moved that the House insist upon Clause (E), the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed. While the Bill was before the Commons a clause was introduced carrying out one of the recommendations of the Chancery Law Commission, depriving the Court of Chancery of the power of sending cases to a Court of Law. The object of such a clause was to make the Court of Chancery complete in its jurisdiction for deciding all cases brought before it, and to avoid the expense and delay consequent on referring questions once, twice, and, as occasionally happened, thrice to a court of common law. Having the highest respect for the judgment of the noble and learned Lords at whose instance the clause was disagreed to, he should have been disposed, but for the recommendation of the Commission, and that the subject bad been fully considered by the House, to suggest the adoption of the Amendment their Lordships had made; but as it was, he felt bound to move that it be not concurred in.

seconded the Motion.

did not rise to oppose the Motion just made, but to make a few observations as to the alleged conduct of his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, in regard to one of these law Bills. It was with great pain he bad observed that any discussion affecting the conduct and integrity of his right hon. Friend, as a sincere, earnest, and ardent law reformer, had taken place elsewhere. He could not have supposed that from any source-—much less that from which it had emanated—any imputation could have arisen on his right hon. Friend's earnestness and sincerity; and he felt the more pained when he saw that imputation take the shape, not of direct accusation, but of insinuation, which was far worse— the form of that insinuation being that his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls had taken in charge, or had connected himself with, the conduct of the Bill for the Relief of Suitors in Chancery; and that, having such conduct, he made the Bill rather a Master of the Rolls' Bill than a Lord Chancellor's Bill—that he used his position and his influence in the House for the purpose of obtaining advantages and increasing the patronage for the Master of the Rolls' Court, by increasing the number and the fees payable to the secretaries and other officers of that Court, while those of the Lord Chancellor's Court were reduced—and that he had obtained more patronage in respect to the office for issuing "orders in course." Now he (Sir W. P. Wood) had not spoken to his right hon. Friend on the subject; but he felt it his duty, in justice to his right hon. Friend, to say that the Bill in question had been introduced, not by the Master of the Rolls, but by himself, and that from the commencement of its progress through the House of Commons, his right hon. Friend had had no share in it. As he (Sir W. P. Wood) introduced the Bill on the part of the late Government, he wished to say that the Bill was framed by the late Lord Chancellor, in compliance with the recommendations of a Select Committee of that House; over which it was true that at one time the Master of the Rolls presided; but he had ceased to do so long before it decided on its report. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that "orders of course" should be abolished. The late Lord Chancellor was of opinion that those "orders of course" should not be abolished; but no communication was made to the Master of the Rolls, who was not aware of the provisions of the Bill till it was introduced. With regard to the retention or abolition of "orders of course," there were arguments on both sides; but, after deliberation, it was decided that their abolition should be omitted from the Bill. In the first week of the Session, he (Sir W, P. Wood), brought in the Bill, and up to that time and afterwards, the Master of the Rolls had no knowledge of the Bill beyond that possessed by other Members; he took part in the discussion which ensued, but there was no discussion on this particular matter. After the accession of the present Government to office, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, at his request, took charge of the Bill, and treated it as a Government measure. From the end of February, therefore, the Bill was in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed such new clauses and alterations as he saw fit; and if any alteration had been made with regard to this matter of "orders of course," it would have been discussed—but he did not. When he (Sir W. P. Wood) parted with the Bill, he was requested, like the noble and learned Lord in the other House, to present a petition from certain solicitors in the metropolis, which prayed that the recommendation of the Committee as to the abolition of "orders of course" should be adopted. He stated to the petitioners, that as he had brought in the Bill as a Member of the late Government, he did not think he was the proper person to make that suggestion, but that, if the question was raised, he was prepared to discuss it. The question, however, was never raised; but the Master of the Rolls had no part in preventing that discussion, nor did he take any part or share in the provisions beyond that taken by the other Members. He regretted that anything in the shape of an imputation should have been cast on the Master of the Rolls, with regard to his having taken any part in preventing the abolition of "orders of course;" and still more so when it was said that he had done so to benefit persons with whom he was connected. He (Sir W. P. Wood) confined himself strictly to explanation with regard to the passing of the Bill. He had no doubt that the Master of the Rolls could give a satisfactory explanation with regard to the appointment of a secretary; indeed, if "orders of course" were retained, there must be a secretary. With regard to the noble and learned Lord who made these observations (Lord Lyndhurst), he (Sir W. P. Wood), in common with the whole of his profession, entertained for him the greatest respect, and he could only regret that there should have been any suspicion in the mind of the noble and learned Lord as to the possibility of any impropriety of conduct in the Master of the Rolls. They were indebted to that right hon. Gentleman for his activity and constant attendance as a member of the Committee, and for his co-operation as the law adviser of the Government for its formation, as well as for the diligence, care, zeal, and honesty he had shown as a law reformer; and he should be sorry if the Session were to conclude with the least imputation remaining on his untarnished character.

