of opinion between the boards of guardians and the Commissioners, as to the building and sites of the workhouses, to which he would not then allude—the funds in those 76 unions were in a good state—relief was afforded to considerable numbers at a moderate cost—the rates were in course of collection—and the Guardians and Commissioners were co-operating in a businesslike manner in the administration of the law. With regard to the funds, most exaggerated statements had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Rosscommon and others, that the rate was generally resisted, and that it took large bodies of soldiers and police to collect a few pounds; but what was the fact? On the 24th of August last, in the 98 unions of which the workhouses were then open— the total rate assessed was 605,846l. 11s. 10d, and of that there was collected before the 1st of January last, 559,542l. 1s. 6d., leaving uncollected a sum of only 46,322l.. 10s. 4d. And in the treasurer's accounts there was on the 25th of March last, a balance in favour of the unions of 26,788l. 14s. 5d., and against them of 13,757l. 13s. 6d. 5,053l. of the latter being a debt of old standing in the Cork union, in consequence of a difficulty arising out of the new Corporation Act. Now, he must say, that on the whole, that was not a bad condition of the Poor Law in Ireland—considering the novelty of the experiment, its great extent, and the want of machinery which at first there was for working it—on the other hand, he (Mr. Shaw) did not contend for the protection of the law, or that it was not susceptible of much improvement. On the contrary, he had originally opposed its introduction on its present large scale, and proposed many amendments to it which had not been adopted, but still when the law had passed, and an enormous expense been incurred in the simultaneous application of it, all he said was, let all join in giving it fair play. He would desire to see the law gradually amended in many respects, but then let it be reformed by the hands of those friendly to the general system, and not mutilated by opponents who desired to destroy it. In short, after the law shall have been universally established, and its working tested by a sufficiently long experience, let the Government undertake the careful amendment of it on their own responsibility.

thought the opposition made by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department would have been all very excellent if the object of the Motion before the House was to repeal the Poor Law altogether. The right hon. Baronet had most unjustly accused him, on what ground, unless on the strength of his own imagination, it was hard to conjecture, with being one of the persons who were opposed to the principle of a Poor Law in Ireland. So far from that being the case, he was one of the few persons who so long ago as twelve or fourteen years, advocated a Poor Law for Ire-land: and so strong was his feeling on the subject that, when appointed on a Com- mission to inquire into the subject, he was left in a minority on the occasion, the majority of the Commission being opposed to the principle of a Poor Law for Ireland. He might also add that the evidence in favour of Poor Law relief which he had been the means of laying before that Commission was one of the principal matters afterwards relied on when the Measure was introduced. He should at the same time admit, that he had always been strongly opposed to the Measure of Poor Law relief introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London, and he had gone so far in opposition to that Measure as to have told the noble Lord that he would have resigned his office rather than give his support to the Bill. [Sir James Graham: I only referred to the existing law.] His opposition to the Measure arose from a conscientious feeling of its injurious tendency, and from the evidence which he had heard during the inquiry at which he had assisted. He stated at the time to his noble Friend, Lord Morpeth, that he had just put an end to the disturbances which existed in Ireland, by settling the Tithe Question, but they ought to take care lest, in introducing such a measure of poor relief as was then proposed, he did not raise a greater evil in the country than that which he had just abated. The right hon. Baronet ought to have recollected that he opposed the Motion for an inquiry last year, as he thought it premature; and he could also add, that he had never given any opposition whatever to the working of the present law; and under these circumstances he thought it was too bad that he should be now accused of being an opponent of Poor Laws. He warned the Government that if they did not amend the law—and that too in a very short time—they would upset much more than the Poor Law in Ireland. As far as his own district was concerned, he had not much to complain of, but they were not to look to particular districts, but to the entire country. A great mistake connected with Ireland was the idea that a law applicable to one part of the country was applicable to another, and that principle was strongly exemplified in the working of the Poor Law. Thus, the Poor Rate in parts of Connaught created the most violent opposition among the people, because it was totally unsuited to their condition, habits, and temper, and was not enforced with that moderation which was required. He did not want to throw any odium on the Central Board, but whatever the right hon. and learned Recorder might say about persons being satisfied with the working of the law, he could declare to the House that he never spoke to any Gentleman on the subject who did not state that they found great grounds for discontent in the manner in which the law was carried out. The expenditure of the public money was most monstrous, for the Commissioners not content with building five or ten workhouses, in the first instance, commenced with fifty or sixty workhouses, and in general expended one-fifth, and in some instances one-fourth more than the [original estimate of the work amounted to. On that day he had received a letter from the Deputy-chairman of his own Board of Guardians, stating that their contractor had been paid in full in consequence of an order from the Court of Queen's Bench, and yet the paupers were obliged to convey water for the use of the workhouse from the canal, half-a-mile distant, because their pump was dry, and they had no remedy but to tax the unfortunate ratepayers over again, in order to correct the gross negligence of the Commissioners and the architect. After referring to the case of the Edenderry Union, the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that the statement made by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Bellew) was in his opinion, an excellent argument for an inquiry, and by expressing a hope that the Parliament would not be always considered bound to the absurdities of Mr. Nicholls, who, after a forty days' tour through Ireland, brought in a law in direct opposition to the opinions of the men who were best acquainted with the country—a law which was afterwards passed in a way that he could only describe by the term, being hurried through the House. The law had been at the time described as a mere experiment, and yet, an inquiry into it was now refused; but he would tell the Government that if they attempted to enforce the collection of Poor Rates in the west of Ireland from persons who were themselves paupers, they would drive that part of the country into utter confusion, for if the people were once taught to resist, they would be sure to resist in other matters where they would have less excuse for doing so.

