said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Secretary for the Treasury with respect to the gold coinage. It had been understood by the country that an intimation was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening that it was intended by the Government to establish mints in the Australian Colonies, and it was a point upon which much curiosity had been expressed to know in what particular parts of those Colonies the Government would sanction those establishments.

said, that with respect to the establishment of mints in Australia, he thought he might say that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was a question which was more to be determined by the Colonies themselves than by this country, and consequently the Government were disposed to afford every facility which the Colonies might require for that purpose. With regard to the place where the mints were to be established, the only part of the Australian Colonies which had yet demanded such a convenience, and which had supplied the necessary funds, was Sydney, and from that Colony 10,000l. had been received, which would be applied immediately to the purpose intended. The Government would then be ready, on the understanding that this country would become liable for no part of the charge incurred, and that the mints would be placed under such due regulations as might be necessary for the security of the public, and for obtaining a proper quality of coinage, to grant a similar convenience to every one of the Australian Colonies which might be willing to comply with these conditions.

said, in rising to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the constitution of Sheriff Courts in Scotland, he wished to state that his original intention was to have moved for a Committee of Inquiry; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate having given notice of a Bill on the same subject, he (Mr. Crau-furd) had suspended his Motion, in the hope that the Government measure would remedy all the evils complained of. That Bill had, however, completely disappointed him, retaining as it did what he conceived to be the great evil of the present system, namely, the double shrievalty in the Scottish counties; while, on the other hand, he found that his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry would be resisted by the Lord Advocate. For these reasons he had determined upon introducing a Bill; and if his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate did not oppose the second reading, he would consent to its reference to the same Committee as the Government Bill, when probably an efficient measure might be extracted from both. The Bill he now asked leave to introduce, went to abolish the offices of Sheriffs Depute and Substitute, and empowered Her Majesty to divide the counties into districts, for the establishment of local Judges. It created Sheriffs in lieu of the Sheriffs now existing, who should be resident, and the only Judges in matters of fact up to 50l. At present the Sheriffs had summary jurisdiction up to 8l. 6s. 8d., and he proposed to extend it to 50l., with no appeal on matters of fact, nor any on matters of law up to 20l. It provided for the qualifications of Sheriffs, and defined their several powers—among others, that of deciding in a summary manner, with the consent of parties, beyond 50l., and of summoning witnesses from England or Ireland. The salaries of the Sheriffs' Depute were now exceedingly inadequate; at any rate, as compared with those of the English County Court Judges. Besides having to deal with cases of the nature of those tried in the English County Courts, the Scotch Sheriffs exercised a large jurisdiction in criminal matters, bankruptcy, insolvency, and consistorial and maritime cases. And yet, while the English Judge received from 1,000l. to 1,500l. a year, the Sheriff Substitutes of Scotland had not more than 250l. to 450l. per annum. It was proposed, therefore, by his Bill to increase their salaries; but, on the other hand, to abolish the payment of fees to them for attendance in the Registration Courts as revising barristers—a system which had long been condemned in England as inevitably tending to produce unnecessarily long sittings. The great difference between his Bill and that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was, that what he proposed to abolish, his right hon. and learned Friend proposed to retain. In favour of that retention the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate quoted the Reports of the Commissioners of 1818 and 1834; but the fact was, that there was no abuse for the support of which an authority could not be found in the records of Parliament. If Sir Islay Campbell were quoted against him, he would remind his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, that that distinguished lawyer had also said that if one of the five Exchequer Barons in Scotland were removed, there would be an end to the administration of justice, and yet not many years afterwards Lord Chancellor Brougham abolished the whole five. The fact was that the success of the County Courts in England had made the people of Scotland impatient for speedy and effectual justice; and it should not be forgotten that these very County Courts had been strenuously opposed by the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. What the people of Scotland required was that the same system which had worked so well in England should be extended to them; that the two offices of Sheriff Depute and Sheriff Substitute should be united; and that the procedure of the Sheriffs' Courts should be assimilated to that of the County Courts here. He also proposed that the appeal should be direct to the Court of Session, instead of to an advocate sitting in Edinburgh, and that thus a complete local, inexpensive, and speedy system of administering justice should be established. The objections he had taken on the occasion when the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate first introduced his measure, caused him (Mr. Craufurd) to state to the House that the Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend would not satisfy Scotland. The defects in that Bill were the maintenance of written pleadings, though in a modified form, in all cases between 12l. and 50l., and of the appeal to the non-resident Sheriff in Edinburgh, merely on the written statements against the judgment of a resident Sheriff who had heard oral pleadings. The great evil of the system was, that the appeal was both on the fact and on the law. This necessitated the enormous mass of writing which created the expense of proceedings in the Sheriff Courts. The maintenance of the double Sheriffs mainly depended on the maintenance of this system of appeal, and as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate took a determined stand on the preservation of the office of Sheriff Depute, he was necessarily precluded from going further than he had done in abolishing written pleadings. In his own Bill, he (Mr. Craufurd) at once got rid of the difficulty by creating one local competent Judge who should decide all questions of fact without any appeal, up to 20l., and beyond 20l.up to 50l.,with an appeal to the Court of Session on points of law. Objections were made to this final power of deciding on facts, and, if necessary, the means might be introduced for correcting erroneous decisions, such as existed in the English County Courts, namely, by granting a new trial on the facts before the local Judge, or by giving the parties the option of a jury. This latter proviso he should not be disposed, however, to lay much weight on, as jury trials are not popular in Scotland. Whatever might be the settlement of the details, he was satisfied of this, that the Bill he proposed to introduce was a much more accurate representation of the want and feeling of the great mass of the people in Scotland, out of Edinburgh, than was the Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He could adduce abundant evidence of that feeling, which was embodied most prominently in the following Resolution passed at a very large meeting of bankers, merchants, manufactures, traders, and other inhabitants of Glasgow, presided over by the Lord Provost, which was as follows:—

"That the Bill introduced into the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate of Scotland for the improvement of the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, contains various useful provisions; but by perpetuating the present system of double sheriffs, and the expense, delay, and uncertainty which are the unavoidable consequence of this erroneous system, it falls far short of the just expectations of the country."