said, that the House would no doubt feel perfectly satisfied with the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Member opposite, of the conduct and motives of the Master of the Rolls in these proceedings; and he (the Solicitor General) was warranted in saying, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) who had referred to this subject in the other House of Parliament, that there was not an individual in the country who more sincerely respected the eminent attainments and high character, both private and judicial, of the Master of the Rolls. It was true, that in the course of one of the many discussions that had arisen in the other House of Parliament with respect to the many great and important law reforms which had passed through Parliament in the latter half of the present Session, that noble and learned Lord did make some allusions to the course which he erroneously supposed had been taken by the Master of the Rolls with respect to the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill. It was quite unnecessary for him (the Solicitor General) to say that his noble and learned Friend had been always perfectly ready to do justice (and indeed he believed that when his Lordship made these remarks, he had done so in express terms) to the high character and entire freedom from liability to imputation of the right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Rolls, in the matter to which allusion had been made. It was not surprising if, amidst the complicated matters which had from time to time been under consideration in connexion with the various legal reforms which had lately engaged the attention of Parliament, even one so eminently distinguished, not only for learning, but for extraordinary accuracy with respect to facts, should have been misled by a misapprehension on this occasion. That the statements of the noble and learned Lord were founded upon a misapprehension, he repeated; and he was sure that the House and his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls would be perfectly satisfied with that statement, in addition to the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir W. P. Wood). The extensive and indeed unparalleled series of legal reforms which had now passed through both Houses of Parliament, and were only awaiting the Royal Assent to become the law of the land, would effect the greatest improvement in the law, which had been made during the present century; and it would be matter of much regret if, after the great pains which had been taken by the Master of the Rolls in promoting this great public benefit, the slightest approach to personal imputation should be allowed to rest upon his high reputation. He might say, on behalf of his noble Friend and of Her Majesty's Government, that while they laid claim to the credit of having spared no effort to carry into effect these law reforms, they were quite ready to yield their tribute of gratitude and respect to that Commission of which the Master of the Rolls formed an important and essential Member, and to all who in either House of Parliament had aided them in those efforts to effect this great improvement in the law. He hoped and believed that great, extensive, and beneficial as those improvements were, they were only the first step to still greater improvements in a future Parliament—reforms to which, whether in or out of office, every Member of Her Majesty's Government would rejoice in lending his aid.

bore testimony to the eminent services of the Master of the Rolls in the cause of legal reform.

said, that he rose to put to the Government a question of which he had given notice. He understood that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was unavoidably absent, but he hoped that the Solicitor General or the Under Secretary of State would give him an answer. His question had reference to the Roman Catholic processions, against which there had lately been a Royal Proclamation. It appeared that the Government had determined to enforce an Act for putting down these processions, and he wished to know whether that Act extended to the suppression of those imitations of Roman Catholic processions by clergymen of the Church of England which had notoriously taken place in different parts of the kingdom? And in the event of the existing Act not being sufficient to prevent such practices, which bade fair to create a breach of the peace, he wished to know whether the Government intended to introduce such an Act as would put a stop to practices which were scandalous to Protestantism and disgraceful to the Church of England?