would not trouble the House with many remarks. He had al- ways supported a Poor Law for Ireland, but from his experience of the working of the Measure since its introduction, be thought it desirable that an inquiry should take place. He believed no such time elapsed before an inquiry was instituted into the working of the Poor Law in England. He accused the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) of inconsistency, in first agreeing to the Committee, and then opposing the present Motion. The right hon. Baronet's conduct in requiring his supporters to rescind their former Act was only paralleled by the vote on the Factory Bill on the preceding night. He thought the low condition of the Galway Union to which he belonged had been rather overrated by his hon. Friend who preceded him, but he found that in a neighbouring union they had petitioned the Lord Lieutenant to convert the workhouse into a barrack; and yet in that same Union the Guardians had three years ago voted a supply of materials for the employment of paupers, whom they confessed they intended to admit into the House. The right hon. Baronet had in his opinion, entirely failed in his argument, for he first stated that the law required all their support, and then that it required no support at all. If all inquiry was to be postponed until the law was found to work no longer, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Kildare that they would then have a Poor Law, but they would also have something worse along with it.

said, that his opinion, after hearing the reasons urged for and against the Motion, was, that unless the principles of the law were entirely vicious, the best course that the House could adopt would be to leave to the Government the task of inquiring into any abuses in its administration, to remit all such com plaints to the Secretary of State to be investigated, and the results stated to the House. That having been done, then there might come a time when it would be advisable to appoint a Committee; but at the present moment the objections he had urged age the course pursued by Government confirmed him in the opinion, that Government was pursuing a proper course. As to the appointment of a Committee, he thought that such a step, with respect to a law newly established—when as yet many of those concerned in its administration were unused to it, but when those formerly most hostile were beginning to get reconciled to its provisions—such a step, he repeated, necessitating as it would a ripping up of grievances, and a setting afloat of old questions and disputes—would be one most likely to defeat the prospect of the success of the Measure. With regard to the sending Mr. Nicholls into Ireland, the sole reason for that appointment was, that the Report of the Commissioners was not, taken as a whole, satisfactory. He did not wish to throw the Report aside, but to introduce modifications with the aid of a person who had had experience of the English Poor Laws. Mr. Nicholls was only a short time in Ireland, but he collected a vast deal of information, and, in addition to that, Ministers had put themselves in possession of many valuable materials for a law in Ireland.

recommended that his hon. Friend (Sir D. Norreys) should not divide the House, as several Irish Members had quitted it in the expectation that the Motion would be withdrawn.

said that he must persevere in dividing the House.

begged to move as an Amendment, that the words of the original Motion be left out, to substitute the words, that the Order of the Day for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the laws for the relief of the destitute Poor in Ireland be read in order to its being discharged.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 10; Noes 42: Majority 32.

Adjourned at one o'clock.