When he reflected on the course so honourably and successfully pursued in the establishment of County Courts by the present hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Fitzroy), and that the present hon. and learned Attorney General, who supported the County Court movement, as well as his hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe), a well-known law reformer and supporter of County Courts, now sat on the Treasury Bench, he could not but draw good omen for the fate of the measure he now proposed to introduce.

in seconding the Motion, said, that the object embrac- ed in it was one that engaged the attention of the whole of Scotland out of the Parliament House of Edinburgh. The general opinion was, that the present system of local adjudication was but a remnant of the heritable jurisdiction of ancient times, and the office of sheriff was looked upon in the light of a sinecure retirement for the Edinburgh advocates. The Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, though it undoubtedly contained much that was good, would not give satisfaction in Scotland. What was demanded by the people of that country was local Courts, founded as nearly as possible upon the principle of the County Courts of England; that these Courts should have jurisdiction to the extent of 50l., and that the appeal from their decision should be, not to a single Judge at Edinburgh, but to the Court of Session. Believing that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd's) measure would meet the requirements of the case, he had much pleasure in seconding this Motion.

said, that although it was not his intention to oppose the Motion, or throw any obstruction in the way of the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, he must be allowed to say that he did not think that the course which had been adopted by his hon. and learned Friend was the most convenient that could have been pursued, or the readiest way of attaining the end which he professed he had in view. He (the Lord Advocate) had introduced a Bill on the subject of these Local Courts early in the present Session, and had fixed the second reading for Thursday next; but understanding that many hon. Gentlemen, especially Scotch representatives, wished for more time to collect the opinion of the country on the subject, he postponed the next stage to a more distant period. It was the intention of the Scotch Members to take the usual, and, in his opinion, a very wise course, namely, to meet together for the purpose of discussing the various matters connected with that Bill, and to ascertain the various sentiments of their constituents previous to its second reading. He could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend would have acted wisely had he postponed the introduction of his measure until the Scotch Members had had an opportunity of ascertaining each other's opinions upon his (the Lord Advocate's) Bill. However, he had no other object than to obtain for Scotland the best measure which, by the aid of others' opinions and his own judgment, he could frame. And as his hon. and learned Friend thought that his measure would be serviceable to Scotland, he (the Lord Advocate) could not refuse to allow him to introduce his Bill, nor could he refuse to consider its provisions. He could not, however, give his hon. and learned Friend the assurance that his measure would receive his (the Lord Advocate's) support. And he might at once openly avow that he believed the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend to be, not a step in the direction of reform, but as mischievous and retrograde a step as could have been adopted. It appeared to him that the system which the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend wished to attack, namely, the system of appealing from the local Judge who tried the matter, to a Judge of the Superior Courts at Edinburgh, was one of the most advantageous provisions that could be devised for administering justice in Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had drawn an unfavourable contrast between the English and Scotch courts. He (Mr. J. Macgregor) complained that whilst Scotland had to endure the Civil Law, England was blessed with her "Common Law." Now, the principles of law in Scotland were infinitely more simple than those which prevailed in England. Why, did his hon. Friend really mean to say that the people of Scotland ought to grieve because they had not a system of law which was full of fictions, and to reform which the most indefatigable efforts were being made by the people of England? He thought they were well entitled to have this measure judged upon Scotch principles and by Scotch precedent. The hon. Member said it would get rid of an inconvenience in respect to the present double jurisdiction; but he would remind the hon. Member that that was part of a larger system than he was aware. The Sheriff was not a mere local Judge in cases not exceeding 50l., as would appear from the speech of the hon. Member, inasmuch as by far the greater proportion of the cases brought before him were in respect to sums above 50l., and also with regard to possessions, interdicts, and other matters not capable of being estimated by money. The simple grounds on which he (the Lord Advocate) opposed the Bill, were first, that it would materially impair the judicial functions of the Sheriffs; and, secondly, that it would cut up by the roots the ad- ministrative functions of the Sheriffs. Complaints had been made, no doubt, and grievances might doubtless be found; but in his opinion, those grievances might be remedied, and the cause of those complaints done away with, without making the office under an organic charge. The hon. Member said that they were sinecures and political appointments, to which the best men were not nominated. He (the Lord Advocate) ventured to say that there never was a statement made which had a greater degree of exaggeration. So far from the best men not being appointed, it was a fact that there was hardly a lawyer of eminence at the Scotch bar who had not been a Sheriff Substitute; and seven out of the thirteen present Judges had held that office. So had the present and the late Solicitor Genera], and most of, their predecessors. With regard to its being a sinecure, he admitted that in some counties there was not much to do. If, however, it could be shown all of them had as little business as those to which he alluded, he could not support the Bill; but, in the larger counties, there was a vast amount of exceedingly important business devolving upon the Sheriffs. But, besides their position as Judges, the Sheriffs were the organs through which the county was governed, and the persons with whom the Lord Advocate communicated on subjects affecting the general welfare. If they were destroyed, a link would be taken out of the chain, which would diminish the strength of the Government in Scotland in a manner not easily calculable. The hon. Member had spoken of opinions, and he should, therefore, offer no apology for laying before the House the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, delivered in a speech in that House, when, in 1833, as Attorney General, he opposed a similar measure to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Lord Campbell then said that he thought the system an admirable one which brought the law home to the poor man's door. Again, the hon. and learned Member said, that his (the Lord Advocate's) Bill would not satisfy the country. He expected that some would be dissatisfied; but the Faculty of Advocates in Edin-had come to an unanimous resolution against any change in the offices of Sheriff Principal and Sheriff Depute. He had been appealed to as a law reformer, and he was most anxious indeed to deserve that name, but could not consent to obtain that name by the sacrifice of one of the most useful institutions in the country.

