said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having a bearing upon the College of Maynooth, though not at all connected with the discussion which had recently occupied that House. In 1845, when the Act of Parliament was passed for the permanent endowment of the College, the late Sir Robert Peel stated that it would not make provision for the annual expense of the repairs, but that item would be the subject of an annual Estimate to be laid before Parliament. He believed, in every year since that Act was passed, a Vote had been taken, to the amount of 800l. or 900l., for the purpose of defraying the expense of keeping the buildings of the College in repair. This year he did not see any proposition for continuing that annual Vote; and he would be glad to know whether that omission was an accident, or whether the Board of Works considered no sum was this year required for the purpose. He was quite sure the Government ought not to anticipate any decision of the House, and before any inquiry had been made to place the College in a different position than in other years.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had no wish to anticipate the decision of the House. The reason why there was no Vote this year for the repairs of Maynooth College was, that the late Government did not consider there were any circumstances which required such a Vote being asked for, and therefore omitted to place it in the Estimates which the present Government had adopted. The House would recollect that last year, when the annual Vote was proposed, it was carried by a very narrow majority of only one or two; and in the present state of parties the Government would have had little chance of passing that Vote, unless they could have shown a very strong case of the necessity of repairs.

said, he understood there was imminent necessity for repairs of the buildings of Maynooth.

said, he thought the Government had exercised a very wise discretion in omitting that Vote from the Estimates. It was his duty to oppose it last year, as he believed no sufficient grounds had been shown for the former grant. He wished the Government had exercised the same sound discretion with respect to other Votes of a similar nature.

said, he should move as an Amendment on the Question, the Resolution of which he had given notice. He had attended to the subject of the condition of the working classes very anxiously ever since he had been in Parliament. The question had nothing whatever to do with party; but it interested deeply the welfare of the community, and that was the reason it had engaged his attention so constantly. He would refer to Reports laid before that House from time to time to prove his case. A great difference had occurred during the last forty years in our social system; the comforts of all classes and the wealth of all classes had materially augmented, not, however, in equal proportion. But it was the working men—the labouring classes—by whose agency all these blessings and all this wealth had been mainly produced; and the question was, had the condition of the labouring classes improved in proportion to the benefits conferred by them upon other classes? He believed the reverse was the fact— that, instead of improving, their condition had retrograded; and it could be traced to the indifference or neglect of those whose duty it was to look after their interests. The working classes were divided into two great bodies—the agricultural and the manufacturing classes. The agricultural labourers had deteriorated in consequence of want of due attention to their condition. If there had been a department to take this important matter into consideration, the evils he now deplored would not have existed. Committees had been from time to time appointed to inquire, among other things, into the mode of payment of wages, and strong condemnation had been passed on the abuse of paying wages out of the poor-rates. He had drawn attention subsequently to the fact of the practice still continuing, and that no sufficient remedy had been provided by the Legislature. In 1834 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and they reported that the practice was subversive of the morals and independence of labourers, and destructive to the best interests of the working classes. Had there been a special department, such as he suggested, could these evils, proved to exist as they had been in twenty-six counties, have been permitted to continue unredressed for twenty-five years? The result of the system was to generate discontent and outrage on the part of the labouring classes, and this would continue if the evils were still permitted to exist. After thirty years, a correction was attempted to be applied to the mischief by the establishment of the new Poor Law. But had that law cured the evils? He contended that the evils which the new Poor Law was intended to correct, would exist for at least the next two generations. He considered that the only safe remedy was to have a department to look into these matters, and to make reports from time to time to the Government, with respect to the sanitary condition of the labouring classes. If the dwellings of the poor were inspected, in many counties they would be found disgraceful to us as a nation. He admitted that a good deal had been done and was doing to mitigate this evil, but he regretted to say much remained yet to be done. The report of the Sanitary Commission would bear out his assertion, and would prove the neglected condition of the agricultural labourers. But what was the case of the town districts? Was it better? He feared not. The rate of mortality was about two per cent for the country, but it was four and four and a half per cent, and in some instances five per cent, in town districts, where working men were congregated immasses. In 1840 a Committee sat on the question of the labouring classes in towns, and they reported that as far as the dwellings of the labouring poor were concerned, great evils were to be found, which, however, could be removed by adopting proper sanitary precautions and regulations. The Report of 1842 confirmed all the statement of the previous Committees relative to the young population in towns finding premature graves, and the adult population being diseased and ill-lodged. These facts showed that a very large body of the people in towns were neglected by Government. In 1845 there was an inquiry into fifty towns, and this was the general statement, that the prevalence of the evils was general. Since that period an Act had been passed to improve the health of those districts, but this did not take place until after forty years of neglect. The evils would not have existed at all had there been a Commission to look after the health and general condition of the working population. The Factory Commission in 1843 stated that in reference to juvenile labour, the young people employed by the factory workmen were subjected to great hardships and ill usage, little or nothing being done to afford factory children proper recreation or instruction. The result was that the children were sickly, stunted, and short-lived. Nothing had been done, and he asked the House whether such a state of things ought to be allowed to continue? The Report also spoke of the condition of the mining population. It was stated that the children of miners and in mines had not sufficient moral or religious training in the mining districts. He was referring to the condition of the defenceless children of a defenceless class. It was impossible to read the Report of the Commissioners without feeling pain at finding that nothing had been done to elevate and improve the material and moral condition of the working people. Having shown that the condition of our agricultural and town-working population was full of evils, he asked the House to consent to the establishment of a Commission for the common benefit of the working classes. The handloom weavers to the number of 600,000 were in a state of the greatest distress, and to these were to be added the railway labourers, whose numbers also amounted to 600,000. And what was the cause of the depression of these classes of our fellow-men? It was owing to the great changes in the social and commercial condition of the world, without any corresponding change being made as regarded the labouring population of the country. The vast increase of the population of the towns called for a corresponding alteration of the laws. While in the rural districts the increase of population from the year 1801 to 1851 had only been at the rate of 5 per cent, the increase in the towns had been at the rate of 100 per cent. All these facts proved the necessity of a Governmental department to take cognisance of the condition of the people. Hitherto these things had been left to individual Members of Parliament. The first thing necessary to be done was to provide for the education of the people. It might be said that the Government had already looked to that subject; but, with what effect? Before the Education Committee of 1838 it was shown that provision for the education of the people was required for one-eighth, and yet, on the average, provision was only made for the education of one-eighteenth, or of one-twentieth, of the population. Since that period, two Governments had endeavoured to bring in measures for extending education; but both schemes exhibited a lamentable deficiency. The effect of all this neglect of the people had been discontent among many, and suffering and disease. Illness was in proportion to deprivation; and it was shown that, on the one hand, where prosperity existed, death was 2 per cent, while, where poverty prevailed, it was 5 per cent. The average of the life of the three classes into which society was divided was this:—The average of life of the first class was 37 years; of the middle class, 27 years; and of the humble classes, 20 years. This disparity arose in a great degree from the neglect shown by the higher classes to the condition of the lower. As a matter of economy, this subject ought to engage the attention of Parliament. The poor-rates were considerably increased by the non-employment of the people, while crime advanced in a very rapid progression. The number of criminal commitments in England and Wales was in the first year of the present century 4,700; in 1815, 7,800; in 1821, 16,500; in 1831, 19,600; in 1841, 27,000; in 1847, 28,000; and in 1848, 50,000. It was true that since 1848 the number had, owing to various causes, diminished; but from 1800 to 1848 the number of criminals increased three times as fast as the population. What had been the increase in the consumption of spirits? In 1817, the consumption was 9,200,000 gallons; in 1827, 18,200,000; in 1845, 27,000,000; in 1852, 28,000,000; show-that the consumption of spirits also increased three times as fast as the population—another evidence of the unsatisfactory condition of the people. It was in vain that they erected gaols and penitentiaries in order to reclaim men. It was beginning at the wrong end. They should educate the young, and teach the working man to improve his own condition. But to all this there were impediments arising from laws and customs which a consultative board would entirely remedy. He was aware that some looked at this question as a matter of cost only. Well, as a matter of cost, what was it that crime alone cost the country? Not less than 11,000,000l. sterling per annum. The poor-rates were 5,400,000l. for England and Wales; hospitals, dispensaries, and alms, the necessity of which arose in great measure from neglect of the poor, amounted to the same sum of 5,400,000l. The direct cost of the police, gaols, &c, amounted to 1,500,000l. But to this was to be added the loss which society sustained from the illness of men whose labour was of necessity abstracted from society, and which by proper regulations might be prevented. That he estimated at 2,000,000l.; so that the whole amount of deduction to be made from the productive powers of labour, including some other items that he would not take up the time of the House by enumerating, was not less than 27,500,000l. a year. But this was only for England and Wales; if they added to it half as much more for Ireland and Scotland, which would be 13,750,000l., it would make a total of 41,250,000l., to which might be added 10,000,000l. for consumption of spirits by these neglected persons; thus making a grand total of 51,000,000l. expended annually on account of neglect, poverty, and crime in this country. He believed that one-half of this sum might be saved to the country by improving the condition of the people. What, then, was it that he proposed as a remedy for the evils he had thus pointed out? He did not wish to hold out false hopes; but hitherto Government had done nothing. There were three things which it was essential to accomplish: first, the instruction of the children; second, the protection of the health of both parents and children; and, thirdly, fair play and equal encouragement to their industry. They must change their views from the gaols and the penitentiaries, to the industrial schools. Instead of education being given to one in 18 of the population, it must be given to one in 8. All these points had been greatly neglected; and the effect had been shown in the increase of crime, and in the immense cost to the country to which he had just adverted. A Committee or Commission, free from the bias of party, might be nominated by the Government of the day, and would constitute a council which might be made a centre for the suggestions of benevolent men on whatever tended to the improvement of the working classes. The cost would not exceed 2.000l.; and if that paltry sum were grudged, half of it might be found to try the experiment. The causes of existing evils would be dealt with, instead of the effects being removed, as at present; those "coming events" which "cast their shadows before" might, by measures of anticipation, have their pressure mitigated.