I have to state, in the first place, that the Act of Parliament which is now in force has no operation upon any processions whatever, if such have ever had existence, in which clergymen of the Church of England only have borne part, that Act applying entirely to processions consisting of Roman Catholic priests and Roman Catholic persons. With regard to the second question of my hon. Friend, I have only to state that Her Majesty's Government are not at all aware of the law having been violated, or even of any such processions as those alluded to having taken place in any part of the kingdom. It is, therefore, scarcely necessary for me to add, that they have no intention of proposing in this or any future Session of Parliament any measure of the kind referred to with respect to clergymen of the Church of England.

moved for a copy of the depositions taken at Gosport on the case of Leopold de Rose, who was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour on a charge of begging. The noble Lord stated the particulars of the case, to the effect that Mr. de Rose obtained a livelihood by selling drawings, and that he had been falsely accused by Captain Hamilton of begging, on which charge he had been committed to fourteen days' imprisonment and hard labour. The noble Lord stated that Captain Hamilton had also insulted him by telling him that, as a Pole, he belonged to the most rascally set of scoundrels that ever were let loose on this country. The noble Lord then proceeded to point out the injustice of the case, remarking that, even if the poor Pole had solicited alms, it would have been harsh treatment to give him into custody. It was only a few days since an Austrian officer, who had been engaged in the war against Hungary, applied to him for relief, and he considered he would have disgraced himself had he given that man into custody. And yet Captain Hamilton had thought it not unbecoming in a British officer to be instrumental in imprisoning a poor Pole, who had committed no offence, for fourteen days, with hard labour. The conduct of the magistrate was, however, equally reprehensible; for there could have been no necessity for visiting so slight an offence—if even an offence had been committed, which he denied—with such great severity. A case of this sort was a disgrace to a country which boasted of affording protection to the exiled and the unfortunate. He (Lord D. Stuart) had known Mr. De Rose many years, and he had always found him an honourable, straightforward man. He believed that he had never applied to any one for pecuniary assistance, and he had never applied to the Society of the Friends of Poland. The noble Lord then read the following letters, the first of which was from Thomas Hoskins, Esq., lately Tithe Commissioner, and now Auditor of the Accounts of the Guardians of the Poor at Gosport, Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight:—

"Gosport, 26th June, 1852.

"My Lord—At the request of my excellent friend the Mayor of Southampton, I have felt great pleasure in accompanying Lieut. Szulczewski and Mr. Leopold de Rose to the several places of abode of Mr. Tilston, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Biden, Capt. Blake, Mr. Meggs, Mrs. Welch, Miss Slane, and Miss Nott—all of whom I have known for many years as most highly respectable people— and I can assure your Lordship that I have heard with great delight the testimony which each of those ladies and gentlemen gave to the character and deportment of Mr. Leopold de Rose, who, although reduced to the necessity of offering his articles for sale, always did so with the marked conduct of a highly honourable man and a gentleman; he was immediately recognised by each, was most pleasantly received by all, and deeply sympathised with for the manner in which he had been treated, which, as some did not hesitate to state, was a disgrace to the country. So far from begging, one lady stated, that she had offered him two shillings for an article of one shilling value, which he most honourably declined to take. The result is most satisfactory to my mind, that Mr. De Rose has behaved in this neighbourhood in a manner highly creditable to himself and his country, and that he is entitled to the esteem and the sympathy of all who detest tyranny and oppression.—I have the honour to be, your Lordship's most obedient servant,

"THOMAS HOSKINS."

The second, from one of the justices of the peace for the county of Hants, was as follows: —

"26th June, 1852.