said, he was rather surprised at the course taken by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in reference to the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill. With regard to the encomiums which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had passed on the existing system of administering justice in Scotland, he (Mr. Hume) recollected the time when similar encomiums were lavished on the Court of Chancery year after year, yet he had lived to see those statements falsified in the reforms which public opinion had forced upon that institution. What did the people of Scotland want in this case? They only wanted to be placed in the same situation as regarded the administration of the law as that in which the people of England stood. Again, we were living in an age of strict competition. Why then should the right hon. and learned Advocate object to his (Mr. Hume's) hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd) trying his hand at legislation? He (Mr. Hume) coutended that it was high time that the law of Scotland should be made more in accordance with that of England. If there was one thing more desirable than another in matters of that kind it was the abolition of sinecures; and if the government of Scotland depended on the maintenance of those sinecures, he thought the sooner that government was altered the better. He would suggest that time should be allowed for ascertaining the opinions of the people of Scotland in regard to this question; and if that was done he had no hesitation in saying that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would find three to one against the maintenance of this sinecure office, and four to one in favour of an assimilation of the law of Scotland to that of England.

said, that reference having been made to a representation from Dumfriesshire on this subject, he was bound to declare that up to the present moment he was of opinion, gathered from a statement of facts, that the people of Dumfries were very much in favour of a single Judge. With reference to the subject of law reform, he was afraid, if the House left all law reforms to lawyers alone, those law reforms would proceed at the slowest possible rate. It might be true that all the law reforms in this country had been effected by lawyers; but it was indisputably true that they had been stimulated by public opinion. Lawyers were happily become law reformers; but unless they had been stimulated to it by the pressure of public opinion, they would have slumbered on, and never have entered on the enterprise in which some of the most eminent of them were now embarked. The main question now was, whether the people of Scotland were to have two Judges where he considered one only was necessary, He should have been glad to learn from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that he consented to the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd) going before a Select Committee, and whether that Bill and the measure of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate went before the same Select Committee, it would be competent for the Committee to hear evidence on the subject before them. With reference to the remuneration of the Sheriffs, he must say the Sheriff Substitute was in many eases very inadequately paid. In the district with which he was connected as a representative, great fatigue and labour were undergone. by the Sheriff Substitute, and he was, nevertheless, greatly underpaid. In Ireland local Judges had been appointed under the name of assistant barristers; in England County Court Judges had also been appointed; and it was desirable that the same principle should be carried out in Scotland. He would only say, in conclusion, that he thought it in the highest degree desirable that there should be some uniformity in the law of the three divisions of the Kingdom. That was "a consummation devoutly to be wished," and the facts as well as the wish were gradually tending towards it.

said, in reference to what had fallen from the preceding speaker, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Lord Advocate would not consent to allow his Bill, and that of the hon, and learned Member for Ayr burghs (Mr. Craufurd) to go concurrently before a Select Committee; for his experience led him to believe that such a course would be attended with the worst possible result. He was a Member of a Committee at that moment, which had two Bills before them, and he could assure the House that it was found no easy matter to carry on their business. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) spoke of the offices of Sheriff Depute and Sheriff Principal in Scotland being sinecures. He believed that there was no gentleman resident in Scotland who would join in that assertion; for his part he believed that they were most useful officers, and he believed that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were carried out, that a blow would be thereby struck at the criminal and civil jurisprudence of Scotland which it would not soon recover. He would also beg to remind the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) that the experiment of the County Courts in England was as yet comparatively untried—that they were still presided over by gentlemen of professional eminence. But the question remained still to be solved, whether or not when the Judges came to be men who were debarred from practising in the Superior Courts, the utility of these County Courts might not be so far detracted from as that England would be obliged to revert to the principle which had been abandoned, or adopt the system of Scotland.

said, he thought the Scotch representatives in that House would be ungrateful indeed if they did not acknowledge that to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the people of Scotland owed some of the most useful and extensive reforms in the law, and some of the most able adaptations of the practice. He (Mr. Fergus) was anxious that the law and the practice of Scotland should be assimilated to those of England in cases where experience had proved the law and practice of England to be superior, and where such an assimilation would be an undoubted improvement; but he saw in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Craufurd), not an improvement, but a very rash innovation. He (Mr. Fergus) was not an Edinburgh lawyer, and he was not therefore tinctured with the prejudices of the profession; but from long residence in Scotland he thought the Sheriffs Depute were a valuable part of the law of Scotland, and that there were undoubted advantages in the appeal from the local Judge to the Judge in Edinburgh, which he, for one, should be very sorry to see lost to the people of Scotland.

said, he wished merely to say, in reference to what had fallen from an hon. Member opposite on the subject of the Irish assistant barristers, and on the utility of resident Judges, that important as were the functions performed by these learned gentlemen, they were not resident in the counties over which they presided, and that immediately on the termination of the civil and criminal busi- ness they returned to their practice in Dublin. Indeed, many of them were amongst the ablest men at the Irish bar, and were in the receipt of considerable emoluments from their practice. Now, the consequence of that regulation was, that those gentlemen being permitted to reside in Dublin, and being not unfrequently changed from county to county, were quite out of the way of acquiring local connexions or local prejudices—an advantage which the House could not fail to appreciate.