in seconding the Motion, said, he had intended to trespass on the attention of the House for some time, but considering the time already occupied, and having reference to the able speech which they had just heard, he should content himself with a single observation. He had regretted to observe the impatience manifested during his hon. Friend's address, because he was aware that an idea prevailed in the country, not only amongst the working but even the highest classes, that that House was not disposed to entertain such grievances when they were brought before them, but rather to pass to more exciting and agreeable topics. He knew that there was some cause for impatience when they were all anxious that the business of the Session should be speedily terminated. He had not mentioned the subject with the view of casting reflection on that House, with which he had so long had the honour of being connected; but when he found a resolution, "That this meeting were very anxious to make provision for the education of ragged children, a class which rarely attracted the attention of statesmen or legislators," adopted by a meeting, not of Chartists, but of the middle classes, at which he attended, for the education of ragged children, he could not but say that he trusted, when the present Motion was brought forward, the endeavour would be made to put an end to the idea that this House did not take an interest in those persons to whom the Motion related. The House would regret to learn that this was the final and farewell address of his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury; and it was the more desirable that the Government should take up this question, because the House had not the advantage they had once derived from the presence of his noble Friend, formerly a Member of that House, now Lord Shaftesbury, who had been so long and so usefully engaged in bringing forward important measures for the benefit of the working classes; and, now that they were about also to lose the services of his hon. Friend (Mr. Slaney), who had devoted so much time and attention to those subjects, he did not know who would now undertake to deal with them. He thought the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had fully made out his case, and hoped to hear from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department some sentiments which would give encouragement as to the future.

said, everybody must admit that the sincere zeal and benevolence which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion had always manifested towards the working classes, deserved the warmest encouragement; and, if he (Mr. Walpole) thought the Motion would tend to advance the social condition of those classes, he certainly should have desired, on the part of the Government, to give it his assent. He regretted extremely the retirement of the hon. Gentleman from that House, and was certain the country would feel that the hon. Gentleman was ending as he began—that he was exerting his intellect and energy in behalf of those who had no opportunity of being heard for themselves. The present proposition of the hon. Gentleman, however, appeared to him to be not only useless, but detrimental to the interests of those for whom he proposed it. One of the objects of the hon. Gentleman was to obtain the appointment of an unpaid Commission—

"To consider, suggest, and report from time to time preventive and remedial measures, to benefit the social condition of the Working Classes, and for removing social and other obstacles to their improvement."