"My Lord—I had a visit yesterday from Lieut. Charles Szulczewski and Mr. De Rose; the former came to make inquiries of me respecting Mr. Do Rose's imprisonment for begging, &c. I can only-say I consider he has been shamefully used by Captain Hamilton, who resided at Anglesey, near Gosport, and who is now appointed to a ship at Woolwich. My brother magistrate, Dr. Hillyer, could do no more than imprison Mr. De Rose, as Captain Hamilton swore that he 'wandered abroad to bog and gather alms, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made,' &c. &c. Now it does appear to me to be a very extraordinary thing that Mr. De Rose should beg of Captain Hamilton, when I well know that Mr. De Rose could get 5l. or 10l. whenever he liked to ask for it, by writing to a neighbour of mine, one of the first families in the county, but he has never done so. Moreover, the policeman took Mr. De Rose into custody without a warrant, and without seeing him ask alms."

Now he thought that after reading these letters, he was justified in saying that, though Captain Hamilton swore he had begged of him, he did not believe him, though, at the same time, he did not believe that a British officer would state on his oath that which he considered was not true. He believed that Captain Hamilton got into a great fury, and really did not know what he was about, or what was said.

said, he knew Captain de Rose, who was introduced to him by some of the most respectable men in the city of Bristol. He had observed about him great delicacy of mind; he was evidently a man labouring under misfortune, who wished to put on the best appearance he could. Whenever any attempt had been made to give him money, he shrank from it. He trusted that Govern- ment would make an inquiry into this case.

said, he ought, perhaps, to take some blame on himself in not having pressed more strongly than he had done on the noble Lord his wish that he should postpone this Motion in consequence of the absence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole). He regretted still more that the noble Lord should have thought it his duty to go into a long accusation against persons who were not present, and who had no means whatever of making any answer. It appeared most extraordinary that this matter had been allowed to sleep for months, and that persons in the neighbourhood, who took an interest in the matter, had made no representation to the Home Office. If any such representation had been made either to the present Secretary of State, or to his predecessor, the fullest possible investigation would have been made. He understood that it was unusual to furnish copies of the depositions taken in such cases as the present; but he would take care that such an investigation should be made, and he would inform the noble Lord of the result—but he could not now consent to the Motion.

did not think that gentlemen in the position of Mr. De Rose had any encouragement to look to the Home Office for redress, after the treatment of another Pole, who was not a poor Pole like Mr. De Rose, but who, without any other charge than that he was a Pole, had been taken out of his own House, placed in a cell for twelve hours, and his papers ransacked—had appealed to the Home Office and obtained no redress— and when, after six months had elapsed, he applied to his attorney, he found that it was too late, according to the Act of Parliament, to seek redress in a court of law. If the noble Lord pressed his Motion to a division for the production of the depositions, he would vote with him. The hon. Baronet said it was not usual to produce such depositions; that might be, but it should also be remembered that the case itself was a most unusual one.

I feel bound to say that, in my opinion, this is clearly a case deserving investigation, and I cannot for a moment doubt but that the Government will feel bound to look into it most narrowly and minutely. I think my noble Friend has acted with strict propriety in bringing forward this case; and as to the observation that he made ex- parte charges, and implicated the names of absent individuals, I must say I think that these matters are inseparable from a question like the present. I am sure, my noble Friend, in bringing forward this question, has only displayed that honourable and humane feeling towards the helpless and distressed that has ever characterised his conduct—and for which every one who listens to me must be willing to give him credit. As to the Motion before the House, I have no doubt but that the Government will redeem its pledge, and that full inquiry into the case will be at once instituted; and should they find, after full investigation, that the parties concerned have abused the powers entrusted to them, that the Government will take such steps as will prevent a recurrence of such conduct. I hope my noble Friend will now withdraw the Motion.

said, his object would be attained if Government would make an inquiry, and he therefore withdrew the Motion.