said, that with all due deference to the zeal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr, he considered he had not acted very judiciously in asking for leave to bring in his Bill at the present moment. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in his opinion, had outstepped the bounds of courtesy in giving his sanction to the introduction of any such Bill. There was, no doubt, great excitement in Scotland existing on this question. There was a fixed determination come to that some law reform in the Sheriffs' Courts must be adopted; but surely it would establish a very awkward precedent if, when the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had not only brought in a Bill, but had intimated in the most courteous manner his anxious desire to meet the Scotch Members in a body, to listen to their suggestions, to accept all practical advice from them, and from other interested parties in Scotland—it would surely establish a bad precedent if an inexperienced and new Member were encouraged to come forward in so inopportune a manner, and press on the House his own independent measure. He was sure that the Scotch Members, if they had been appealed to in a body, would have supported the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, had he been disposed to oppose the present Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown the greatest courtesy to all Scotch Members, and he regretted the hon. and learned Member for Ayr had not had more experience, else he would have waited till the Scotch Members had met, and until the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had read his Bill a second time. Alterations might be proposed in Committee. As the Member for Dumfriesshire he had several suggestions to make. The convener and others in the county of Dumfries had taken a very strong and able lead in the call for law reform, and when the Commissioners of Sup- ply met in January last, at which meeting the resolutions were proposed which he (Lord Drumlanrig) had given that night to his right hon. and learned Friend to read, and which resolutions seemed so much to surprise the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, there was a unanimous desire expressed that all parties should wait till after the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had brought forward his Bill. They hoped that Bill might be referred to a Select Committee; but, whatever might be the difference of opinion as to whether two Sheriffs or one should be maintained, or how far an extension of the Small Debts Court should be carried, he (Lord Drumlanrig) was certain no body of Scotchmen would approve of the fact of law reform being so prematurely taken out of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's hands, and the case transferred to the mercies of an English lawyer. He willingly acquitted the hon. and learned Member for Ayr of anything like want of courtesy to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; but he did not think his present step a judicious one, and he also considered the present act a bad precedent.

said, he must confess that he was somewhat startled to hear the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down. The noble Lord seemed to think that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate having introduced a Bill, nobody ought to find fault with it; in short, that the Government of the day having introduced a Bill, the House ought to pass it sub silentio. The hon. and learned Member for Ayr burghs had only done what he thought he had a right to do in the discharge of his duty to his constituents. The hon. and learned Member had a perfect right to bring in a Bill, particularly on a subject of this kind, in which all Scotland were deeply interested. He (Mr. Forbes) must say that according to the information before him the people of Scotland did not seem altogether in love with the Bill of the Lord Advocate—a fact, perhaps, which would greatly surprise him. And he would further say, that if the Government should oppose the second reading of the Bill now before the House, their conduct in so doing would be very unfavourably contrasted with that of the late Administration, who were not found fault with on account of their too great liberality, but who nevertheless consented that the Bills of his right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland, and that of the hon. and learned Member for the County of Kilkenny (Mr. Serjt. Shee), relative to the Irish land question, should go, paripassu, before the same Committee. He must say it seemed to him to be quite out of accordance with liberal ideas—and, of course, they were all Liberal now—to refuse a second reading to a Bill in favour of which the people of Scotland held very strong opinions.

said, the Bill of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate involved this simple principle: There was I a Judge in the county who heard the case, having the parties before him; and when | an appeal took place he sent up the papers: to a Judge in Edinburgh, who did not hear the parties, but who decided upon the case. Was such a thing not a monster in jurisprudence?

said, in Scotland they might boast that while in England no man could recover the smallest debt without coming to Westminster, they had for centuries enjoyed the privilege of recovering all debts in a cheap, easy, and simple way. The County Courts in England were truly a borrowing from Scotland, extending in some degree the amount of jurisdiction; and now they turned round, saying they would confer upon Scotland the boon of County Courts, as if nothing of the kind had existed before in that country. The case was not exactly as it had been put by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr, Ewart) that in Scotland two Judges were doing what one did in England. The Sheriffs in Scotland were not only at the head of the police, but had to hear actions for debt, and almost every other class of action besides, so that there was an immense mass of business, and it would be impossible to give to them anything like the great extent that was consigned to the County Courts in England. He was most anxious to treat the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Craufurd) with the fullest impartiality; but he thought great difficulties would attend its adoption, particularly the entrusting a single Judge with the power of giving final judgment in cases which came before him. Nor, on the other hand, did the Bill of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate altogether meet his views. He limited too much the small-debt jurisdiction. There was in. his (Mr. Dunlop's) opinion no reason why all sums above the small-debt jurisdiction should not be dealt with in the same way. The present system was not what had been stated by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. J. Phillimore)—that one Judge heard the evidence and decided, and that his judgment was reviewed by another Judge who did not hear the evidence—for at present neither Judge heard the evidence, and it was all taken by examiners and reduced to writing, and then brought before the Sheriff. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's Bill, however, did away with these written proofs, and in this respect effected a great improvement. He should have preferred greatly leaving to the Sheriff Substitute the police and the summary jurisdiction, and that the Sheriff Principal should have all the other cases that came under his jurisdiction, making circuits to the places in which these cases ought to be tried. It was a fact greatly in favour of the care and accuracy with which the Sheriffs executed their functions, that out of 14,000 cases not more than 110 had been appealed against to the Court of Session.