A second object was to obtain information on which legislative remedies might be carried out. Another object was, that such remedies should be effected through the medium of such a Commission. With respect to the proposed Commission, he (Mr. Walpole) doubted whether more information would be obtained by that means than by means of a Select Committee, such as might now be appointed in either House of Parliament to inquire into particular subjects relating to the working classes; and the constitution of the Commission itself would not be such as would render it likely to afford any valuable or complete information. The Commission or Standing Committee would consist of two or three persons, who would take up particular views and opinions, and who, generally speaking, would follow up those views or opinions with great pertinacity, without considering others which might be pressed on their attention. When a Committee was appointed by either House of Parliament, it was composed of Members entertaining different views, who pressed those views on the attention of the Committee; and therefore a better report was obtained than would be obtained from a Standing Committee or Commission. The whole tenour of the hon. Gentleman's statement showed how information was obtained through Committees of both Houses of Parliament. On that account he (Mr. Walpole) did not think the proposal, if carried into effect, would be attended with the advantages which had been anticipated. Then, with respect to the remedial measures to be introduced, he regretted to hear one observation of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor). His noble Friend said there was a prevalent opinion that that House was not disposed to attend to the grievances of the working classes. The sooner that opinion was set right in the country the better. If there was one thing which, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, had struck him more than another, it was that the improvement of the condition of the working classes, the means of their education, and similar subjects, had been more uniformly and zealously urged than questions affecting even those who were actually represented within those walls. He did not believe a specific measure for the benefit of the working classes could be proposed which would not procure more support than measures for the benefit of those who wore peculiarly represented there; and he hoped the noble Lord would take the opportunity, when it offered, of explaining that the classes of whom he had spoken laboured under a misapprehension, when they supposed that their interests were not attended to. A Bill had been brought in on the subject of Industrial and Provident Partnerships, which had been passed through that House entirely through the energy and ability of the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Motion. Then there were measures of education: others relating to factories; others, again, which had given rise more to party discussions; he might take for example the repeal of the Corn Laws, which, doing away with a great part of the revenue, was done with a view to the relief of the working classes. Measures of that description showed that they had their interests properly submitted to the consideration of Parliament. A Standing Committee of the kind proposed would in some respects be detrimental. The idea ought not to be encouraged among the working classes that they must look to the Government or to Parliament, instead of relying on their own exertions and industry. There was a great chance that the appointment of a Standing Committee or Commission proposed would give rise to such an idea, and diminish the sense of the necessity for self-reliance. Believing that, for the purposes of legislation, there existed, by means of Committees of both Houses of Parliament, a much greater probability of obtaining attention for the objects the hon. Gentleman himself had in view, than by means of an unpaid Commission or Standing Committee, and seeing the appointment of such a Commission or Committee might lead to the consequences to which he had briefly adverted, he (Mr. Walpole) regretted to say that he was under the reluctant necessity of giving a negative to the Motion. which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press to a division.

said, he was sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to negative this Motion; because, though a Standing Committee might do no good, it certainly would do no harm. He was quite aware that the House was anxious to go into Supply; but this Motion was the best kind of supply, for it would supply contentment and progress, and assist in promoting union between the rich and the poor. He was quite sure that a Standing Committee would prove most useful; it would digest the information it received much better, and in a more practical manner, than that taken by Committees of that House. With regard to the self-reliance which the poor ought to be taught, the poor had as great a claim upon that House, as the rich; and, as they suffered under grievous injuries inflicted by legislation, they had a right to ask the House to remove, or at least to alleviate, them. He hoped the Government would withdraw their opposition, and allow the proposal of his hon. Friend to be carried.

said, that, agreeing in much that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, he dissented from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to a Committee or Commission of the kind proposed. It would form the nucleus of a system for obtaining and digesting information, and, being a permanent body to which the poor might complain, hon. Members could on special occasions move the appointment of a Select Committee. The two methods of proceeding might co-exist.

said, he should most deeply regret the absence of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury from amongst them, although they sat at different sides of the House, and were politically opposed to each other. When the commercial policy of 1846 was adopted, there was nothing more strenuously insisted upon than that it would materially tend to the elevation of the condition of the working classes. However, this result, so ardently anticipated, had not followed. The House was now informed that crime had increased threefold to what it was in former years; and also that sickness and poverty had increased. Those facts certainly showed that the working classes were not at present placed in a perfectly satisfactory condition. He felt, however, that at the present period of the Session, they could not properly consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury; and he could not, therefore, support that Motion.

said, that there were already two Commissions in existence devoted to the consideration of the physical and mental condition of the working classes. There was the Education Commission and the Sanitary Commission, and there was a third Commission, namely, the Emigration Commission, which was appointed to give information and assistance to those who were anxious to cast their fortunes in another land. It would be much better to give those Commissions more extensive powers, than to appoint another. The statement respecting the increase of crime ought to be received with some abatement. The greater number of commitments arose from the increased vigilance of the police; but there was no proof that the more serious crimes had increased in proportion to the population.

trusted the hon. Member for Shrewsbury would not press his Amendment. He (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) wished to remark, however, that the question to be put would be, that the House shall go into Committee of Supply, and not a negative to the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, the first Vote in Committee of Supply related to the Chapel of the Embassy at Constantinople, on which yesterday there was a discussion. He had considered that case; his attention had been drawn to it by the conversation which took place; and it appeared to the Government to be one that required considerable inquiry. The enormous expenditure which had taken place on the residence of the Ambassador at Constantinople, appeared, on the surface, indefensible. They did not wish to make any censure on the conduct of those who preceded them. He was aware that, with respect to many items of expenditure in distant places, a very injurious habit had grown up, and had not been sufficiently disturbed, which allowed the expenditure of large sums, without the inspection which in the present day was indispensable; and when an expenditure of 85,000l had taken place on the Ambassador's residence within ten years, it appeared to him that that House ought not to pass the present Vote without inquiry. The Vote now on the Paper was for an expenditure not yet incurred; had it been incurred, he should have appealed to the generosity of the Committee. It was the feeling of himself and his Colleagues that they could not but express their sense of dissatisfaction; and, under these circumstances, he should not press that Vote. He might state generally that such items, if the opportunity were afforded to the Government, would be subjected to very severe examination.

said, he was glad to hear the opinions which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. Having presided as Chairman of the Committee on Official Salaries, he remembered that the subject of the expenses of the Embassy at Constantinople had strongly pressed itself on the notice of the Committee, though he was not quite sure whether it had been mentioned in their Report.

said, he rose to object to the following items in this Vote: The expense incurred by the Bishop of Barbadoes in his visitation to the islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia, 32l. 5s. 10d.; the expense incurred by the Bishop of Antigua, for passages on his visitation to several islands within his diocese, 42l. 8s. 4d.; the expense incurred by the Bishop of Newfoundland on account of a passage from Newfoundland to Bermuda, on visiting that part of his diocese, 60l.; the expense incurred by the Rev. H. M. Blakiston, on account of his passage to Constantinople, on his appointment as chaplain to Her Majesty's Embassy at that place, 50l.; for the entertainment of the Bishop of Victoria, on several occasions, while visiting the consular cities in China, on board Her Majesty's steam ship Reynard, 92l. 10s. The rapacity of ecclesiastics was beyond all description. The Church of England, the Church of Ireland, and the Church of Scotland, all had their pull at the Exchequer. They reminded him of the three daughters of the horseleech, who continually cried out, "Give, give, give!" nor would they desist,

"Non mssura cutem, nisi plena cruoris hirudo."

said, he could not agree in any of the views which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken. The word "bishop" appeared on all occasions to raise some objection in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But this was no new question. It came under the consideration of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), in 1840, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he had to decide whether it was fair to call on the Bishop of Newfoundland, out of the limited income for his professional exertions, to pay the expenses of visiting other parts of his diocese at a distance of 1,200 miles. It was then thought that no objection could be taken, and therefore the noble Lord decided to grant 60l. as compensation for those expenses. It was upon the principle so established that this Vote was asked, and he (Sir J. Pakington) thought these heavy expenses ought not to fall upon the bishops, and that it was not desirable those right rev. Prelates should have the temptation. from pecuniary considerations, to abstain from visits to their dioceses. He trusted the Committee would not object to the Vote.

said, these charges had been objected to every year for the last twenty years. He thought the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. C. Anstey), was not becoming the situation he held. He had made use of remarks little calculated to produce that good understanding and good feeling which they wished to see prevail in that House. The right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of a Government advocating economy, said it was most unjust for this or that bishop to be called on to pay these expenses out of his own pocket, He (Mr. Hume) thought it more unjust for the people of England to be called on to pay them. No bishopric had been established abroad without the assurance that the expense would be borne by the Colonies; and when the Government had attempted to pay the passage out, it had never passed without remark. He really thought the time was come when the whole expenses of the Colonial Office should be revised, and the principle laid down, whether ecclesiastical charges were to be borne by this country, or those they were intended to benefit. The Government could not help seeing that the general feeling of the country was against these partial charges. If these were defensible, let them be made general. He could not sit still and allow his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Anstey) to be taunted and treated as he had been by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was what induced him to rise and express his approbation of his hon. and learned Friend's proceedings. He hoped be would persevere. He (Mr. Hume) used to do his duty. He was not able to do it now; but he hoped other Members would not allow any Minister whatever to taunt any hon. Gentleman who thought it his duty to object to these Votes.

said, he should move to reduce the Vote by 300l. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had not told them why a selection from the members of the Established Church was made; why the Rev. Mr. Blakiston, the rich chaplain at Constantinople, and the Bishop of Victoria, had this gratification; and why all the bishops, all the clergymen, and all the chaplains of the favoured Church were not similarly gratified.

said, the question about Mr. Blackiston was not in his department. The case of the Bishop of Victoria came within the principle he had explained.

said, an attack had been directed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal against the Established Church. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: No!] He was for supporting the Established Church, though he entertained liberal opinions towards the Church of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He must condemn the pettifogging and mean spirit which dictated objections to paltry votes; and he called upon these hon. Members, if they were true economists, to support his Amendment, namely, "to omit the sum of 1,505l. 7s. 6d. for salaries of secretaries and clerks, and messengers for the Commission for the Promotion of the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations."

said, he had objections to several other items. He objected to 600l. 13s. 8d. for the Commission for inquiring into the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues; to 360l. for triennial and other allowances to the serjeant-trum-peter, and to the household trumpeters and kettle-drummers; to 220l. for clothing for household drummers; to 109l. 9s. 4d. for marshal of the ceremonies; to 76l. 5s. for robes, collars, badges, &c, for knights of the several orders; to 2l. 2s. for the attendance of watermen at the House of Lords; to 20l. for the furniture for Whitehall chapel; and the 282l. 14s. for entertainments on board the Sphynx and the Nemesis, of Sir James Brooke—that fortunate individual—who received 1,500l. a year as Governor of Labuan, and 500l. a year as Consul at Sarawak, and yet contrived to spend the greater part of his time in this country. He should move their disallowance.

said, he was quite willing to add to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth the 300l. he objected to.

said, he would beg to suggest that they would save valuable time by being more methodical in their proceedings. They had begun with the expenses of bishops. In speaking on that, the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had been carried away in spite of himself to the Crystal Palace; and now, with a flourish of drums and trumpets, the hon. Member for Lambeth had come back to the Rajah of Sarawak. He really believed half the Members did not know the question before them.

hoped this would be the last time the expenses of the bishops would appear in the Estimates. If no other plan could be devised to save them from the pain of these discussions, he would suggest that the expenses should be paid out of the secret service money. But seriously he considered that any expenses incurred by the bishops going to and fro from island to island ought to be defrayed from the Colonial Fund.

said, he felt obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Youghal for having brought this question before the notice of the Committee. He really thought the country ought not to be saddled with the payment of these sums. One of the complaints of his hon. and learned Friend was, that the Government did not go methodically to work, because he, with great justice said, if they paid the bishops for one visit, why not pay them for all? Many visits were paid for, and many visits under exactly similar circumstances were not paid for. He thought the Government ought to give some explanation.

said, these payments were only made by the Treasury on the authority of a Secretary of State, who regulated them. For instance, the 50l. paid to Mr. Blakiston, was paid upon the authority of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston). He thought hon. Members were taking advantage of the Vote to call attention to the expenditure during the past year comprised in upwards of one hundred items. He was anxious to give explanations, but it was impossible to follow when explanations were asked upon half-a-dozen or more items at the same time.

said, there was an item of 819l. 3s. for the funeral of his Royal Highness the late Duke of Cambridge. The charge for this funeral was last year objected to, and he had hoped it would not have appeared. The allowance to his Royal Highness was amply sufficient, and provision had been made for the whole of his family.

said, as they voted a round sum for these purposes, the only opportunity of finding fault was when the account was rendered. The best mode for preserving the funds of the Established Church was to take care they were applied properly, and not to call on the country to pay charges with which they had nothing to do. The late Duke of Cambridge left upwards of 5,000l. a year real property. His daughter had been pensioned off with 3,000l. a year; and his son had been pensioned off with 30,000l. a year; and now the country were called upon to pay the expenses of the funeral. He believed it would turn out the claims of the canons of Windsor swelled the charge. He did not throw the blame on the present Government, but upon the party who sanctioned such a charge. There was one circumstance connected with this subject which he was always glad to mention. William IV. did not draw upon the public public purse, but left sufficient to pay the expenses of his funeral. He was the only sovereign within the memory of man for whose funeral the public wore not put to any expense. He could admit the charge for the funeral of the Sovereign, but the Government ought to withdraw this item for the funeral of the late Duke of Cambridge.

stated that he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland a question of which he had given him notice. In order that the House might understand the question he was about to put, he should remind it of what was called the Irish rebellion of 1848. In consequence of being concerned in that affair, Mr. Smith O'Brien and some other persons were sentenced to transportation, and had been undergoing that punishment up to the present time. Their friends in Ireland had considered it quite useless to appeal to the clemency of the late Government; hut after the advent of the present Government into power, it was supposed by them that there might, perhaps, be some chance of obtaining some remission of a punishment, which many considered had been of sufficient duration, and which all knew was inflicted not for the sake of vindictiveness, but to deter similar transgressions in future. Accordingly, a memorial was prepared, praying for a mitigation of the sentence. Whilst that memorial was in the course of being circulated and signed, it was very generally stated that it had been prepared at the suggestion of several Members of the present Government, including the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, as well as the Chief Secretary, and the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton). It was also stated and believed that each of those Members of the Government had, by their conversations, encouraged the preparation and presentation of that memorial, and it was even asserted that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had himself revised and altered the draft of the memorial, and had stated that he would give it his support. It was asserted that the memorial had been signed by many distinguished persons upon the faith of statements made to them, that it would not embarrass the present Government, but would have the contrary effect. It was also signed by many friends of the prisoners, who could not but be seriously injured by any direct refusal to grant their prayer. Under those circumstances the memorial in question was stated to have been signed, and it was lately presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by a most respectable deputation, headed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin city. To that deputation the Lord Lieutenant gave a very peremptory and almost contemptuous reply, stating that "he had a duty to perform towards his Sovereign and his country; and that he did not consider himself justified in recommending the prayer of the memorial to Her Majesty's favourable consideration "He (Mr. Scully) did not mean to enter into any discussion in regard to that memorial, or the propriety or impropriety of rejecting its prayer. He wished simply, both in order to satisfy the public and for the sake of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland himself, to ask him a plain and simple question, to which he should hope to re- ceive a straightforward and frank reply. The question was this—Did the Attorney General for Ireland himself prepare the memorial referred to; or did he, or any person on his part, or with his knowledge and sanction, suggest its preparation, or its presentation, or revise and correct any copy or draft of it, or encourage its preparation, signature, and presentation, and intimate that he would give it his support?