Sir, before this discussion closes, I wish to say a few words upon the general principles on which the judicial system of Scotland appears to rest. That system has always seemed to me singularly well adapted to procure the good administration of justice; for it would appear that, considered with regard to the general principle, you by it attain justice speedily, and you consequently attain it cheaply. But if you make the system entirely local, you run the danger that the Judge, who is resident, becomes too much connected with the locality in which he is placed; and, likewise, not having the means of appealing to those higher sources of jurisprudence in the great central Courts, he is hardly able to give any decision in conformity with the opinions of the most enlightened and highest Judges of the country. Upon the other hand, if you have your system of justice entirely dispensed by the central Courts, you have then the evils of expense and delay. It appears to me desirable, therefore, that you should combine the advantages, and, if possible, avoid the disadvantages of the two systems. There are different means of doing this. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland under the late Government (Mr. Whiteside) stated that the mode in Ireland is to appoint a gentleman from the Bar, who attends as assistant barrister in his own Court, and presides over the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, being also a prac- tising barrister in the higher Courts in Dublin, he is, therefore, always equal to the transaction of business in conformity with the opinions of the Judges in the highest tribunals of justice in the capital. Another mode of obtaining the same end, and one which has always appeared to me a happy mode, is that which has been adopted from ancient times in Scotland. You have there either a local Judge or a Judge very much connected with the locality, and one who, if not subject to control in his decision, would, I fear, be liable to all those disadvantages which belong to a system entirely local; but to avoid such evils you have a reference from him to another person, called the Sheriff Principal, who is himself among those who are practising in the higher Courts, and who, whatever may be his politics or his faith, it is allowed, is generally a person of competent ability, and very often a man who attains to the highest judicial positions in Scotland. By such means, it appears to me, you secure upon the one hand that cheap and speedy administration of justice which is attained by dispensing it in the neighbourhood; while, at the same time, you have not the disadvantages arising from the Judge living entirely in one place, and getting, perhaps, rather too fond of his own opinions, and considering himself the centre of all, but you have his judgment modified by a person who, being constantly in the practice of hearing the dispensation of sound law, is competent to correct him by reference to the highest authorities. I was very much struck, I confess, by a statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. He stated that out of 14,000 cases decided in their several localities, not more than 110 have gone, by way of appeal, to the Court of Session. I think, Sir, that this is a result which ought to be highly gratifying to those gentlemen who belong to that part of the Kingdom, and to all who take an interest in the welfare of Scotland. I own, therefore, I am surprised to find that there are gentlemen who wish to change this system, root and branch, and to establish another in its place, entirely new. The ground of this wish is merely, as it seems to me, the use of a word. They say that these Sheriffs Depute are sinecure officers. That allegation implies that they have never heard the cases before them; but is that the fact? If it can be proved before any Committee that these Judges and these Sheriffs receive a salary, and that no cases are ever brought before them—that they have no judicial labour, and give no legal opinions, certainly such a state of things would bring the office under the denomination of a sinecure. But such a representation, I believe, differs entirely from the actual system. However, I can only say that it is most desirable that any reforms in the law which may be thought advantageous to Scotland, should be well considered in the first instance. I hope they will be well considered; and if the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend can be amended, according to the judgment of the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, by the introduction of provisions calculated to secure more effectually the good administration of justice, nobody, I am sure, will be more ready than my right hon. and learned Friend to consider and to adopt such suggestions. But, certainly, unless I hear more conclusive reasons for it than I have yet heard, I should be very l0th to give my assent to such a complete change in the judicial system of Scotland as that which, as it appears to me, would be made by the Bill for which leave is now asked to introduce.

said, he should be sorry that anything should occur, tending to interfere with the present local jurisdiction in Scotland. He hoped that two Bills so utterly irreconcilable in principle would not be sent before a Committee. He had received most valuable information from a work written by Sir William Gibson Craig in reference to the working of the judicial system in Scotland. He thought that they had accomplished that which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) alluded to—a local machinery for determining of all legal questions, while, at the same time, those tribunals were divested of all those local influences which always tended to impair the administration of justice. In reference to the case of the assistant barristers in Ireland, there was also an appeal from the Judge of Assize's decision to a Court of superior authority. As well as he could understand the system of Scotland, he would say, in passing, that the Judges in that part of the Kingdom were as able a set of men as could be found in any country. If these Bills were to be discussed, he hoped that they would have an opportunity of considering the traditional scruples of Scotland as to whether the existing system was to be continued, or to be altogether upset, for the purpose of making a new experiment, which might involve the loss of that local machinery and that local jurisdiction which he considered were of vast advantage to the country.

said, he was satisfied that the people of Scotland would be much disappointed if the right hon, and learned Lord Advocate did not consent to refer both his own and the present Bill to a Select Committee, before which evidence could be given.

said, he disapproved of the measure now under consideration being referred to a Committee, on the ground that the object of it was to abolish the office of Sheriff Principal, which was part of the judicial system of Scotland. It had been said that this office was a sinecure. He denied the accusation; for the truth was, that these officers had grave and serious duties to discharge. He was satisfied that the House would not consent summarily to abolish an office which had conferred the greatest benefits upon the people of Scotland, upon the slender grounds alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman who promoted this measure.

said, that from the tone of the discussion it seemed to be held that none but lawyers were competent to arrive at a correct opinion upon this subject. But he could inform hon. Gentlemen who so thought that the mercantile interest of Scotland had something to say upon it, and that their opinion was that the office of Sheriff Principal ought to be abolished. As the question now stood, great injustice would be done to Scotland unless both measures were referred to a Select Committee, and if they were so referred, the opinion of the people of Scotland would be ascertained.

said, it had been remarked that the Sheriff Principal was removed from local influence. It was wonderful, however, that it had not struck the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who made this observation that the Sheriffs Principal of Glasgow and Edinburgh were both resident in those cities, and were surrounded by all the local influences which he would seem to deprecate; but he (Mr. Hastie) ventured to say, that this circum stance had not the slightest influence upon their proceedings, or upon the proceedings of any other Sheriff. So long as Scotland had an independent bar and an independent press, no fear need be entertained as to the manner in which these officers discharged their duties. He recommended that both Bills should be referred to a Select Com- mittee, in order that the best should be secured to the people of Scotland.

in reply, said, he must express his regret at the course the Government seemed inclined to pursue by adopting at once the principle of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's Bill as a foregone conclusion.

said, he rose pursuant to notice to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the management of the National Gallery. It might be in the recollection of many hon. Members that at an early part of the Session his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Charteris) had given notice of a Motion similar to this; but his hon. Friend was afterwards appointed to an office in the Administration, the duties of which precluded him from devoting to the subject so much attention as he could desire, and for which his qualifications so well fitted him. Under these circumstances, his hon. Friend had requested him (Colonel Mure) to undertake the task, which he himself had been obliged to forego. After this statement he should content himself with one or two brief remarks. The House would recollect that no longer ago than 1850 a Committee of that House was engaged in a very similar course of investigation, and produced a Report founded on a valuable body of evidence. That Committee had been suggested, he believed, by the excitement that then prevailed in the public mind in consequence of the injuries that were alleged to have been committed on several fine works in the National Gallery by a rash and unskilful process of cleaning. The inquiry, however, took a wider range; for, as it proceeded, it was found impossible to separate the mere technical question from that of the general management of the National Collection. His hon. Friend's attention had been directed to the subject from the reappearance in the Gallery of several other pictures after a like operation; and, similar as might be the objects of the former and of the Committee he was now moving for, and short as might be the interval between them, there were various circumstances which tended to justify or demand a renewal of the inquiry at the pre-present season. In the first place there could be no doubt that a very great advance had taken place both in the state of public opinion and in the spirit of public discussion and speculation relative to art institutions since the year 1850. This improvement, he believed, was, to a certain extent, owing to the Great Exhibition, which had given a stimulus to every branch of art in the country; but, in the next place, although the Committee of 1850 had gone carefully into the question of cleaning, they did not appear to have altogether exhausted the subject, and in that remark he thought he was borne out by a passage in their Report, in which they said—