Sir, I will state all the facts of which I have any cognisance with respect to the memorial to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) and myself were counsel for Mr. Smith O'Brien. Mr. Whiteside defended him at his trial, and I at the House of Lords. I also presented a petition in his behalf on occasion of his transportation. I have the pleasure to be on terms of intimacy with his two brothers, the Rev. Mr. O'Brien, who is one of my constituents, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ennis (Sir L. O'Brien), and several other relatives of Mr. Smith O'Brien, are amongst my most esteemed friends. Immediately after the accession to office of the present Government, I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. O'Brien, who subsequently waited upon me entirely as a private friend. He and I talked to-together about the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, and had some conversation as to the prospect of procuring any mitigation of that unfortunate gentleman's punishment. We conversed as intimate friends; and I am sure that the House will not expect that I should detail anything that may have passed between us at an interview which was strictly private and confidential. I told Mr. Smith O'Brien's friends and relatives most distinctly that, in my official capacity, I could not in any way connect myself with their proceedings, and I even expressed to them my conviction that the Government could not take any move in the matter, as their doing so would be imputed to a political and electioneering purpose. I did not, however, take upon myself to indicate, either directly or indirectly, what the Government would do in the matter; and from first to last I disconnected myself, from my official capacity, while speaking on the subject with Mr. Smith O'Brien's friends. I will not, however, hesitate to admit, that I had, and still have, a very strong feeling of sympathy for Mr. Smith O'Brien. The next communication that I received on the sub- ject was a letter from the secretary of the committee in Dublin from whom the memorial emanated. I did not myself write the memorial. I did not procure it to be written. I did not revise it when written. I was not in any way concerned in its preparation. I did not even sign it. I declined to have anything to do with it, apprehensive lest my name might be confounded with my official character. I did not hold out, nor did any one on the part of the Government, that I am aware of, hold out any expectation that the Government would take any particular course in the matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland may have expressed his feelings on the subject as a private individual, just as I have done; but I am confident that he never gave an intimation of what the Government would do with reference to it, and that he had no part whatever in the getting up of the memorial. It is unnecessary for me to say what my own feelings or expectations may have been; but from the first I dissevered myself from any official interference in the affair. I trust, therefore, that this explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member for the County of Cork, and to the House.

begged to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any measures had been adopted for the examination of candidates for appointment and promotion in the Diplomatic service of the country; and whether there would be any objection to lay before the House a return explanatory of such measures, as had been done in the case of the different revenue boards, the Navy, the marines, and more lately (by the Duke of Wellington) in the case of examinations of candidates for the Army?

said, he could not produce such a return as the hon. Member asked for, because no such return existed. The subject of education for the Diplomatic service had for some time past engaged the attention of Government; but, as yet, no definite scheme of examination for entrance on that service had been framed. They had, however, done what they could: their Ministers and Diplomatic agents at foreign Courts had been instructed to report upon the nature of the qualifications required from persons entering on the service in question in other countries; by these means a large body of evidence was being brought together; and when this had been done, and after full time had been taken for consideration, he (Lord Stanley) hoped that a plan would be struck out which they would be enabled to lay before the country. Meantime, all he could say was, that Government agreed with the hon. Member in considering the question as one of great importance: and that being the case, he felt sure that the hon. Member would not desire that any hasty or ill-considered measure should be brought forward, of which there could not but be some risk, if sufficient time to frame it were not allowed.

said, it had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford that when he moved the appointment of the Committee in the case of the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, it would be proper to lay on the table the heads of his allegations; and the right hon. Gentleman added that he could show that this was according to precedent. At the moment he could not give the right hon. Gentleman an answer; but he had since considered the matter, and he was prepared now to say that if the right hon. Gentleman could satisfy the House that what he proposed was in conformity with precedent, he would bow to the wish of the House, and comply with his suggestion. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would allow him to nominate the Committee either in the morning sitting of Monday, or at the afternoon sitting, because otherwise it would not come on till after the other orders, when it was doubtful if it could be nominated; and at that late period of the Session it was desirable that no time should be lost?

would be extremely glad if he could facilitate the inquiry that had been ordered by the House; and if he could learn from the hon. Gentleman then, or in the course of the evening, that there was any prospect of proposing a Committee, the nomination of which would not lead to a protracted discussion, he would certainly do what he could to suit his wishes. At present he could not take upon himself the responsibility of allowing a question, which would apparently lead to a long discussion, to interfere with the progress of public business. Both the morning and evening sittings were at the present moment ap- portioned to very important business; and although he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, provided he was assured that there would be no delay, still until there was some assurance or certainty of such a result, he could not take the responsibility of permitting the nomination of a Committee which would unduly retard the public business.

moved that it be expunged. He believed that many persons conversant with the business of the Equity Courts, including the highest authority in them, were of opinion the course proposed would be inconvenient, that it would promote delay, and lead to expense in printing all bills and preliminary documents in the Court of Chancery.

opposed the omission of the clause, on the ground that the adoption of printing would both diminish inconvenience and save expense.

expected that printing would put an end to that rambling form in which bills were too frequently now constructed, for every one knew that the appearance of matter in printing led to much greater accuracy of statement. The defendant, by the adoption of this provision, would be informed at the very first step in the suit of the charge which was made against him, and he would be informed of it in such a manner as would be apparent to a mind of the most ordinary capacity, without resorting to professional aid. Again, the Bill would be printed with probably greater celerity than a parchment copy could be prepared; and, instead of great expense, it would involve a less amount of cost. As to the probability of the exposure of private affairs by printing, he thought this was an idle objection. His only regret was, that this introduction of printing had not been carried throughout every stage of the clause. He trusted the Committee would be of opinion that the beneficial change proposed was one which would work well for all parties.

said, that ordinarily not more than three copies of the bill were required; and in this case the printing would be much dearer than the engrossing. He should be glad to hear whether he stood alone in the Committee upon this question, because, in that case, he should not divide the House.

asked whether every defendant in a suit was to be served with an entire copy of the bill?

said, that one of the great improvements in this measure was that every defendant would have in a convenient form such a statement of the suit as should be legible and easily understood by him.

moved its omission, stating it was often necessary to file a bill at a few hours' notice.

admitted that delay might arise in some instances, but yet thought the provision would be useful. Some power was required to prevent an improper person from being put in as next friend.

suggested that it might be sufficient to require the consent of the Court within some short time after the filing of the bill.

conceived that this might in some measure meet the difficulty.

thought the clause would be at once nugatory and obstructive. It would entail the necessity for that most objectionable and onerous proceeding an exparte application, which was altogether alien from the proper province of a judicial tribunal.

concurred to a great degree in those observations, and promised to consider them before the Report.

suggested the postponement of the clause.

objected

said, this subject had been fully considered by the Commission, and there appeared to be between the retention and rejection of the clause a choice of difficulties. His own opinion, however, was in conformity with that of the Commissioners, that it ought to be omitted.

observed that the Judges in the Court of Chancery were of a different opinion, with the exception of the Master of the Rolls.

said, as the father was usually dead, all the children infants, and the mother executrix and an accounting party in the suit, the application to the Court would be necessary in almost every case for the selection of a "next friend" to institute the suit.

ultimately, in deference to the opinion of the Commissioners, withdrew the clause.

moved an Amendment, to the effect that Motions should be set down in a certain order, and should not be called on out of that order, that the parties might know when their cases would be called on.

said, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would apply to the present clause. If his hon. Friend knew as much of the Court of Chancery as he did, he would see that his Amendment would not at all answer.

said, that the Amendment would fetter the discretion of the Judge. No matter how urgent the case might be, whether it was for an injunction to prevent the pulling down of a house, or any other case requiring speedy action, the Judge could not call it on if the Amendment were agreed to.

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was a valuable one, although the present might not be the proper clause on which it ought to be brought forward. Those who knew the Court of Chancery must be aware how difficult it was for the younger members of the bar to bring any Motion on.

said, the effect of this clause would be, that the mode of taking evidence in the Court of Chancery would be entirely altered, and heavy additional duties be thrown on the examiners. A Committee which sat in 1833, relating to the salaries of officers of the Court of Chancery, recommended the reduction of the salaries of the examiners from 1,500l. to 1,000l. a year. That reduction took place; and if additional duties were now thrown on the examiners, a fair remuneration ought to be fixed.

said, no such provision could be made without previous notice. He quite agreed that the new mode of taking evidence would throw on the examiners more arduous and responsible duties than they had hitherto discharged; and, that being the case, it seemed unreasonable that the remuneration should remain the same. As the Bill stood, the chief clerk would receive 200l. a year more than the examiners.

called the attention of the Committee to the situation of examiners under the clause. It appeared that the old practice of hearing evidence by paid commissioners was to be abolished, and that that duty was now to he discharged by the examiners, who were officers of the Court. That would be a very great reform, as it appeared that these commissioners were often paid in a way that induced them unnecessarily to protract their sittings. But this new arrangement would add much to the labour of the examiners, and therefore he thought some provision ought to be made for their remuneration.

suggested that the examiners would not often be called upon to perform these duties; when they did they would, of course, be paid.

differed from the Solicitor General, as he believed that these duties would often require to be discharged. He concurred with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that this would be a most important reform, and would save many hundreds of pounds to the suitors, as compared with the present practice; but with regard to remuneration, he thought the Lord Chancellor would have power under the 60th Clause to settle that question; or if there was any doubt of his power, it might be made plain when they came to that clause.

observed that the proposed alteration, which he supported, would throw great additional labour on the examiners; and a question would arise whether the two present examiners would be able to discharge those additional du- ties. It ought to be borne in mind, that, together with the additional labour which this measure would entail upon those functionaries, the nature of that labour being of a higher order, would require a greater exercise of the mind. He thought the question of the examiners' salary, under such circumstances, ought to receive a full and indulgent consideration whenever it was brought before the House. He confessed he was somewhat suprised when he heard it observed, with reference to the County Courts Bill, that the provision which gave to County Court Judges jurisdiction in matters of equity, was at variance with the provisions of this measure. He believed that, under these clauses, Bankruptcy Commissioners or County Court Judges might be employed in those examinations, and he could not conceive any refusal on their part to act as such. He thought the provision would be for the public benefit and convenience, as they were men conversant with the law, and acquainted with the mode of taking evidence. He looked forward to the time when, under the regulations of the Court of Chancery, county and local courts would be made auxiliary to inquiries of the nature proposed. He believed the clause a sound and useful one, and would give to it his support.

suggested that the signature of a witness to his depositions should not be made imperative.

also objected to the depositions being taken down in narrative form instead of in the usual way of question and answer. He thought at least the cross-examination ought to be taken down in that form.

thought there was weight in the objection of the hon. Member for Southampton, as the process of writing down question and answer would greatly delay the cross-examination, the questions in which, everybody knew, ought to be followed up as rapidly as possible.

said, that Mr. Walton, a master in one of the commons in law courts, had recommended, from experience, that evidence should be taken in the way suggested in the clause.

said, it was not an easy thing to draw up a narrative of what a witness had stated. He suggested that the evidence, when reduced to the form of a narrative by the examiner, should be signed by the witness, and that this should be done in case of cross-examination.

said, that this practice of reducing the evidence into the form of a narrative was uniformly adopted by the Judges of the common law courts.

remarked that in the common law courts the Judges had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witness, which was not the case in the Court of Chancery. Still the mode suggested by the Bill was a great improvement on the existing one.

recommended that where a witness refused to sign his evidence, the examiner should be competent to certify the depositions, and the witness be personally examined, if required, before the Court. Otherwise, the witness, by refusing to sign, might hinder the cause ever coming to a hearing.

rather recommended that, in the case of a witness refusing to sign, the depositions might be signed by the examiner, who might report to the Court any special matter which he might think fit. Certainly the witness should not have the power of invalidating the proceedings.

asked whether a witness alleging that the deposition as taken down was inaccurate, and on that ground refusing to sign, was to be indicted for perjury? He was of opinion that the matter, which was most important, should be maturely considered.

said, that he was afraid that the mode suggested for taking evidence in equity, under this Bill, would tend to perpetuate expense and delay. There would be an appeal to the Court on exceptions to evidence, and this would necessarily occasion expense and delay. He begged the Committee to consider the question of whether it would not be better to have a competent officer to decide on all such questions of evidence as might be raised, as had been recommended by the Lord Chancellor in his evidence before the Committee. This would save the suitor the expense of these disputed points of evidence. By so doing they would materially decrease the delay and expense, which would be increased by the plan proposed by this clause. The costs of the suit were the greatest hardship to the suitor, and this would swell the costs considerably. Counsel on either side must be admitted, who would quarrel and waste the time of the Judge in deciding these questions of evidence. He should not now stop the progress of the Bill, but hoped this suggestion would meet with consideration.

said, he thought there were grave objections to the latter part of the clause, as it might open the door to great delay and expense. The evil lay at the root of the system, and resulted from having the evidence taken by one Judge, and decided upon by another. He must say that they would not amend the procedure of the Court of Chancery until one and the same mind received the evidence and determined upon its effect. However, that was not intended to be done at present; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to direct the examiner to take down all the evidence, whatever the nature of it might be, and to transmit it to the Judge, who would strike out those portions of the evidence which he thought inadmissible.