"With regard to the disputed question of cleaning and varnishing, the Committee do not wish to express any opinion, but they refer to the evidence produced before them."

It appeared to him to be very desirable, in the present instance, that some distinct expression of opinion upon this particular point should emanate from the House of Commons, in order to tranquillise the public mind, and assure them that the Legislature was not indifferent to a subject in which it rejoiced to see the public take so warm and anxious an interest. There were various other topics of considerable interest embodied in the form of the present Motion, which it might be expected he should advert to, were it the object to raise any discussion upon the subject of the fine arts in general; but that was not his object. What he had in view was simply to obtain a Committee of the House on a subject of considerable extent and interest which the present state of the national and public opinion appeared to him to render, at that moment, peculiarly ripe for Parliamentary inquiry.

seconded the Motion, and said he rejoiced that his hon. and gallant Friend had not limited it to a mere technical question as to the cleaning of the pictures in the National Gallery. His hon. and gallant Friend had wisely extended the Motion into the general question of establishing a real National Gallery—a gallery not only of painting but of sculpture—of antiquities, and other objects indispensable for the cultivation of fine art, the want of which had hitherto been almost a disgrace to the country. He (Mr. Ewart) should confine his observations to the management of the National Gallery and to its composition. The management of the gallery fluctuated in a most extraordinary manner between the trustees upon the one hand, and the Treasury upon the other. At one time the trustees had the government of it, and at another the Treasury. Sometimes one body gave orders, and sometimes the other; till at last it was difficult to say where the actual authority and responsibility were lodged. Such a system was exceedingly unsatisfactory, and it was certain some other must be adopted. There must be a system such as that under which the Royal Gallery at Berlin was conducted, one of whose professors was examined before the Committee of 1850. When the present National Gallery in Trafalgar Square was erected, he (Mr. Ewart) had, as Chairman of a Committee, asked the architect whether he had made provision for a gallery of sculpture? The answer was, "No; Ministers did not give me to understand that a gallery of sculpture was to be combined with a gallery of pictures." The gallery contained no antiquities, no specimens of mediaeval art, nothing that resembled the general and universal specimens which prevailed in the collections of other countries. Was there anything in the Gallery from which the artist could become acquainted with the beautiful drawings which contained the first ideas of the great works of the great masters? No; and here was a most lamentable deficiency. But if you went into the Louvre you had free access to these, the prima stamina of the great works of the greatest masters. Certainly we had a few of these works; but they were—not buried certainly, but—concealed in the British Museum. It was of the greatest importance to the artists of this country that they should have the means of tracing the first conceptions of the great masters; in the Louvre there was an establishment, named the Chalcographie formed by the Government, where for two, three, or four francs you could purchase an exact tracing of the first drawings of the most eminent painters. Why should not artists have the same facility in this country? We had, however, neglected our opportunities of obtaining such first drawings. He need only remind the House of the dispersion of the collection made by the late Sir Thomas Lawrence, at the cost not only of his time but of his fortune, which was offered to the country in 1836, and which contained some of the first drawings of Raphael, Michael Angelo, Correggio, and many more. Part of this collection had gone to Russia, part to Holland, and only a certain portion yet remained in this country, owing to the patriotic efforts of the present Lord Eldon, and was now in Oxford, in the Taylor Museum, perfectly accessible and admirably arranged. It might be said that it would be difficult now to make such a National Gallery as the one suggested—that we were beginning too late. But he contended that what had been done for the National Gallery at Berlin by Mr. Solly, an Englishman, acting under the guidance of the King of Prussia, in the course of a very few years, showed that it was not impossible to form such a collection, and that we were not too late. He hailed the plan which had been shadowed out by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—a plan by which the School of Design, the scientific societies, and the National Gallery, would all be collected under one roof, so that all which combined to form the artist or the artist manufacturer might be contemplated from the same point of view. Like the question of the Great Exhibition itself, this had, it was true, been received at first with a degree of coldness by the public; but he had no doubt that, like the Great Exhibition, it would hereafter excite similar enthusiasm. He knew there were those who maintained that the people of this country were not susceptible of education in the arts—that they were too practical; that commerce or politics absorbed their energies, and that they never could be artists. He denied so narrow and un-philosophical an assertion. He would answer in the words of Virgil:

"Non obtusa adeo gestamur pectora Poeni,

Nee tarn aversus equos Tyria Sol junaet ab urbe."