said, the clause applied to cases where a demurrer was taken by the witness to questions that were put to him. Such case3 seldom occurred. He did not think it would be desirable for the examiner first to decide on such a question, and then have it taken to the Court by an appeal.

said, that the same rule ought to be adopted in equity as in the case of an examination by a commission at common law. He thought the clause would work well.

said, that most mature consideration had been bestowed on this clause, but it was impossible to enact that there should be no appeal from the decision of the examiner as to the admissibility of evidence, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it would he useless to provide that the matter should be decided by the examiner in the first instance. Substantially, the clause would have the same effect as the alteration proposed, and he hoped it would pass without that alteration.

suggested, that the practice of common law should be substituted for this form of demurrer, as great delay and expense would arise from it to the suitor. He thought that the party whose question a witness refused to an- swer, should have power to move that the witness should be attached, as was done at common law, before an examiner.

said that, under this new system, all sorts of questions would be put and objected to, and there would be an opening for a large source of business to the profession, because the examiner could not decide at once as to the matters in dispute, but there was an appeal allowed. There was no appeal from such questions in the County Courts, and he thought it would be better to give the examiner the same power as the County Court Judges.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend had misapprehended the clause. The examiner was merely to put down the question and answer; but where a witness refused to answer a question that was put to him, on the ground that it might relate to a confidential communication, or tend to self-crimination, those were the only questions on which there was to be an appeal. If the examiner were to be allowed to decide conclusively on the admissibility of evidence, the costs would be greatly increased, for the whole case must then be gone into by him. This clause only referred to objections to questions in the nature of demurrers.

said, there was a sworn clerk in the registrar's office, and his duties would no longer be required now this Bill was passed; but the examiner was to forward the evidence to the Record Office under this clause, and this officer might be used for that purpose, as otherwise he did not see how the evidence could get to the Record Office.

said, the evidence would be transmitted to the Record Office in the usual manner.

objected to the clause, as it appeared not to come at all within the scope of the Bill. The object of it was to enable the Courts of Common Law to send cases into the Equity Courts to have their decisions upon questions of equity. This increased the evil which the Commission had reported had arisen from sending cases from the Equity Courts to the Common Law Courts. He thought every Court ought to be able to execute justice itself completely by those powers which it possessed.

agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and would acquiesce at once in his suggestion that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.

stated that it had been his intention, but for the special circumstances of the present Session, to move the presentation of an Address, praying Her Majesty to issue a Commission directing the members of both the common law and the equity courts to consider expressly the propriety of consolidating and uniting the various jurisdictions, and also of consolidating the statute law.

admitted that the courts of law and equity wanted a mutual adjustment, and that there were many of the jurisdictions of the courts of equity which ought to go to courts of law, in order that the latter might have complete jurisdiction over the causes they had power to deal with; but he believed they would be acting contrary to the first principle of the division of labour—they would be abandoning the useful result of long experience, if they were to attempt to unite the whole of the business now done by the courts of law and equity in one and the same system. In point of fact, this had not been attempted to be done in America; there the real distinctions between law and equity were quite preserved. He hoped the question, when it was raised, would be considered, not only with the view of abolishing useless, but with the view of preserving useful, distinctions, and of maintaining a just division of labour.

moved the addition of the following clauses, which were unanimously agreed to:—Clause to follow Clause 47—No suit in the said Court shall be open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory decree or order is sought thereby, and it shall be lawful for the Court to make binding declarations of right without granting consequential relief. Clause to follow Clause 57—(Court of Chancery not to send cases to law). It shall not be lawful for the said Court of Chancery in any cause or matter depending in the same Court, to direct a case to be stated for the opinion of any Court of common law, but the said Court of Chancery shall have full power to determine any questions of law which in the judg- ment of the said Court of Chancery shall be necessary to be decided previously to the decision of the equitable question at issue between the parties.

said, that as the clause now stood, the Masters in Chancery were to continue to have all the powers conferred upon them by any Act of Parliament or otherwise vested in them, which they might be required by the Lord Chancellor still to execute. He proposed that the office of Master should be declared abolished entirely, except for the mere purpose of winding up the business of their offices.

moved the omission of the clause.

said, the whole Bill depended upon the fact that the office of Masters in Chancery was to be abolished.

regarded the Bill as effecting a great improvement in the English law.

agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Headlam) that the first clause was unnecessary and unintelligible, and that it might be omitted without prejudice to the operation of the Bill.

said, the public would gain by it the advantage of cheap justice, speedily administered. These Masters, when appointed to their present office, were in the enjoyment of large professional incomes, and, if the country determined on removing them from office, it was but just to compensate them.

said, the continual complaint hitherto, with respect to the Masters' Offices, had been, that they were so overcrowded with business that the Masters could not get through the business assigned to them. Now, if that complaint was well founded, surely the more Masters to perform the work the better for the public, as far as regarded the despatch of business in the Masters' Offices. He, therefore, suggested that the whole of the Masters should remain in office until the business already assigned to them had been disposed of. He would embrace that opportunity of tendering his thanks to the Gentlemen who had undertaken to be Members of the Chancery Commission. He was instrumental in adding to it two right hon. but not learned Gentlemen (Sir J. Graham and Mr. Henley), and he felt quite sure that the public out of doors would now see the benefits resulting from the adding of laymen to the Commission.

thought that the country would be entitled to the services of the youngest of the Masters in the intended new offices of chief clerks to the Chancery Judges. Men in the prime of life ought not to be handsomely paid for doing nothing.

moved an Amendment to release two instead of four Masters from their duties.

on the part of the Government, would not oppose the Amendment, if it met with the general concurrence of the Committee.

said, if these Masters were all to retire upon full salaries, the Bill would confer very little benefit upon the public.

said, the pounds, shillings, and pence was only a subordinate view of the question. The object of the Bill was to give the public a cheaper and more ready access to justice than they had at present. They could not propose to remove persons who had been taken out of a profession and placed in a quasi-judicial position like the Masters without compensating them.

admitted that that was the case.

said, the great complaint hitherto had been the pressure of business in the Masters' Offices, and he did not see how that was to be remedied by allowing even two of them to retire before they had wound up the business in their respective offices.

said, things had come to such a pass, that they must abolish either the Courts of Equity or the Masters, and they had determined to abolish the Masters. Every one knew how suits were bandied from the Court to the Master, and from the Master to the Court again, and to get rid of that system he was willing to pay a great deal.

said, seeing that the Masters were to be paid for their dues the salaries they now enjoyed, he thought they ought to do some duty, and as chief clerks were to be employed, he thought the junior Masters ought to fill these or some such offices.

said, they could not place any of those gentlemen in inferior offices to that which they had already held: and it must be remembered that in the present case one of them was retiring after a service of twenty-eight and the other of twenty-two years.

said, it appeared that the first clause of the Bill abolished all the Masters in Chancery, and that the present clause reinstated them. He wished to see an end to the Masters' Office, and instanced a case in which he had been himself concerned to show the delay and expense which attended it.

said, the Masters were all abolished by the first clause, and by the third so many of them only were retained as were necessary to conclude the business at present in the Masters' Offices.

moved a verbal amendment, and said he had been informed that day by one of the Masters that he had sent 300 letters to different parties to proceed with their suits, and out of 130 answers that he had received, 115 of them were to state that the causes were at an end. This proved that there was an appearance of arrears which did not actually exist.

observed that whilst this clause gave power to the Lord Chancellor to provide chambers for the Vice-Chancellors, it was proposed by-Clause 48 to dispose of the Masters' Offices in Southampton Buildings. Now he was of opinion that the chambers in Southampton Buildings would he more convenient for chambers than any others which they were likely to obtain in Lincoln's Inn, which would probably he some distance from each other. He therefore proposed to alter Clause 12 so as to carry out this view.

said, that the present Vice-Chancellors' Courts in Lincoln's Inn were never intended to be more than tempo- rary, and he knew they were inconvenient. It was the duty of the Government to provide proper courts, and the sale of the house in Southampton Buildings would enable them to effect so desirable an object. It was of the greatest importance that the chambers should be attached to the courts of the respective Judges, and that on this account the house in Southampton Buildings would be inconvenient. He thought this matter was one which would be better left in the hands of the Government.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman had answered the objection of the Master of the Rolls.

agreed with his right hon. Friend as to the importance of having the chambers attached to the Judges' courts, but the clause did not provide for this. It only provided that chambers should be taken somewhere in Lincoln's Inn.

suggested that the choice of the site of these chambers should be left to the discretion of the Government, who would of course be anxious to consult the convenience of the Judges; and he proposed to omit all the words relating to the locality of the chambers.

did not see why the Lord Chancellor should have the duty imposed on him of providing courts or chambers, any more than the Chief Justice or the Chief Baron.

said, the matter was fully discussed by the Chancery Commission, and the arrangement proposed by the Government was considered the most convenient one.

hoped his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls would leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

asked who were, after the measure was passed, to convey messages to this House from the House of Lords? Who were to make the three bows on approaching the Speaker, in future?

said, the existing Masters would do as long as they remained in office.

And who afterwards?

The House of Lords will find their own messengers.

Yes, the House of Lords will find the messengers; but we are to find the money. Were not the clerks who would be appointed under this Bill competent to make the three bows?

The House of Lords will find their own messengers.

I have given a hint which I hope will not be forgotten, and that the three bows will not cost the country more than they do at present.

on Clause 5, which was entirely new, being brought up, proposed an Amendment to the effect that the retiring pension of Masters should not exceed two-thirds of their salary.

considered that they had no right to give gentlemen who had taken office on the understanding that they would hold their offices for life, less than the sum which they had received for the offices for which they had resigned lucrative business at the bar.

did not agree with the reasons urged for giving the full salary as pension. It was notorious that the country did not ask these gentlemen to abandon their practice, but that many others were willing to undertake the duties of the office in question.

thought it would be contrary to the principle that House had always acted upon towards vested interests—namely, to secure the whole amount of salaries which otherwise would be secured to them for life—if they adopted the Amendment. He thought, however, that if full salaries were paid, parties receiving salaries ought to perform services for them either in their own office or in some other office.

thought it would be unwise to part with those four Judges, and tol ose all control over them, as proposed by the clause. The effect of the clause was to give a boon to the gentlemen who were to retire—it was, in fact, to increase their retiring allowance. He thought those gentlemen ought to he at the command of the Lord Chancellor, to be employed in any way which might assist in working out those reforms which were in progress.

observed that none of the Masters wished to retire, and as they had been appointed during good behaviour, they had a life-interest in their offices. If, therefore, it was considered that the abolition of the office was for the public advantage, the holders ought to receive full compensation.

proposed as an Amendment to reduce the salary of the officers appointed under this clause from 3,000l. to 1,000l. per annum.

moved to omit after the words "it shall be lawful" all the words to the end of the clause, and to substitute the following:—

"For every person who on the first day of Hilary Term, 1852, held the office of chief clerk to any of the Masters in ordinary of the said Court of Chancery, and who is not hereby appointed a chief clerk to the Master of the Rolls, or to one of the Vice-Chancellors, under the authority of this Act, upon the Master to whom he shall be such chief clerk being released from the duties as such Master, under the authority of this Act, to continue to be entitled to receive during his life, by way of retiring pension, the full amount of his salary as such chief clerk, such salary to be paid and payable out of such funds and in such manner as hereinafter in that behalf directed."

opposed the Amendment. The office of the clerk was dependent on the life of the Master, and every clerk accepted his appointment on the express understanding that it was to lapse with the life of the Master. This being so, it was unreasonable to require that compensation should be given for this as for a permanent office.

remarked that, according to this proposal, the clerk would receive for his own life, by way of compensation, what at best, and in his safest tenure of it, he was only entitled to hold till the death of the Master.

said, as regarded what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), that each Master's successor brought in his own clerks, that there was not a single instance of a chief clerk being turned out by a Master.

said, he would adopt the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

was satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

proposed to insert the following clause after Clause 43: A. (Pensions to Chief Clerks and Junior Clerks in cases of permanent infirmity.)

"It shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, by any order made on a petition presented to him for that purpose, to order (if he shall think fit) to be paid to any person executing the office of chief clerk or junior clerk to the Master of the Rolls, or any of the Vice-Chancellors, who shall he afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, and shall be desirous of resigning the same, an annuity not exceeding two-third parts of the yearly salary which such person shall be entitled to at the time of presenting such petition, and be paid and payable at the same times, and out of the same funds, as compensations under this Act are directed to be paid."

said, that before the Bill was reported, he was anxious to express on the part of the Government, and particularly on the part of the Lord Chancellor, the profound appreciation which both entertained of the great learning, ability, and assiduity displayed by the learned Commissioners to whom the important duty was assigned of drawing up the Report on which were founded the two measures the details of which had occupied the House that evening—measures of which he would not hesitate to say that none had ever been introduced so well calculated to effect an improvement in the administration of the law in this country. He would only add, that it afforded him a personal pleasure to bear testimony to the high appreciation by the Government of the services rendered by the Lord Chancellor in carrying out the suggestions of the Report.

entirely concurred in the propriety of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry that doubt should have been thrown from any quarter on the intentions of the Lord Chancellor with respect to these important measures, for, from every communication he had had with the Lord Chancellor, he entertained the conviction that the noble and learned Lord, from the moment he accepted the seals of his high office, was resolved to give effect, as far as it lay in his power, to the recommendations of the Commissioners. His exertions in this respect had reflected the greatest honour on the noble and learned Lord, and were every way worthy of his distinguished character.