No! we were not born so far from the sun, but that we could feel the influence at least of his mitigated rays. He rejoiced that his hon. and gallant Friend had taken up the subject- If he pursued it in the same manner as he had begun it, he had no doubt it would be productive of credit to himself and advantage to the country. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the management of the National Gallery; also to consider in what mode the collective monuments of Antiquity and Fine Art, possessed by the Nation, may be most securely preserved, judiciously augmented, and(advantageously exhibited to the public."

said, he did not object to the appointment of the Committee; on the contrary, he felt indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend for having undertaken a task which he would find would prove to be no slight one. For himself he had a most anxious desire that this Committee should be the last. There had been, during the last fifteen years, Committee after Committee, and Commission after Commission, and there was now a strong wish, out of doors at all events, that some decision should at length be come to. He hoped that the Members of the Committee would not enter upon the inquiry as partisans, and that the Government would be prepared to lay some satisfactory information before the House, in order that they might know how they stood, because the Reports of the different Committees and Commissions had been most contradictory. For his own part, he thought that a Committee of that House was little calculated to form a proper opinion upon the subject, and he very much rejoiced in the wise step taken by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), when he appointed a Commission to inquire into it, in putting upon that Commission, besides three most distinguished men, a professor of painting and the most eminent chemist of the day. Not to go back further than 1850, a Committee was formed to inquire into the same subjects as those now proposed to be gone into. No sooner had that Committee separated than a Commission was appointed, which recommended one of two sites for a Gallery, the one to which they gave their preference being in Bayswater-road. The House never decided upon the point, and a new Commission was issued, which had no sooner reported than it was thrown over by a subsequent decision, 150,000l. being granted by Government upon the condition that 150,000l. from the Great Exhibition fund should be added to it. That 300,000l., it seemed, was to be disposed of without a vote of the House; and it had turned out that the scientific societies which it was proposed to accommodate under the same roof had refused the offer. He also hoped that the House would require some further information before it consented to remove the National Gallery; and once more he trusted that the Committee which had now been moved for would be the last.

said, there was a general impression out of doors that several pictures in the National Gallery had been spoiled in a process of what was called cleaning, and he wished that the Government, considering that these pictures were national property, would take steps to satisfy the public on that subject. The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Charteris) had some time since put a Motion to that effect upon the Votes; and he had hoped that the hon. Member would have now carried a Government sanction to that inquiry. With regard to the Motion now before them, he agreed in the opinion that all these collections of pictures and sculpture should be assembled under one roof; but he differed from the views advocated by the author of a pamphlet lately published, that the works of art now in the British Museum should be taken out of the hands of the trustees and vested in the control of the keeper of the national pictures. He believed that they had now arrived at a crisis in the history of art in this country. There were two ways in which the encouragement of art would operate. The first was what he might call the natural way, where art, left to the encouragement afforded by private individuals, and promoted by the ardour of its professors, would rise from year to year by successive degrees of excellence. The other was the continental system, where there was a national education of art, and where there was protection afforded to artists in contradistinction to members of other professions. He hoped that before anything was decided, the comparative advantages of these two systems would be fully investigated. He wished also to ask one other question. Was the second Report of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition to be included in the range of inquiry to be embraced by the Committee for which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire had moved, or was it not? He understood that it was not to be included, and he certainly thought it ought not. As to the other question—the removal of the pictures in the National Gallery to Kensington—that was a fair subject for inquiry, and he would not give any opinion upon it now; but he hoped, considering that there were now more than 2,000,000 of a population in the metropolis to whom the present site was extremely convenient, that no change would be decided upon without some expression of the popular opinion. He urged this with the more confidence, because the distinguished architect of the House where they sat, Sir Charles Barry, had given it as his opinion, that Trafalgar-square was most admirably suited for architectural purposes; that it was the finest site possessed by almost any city in Europe. He hoped, therefore, that that site, which might be considered the eye of London, would not be lightly abandoned; and having said this, he had only to express his hope that the Committee which was now moved for would prove useful, and serve many important purposes.

said, it struck him, as it seemed to have done other hon. Members, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Col. Mure) did not sufficiently define what were to be the particular subjects of the proposed inquiry; for if the Committee went into a rambling inquiry as to the nature of National Galleries and Museums of all sorts and kinds, he did not see how their labours could lead to any useful results. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) appeared to think that the inquiry ought to include everything on the face of the earth that had any relation whatever to arts or manufactures. And the scope of the Motion was, in fact, not only for inquiry into the nature of a National Gallery, but into all those subjects for which he thought the British Museum had been exclusively set apart. The Committee would have to inquire concerning the custody of our national pictures, the preservation of antiquities, the nature of schools of art, and how persons might be better instructed in the fine arts hereafter. [Mr. EWART: No!] Why, it was quite clear that it would take in every one of these questions. In his (Sir G. Strickland's) opinion, the Committee would be much more useful if it confined its inquiries to the National Gallery, and the preservation of the fine paintings which it contained, and did not ramble over all those other matters. He concurred with the hon. and gallant Member (Col. Mure) that there were serious reasons for the appointment of a Committee; because his own impression was that many of the finest pictures in the National Gallery had been totally and entirely destroyed by the process of "cleaning." Indeed, some of the pictures which years ago he most admired, he could only look upon now with disgust and shame.

Sir, I cannot say that I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I think, with regard to the hon. and gallant Member who has made the Motion, and who is so eminently qualified to develop its objects, that in the first place we may well confide the task of inquiry to his hands; and next, I think that he has judiciously chosen the terms of his Motion. Because, though there is no doubt that the Committee will think it right to inquire into the manner in which the pictures of the National Gallery are preserved, whether the mode of cleaning that has been adopted is, as some say, calculated to destroy them, or, as others say, is well adapted for the purposes of preservation; I think that there is another and larger question that is well worthy of inquiry, and on which I hope we shall obtain the opinions of persons competent to give a judgment. I confess I think it is of great importance to consider whether the pictures we possess in other collections might not be so arranged as to become more worthy of the name of a National Gallery than that which we at present have. At present the National Gallery was rather such a collection as a rich individual might make, consisting of beautiful works of art, rather than a collection such as a nation ought to possess, because it is evident that there are many pictures and drawings belonging to the first beginnings of art, which a mere private collector might not wish to have in his house, choosing rather to employ his money in buying beautiful pictures, but which might yet be of the greatest value to the nation and to the artist, as illustrating the history and early progress of the fine arts. Whether it may be possible, considering the various trusts under which works of art are placed in this country, many of them being in the custody of the trustees of the British Museum—whether it is possible to form such a collection under one roof, I shall not at present venture to give an opinion. This is one of the important subjects which the Committee, will have to investigate. There may be difficulties which will occur to the Committee when they consider this matter; but there is one object which I have more than once stated in this House as worth striving for, an object which ought not to be attended with much difficulty—I mean the obtaining of a collection of works of the early Italian masters, many of which are indeed very beautiful in themselves, but which have a further value, as showing the progress which led afterwards to the beautiful creations of Rafaelle and Da Vinci. This ought not, I think, to be attended with much difficulty, or to require any great expenditure of money. I can only say, in conclusion that I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has undertaken this task will not desist from it. It will, no doubt, be attended with great labour, but I anticipate useful results from it, and I shall give my cordial support to the Motion.

said, he objected to the decision which appeared to have been come to, that the National Gallery and the various scientific bodies should be located together in the new building at Kensington. The scientific societies strongly objected to this arrangement. The secretary of the Geographical Society said that the communications of the society with the Government would be put an end to if their rooms were to be removed to Kensington. Even with regard to the removal of the pictures, there did not appear to be sufficient evidence in favour of the measure. The evidence of Mr. Uwins was much relied on; but that gentleman had objected to the site of the Great Exhibition as about the worst in Hyde Park. Now, the site for the new gallery was still worse than that, as it was in a still lower situation. Dr. Faraday stated that the injury to the pictures from the smoke of Belgravia would be as bad as the injury from the smoke in Trafalgar-square. Sir Charles Eastlake said that if the gallery were removed from its present site it would be necessary to have it opened on Sundays. Whether the Exhibition Commissioners had come to that conclusion or not, he did not know. He had no doubt, however, that Mr. Uwina' prophecy would, in one respect, be fulfilled—there would be far less dust at Kensington than at Trafalgar-square, because there would be far fewer people attending. To his mind, however, the great charm of the existing gallery was the great numbers of people that were at all times to be found there. With regard to having pictures and sculpture brought together, he admitted that, considered simply in itself, that would be an advantage; but it was possible that that advantage might be bought at too great a cost, and as it was clearly impossible that they could remove the paintings to the British Museum, it followed that they could only move the sculptures to the same site with the pictures, thus rendering useless the buildings in the British Museum, which had already cost the nation more than 1,000,000l. He should be very glad if the Committee would examine these questions thoroughly before the decision was come to.

said, he was doubtful whether the inquiry did not embrace too many subjects. He hoped they would go thoroughly into the question of cleaning the pictures. Years ago he had moved for a copy of the Minutes relating to this subject; and the late Sir Robert Peel stated to him then that the cleaning was not done by the orders of the board, but of a single individual. Sir Robert Peel fully concurred in his Motion, and the Minutes were produced and laid on the table of the House. So lately as December last he had moved for the names of the trustees of the National Gallery, and the orders under which they acted, for he could not believe that the Government would authorise such large sums of money to be spent without having some instructions or plan under which it was expended. But from the Returns which were produced, it did not appear that any instructions had been issued by the Treasury to the trustees for their guidance. Then, in the next place, who were these trustees? Why they were just an omnium gatherum of great men who never attended, and could not be expected to attend. There was the First Lord of the Treasury. The noble Lord below him, who had for a long time been First Lord of the Treasury, knew that he had scarcely time to get through his own business. Then there was the Chancellor of the Exchequer: had he any time? As far as he (Mr. Hume) understood, very little. Then there was Lord Ashburton, Lord Overstone, and, after some other names, there was Mr. Samuel Rogers. There was a day when he might have been of great use; but, like him (Mr. Hume), he was now rather the worst for wear. Last of all came Sir Charles Eastlake. He was the man. If all reports were true, he did everything and directed everything. He was the alpha and omega of the whole system. Was it a wonder that things went on as they did with such a strange mixture of trustees? He noticed in the Minutes mention of a number of pictures by good masters offered to the Gallery, and rejected by the trustees. He should like to know why they had been rejected. If it was on account of want of room, the room should have been supplied. He could tell the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) that there was in this country capital enough to create a school for the due encouragement of the Fine Arts; but from the peddling way in which the Government went to work, nothing worthy of the name was done. He did not agree with the plan for placing the various works of art under one roof. He would have as many museums and galleries as possible opened in various quarters, where the population at large could have convenient access to them. For instance, he would have the collection retained at Hampton Court, and he thought that Kensington Palace might also be thrown open to the public. One half of that palace was occupied by the late Secretary for the Admiralty Mr. Croker. He did not know what right he had there. He would much rather purchase the poor-house adjoining the National Gallery, and form a square sufficiently largo to admit of ample accommodation. This he believed was the one thing on which he and Sir Charles Barry were agreed. He did hope the day would come when the people of England would possess greater taste for the Fine Arts, and better opportunities of forming that taste, than in any part of the Continent. It would require time, he knew, and the sooner they began the better. If they erected a proper building, and placed it in good order, he believed the public Treasury-need not he put to a farthing expense, for that an ample collection of the finest works would soon be contributed from gentlemen willing to assist so desirable an object.

said, he did not wish to enter on the general subject mere fully than had already been done by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). Between those Gentlemen who thought the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Mure) had included too much in his Motion, and those Gentlemen who thought he had included too little, there was room for the comfortable belief that he had framed his Motion very judiciously; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was very glad to see the matter in his hon. and gallant Friend's hands. He wished, however, to make a remark on two subjects. First, the removal of the National Gallery to Kensington. It seemed to be supposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), and likewise by other hon. Gentlemen, that the Government had absolutely decided on that removal, and were pledged to its taking effect. As far as he was informed, no such decision had been arrived at. Nothing had been done—which, in the event of an expression of public feeling on the question, and he entirely agreed with those who thought this a matter in which the public were deeply interested, and ought to be heard—nothing had been said or done, which in the event of such an expression, or in the event of its being found on the whole wiser that the removal should not take place, to prevent the Government consulting the wishes of the public so expressed. He wished also to say a word about the cleaning of the pictures, because strong opinions had been expressed by several hon. Members on that subject. The gentleman who had been officially employed in that matter might have been right, or he might have been wrong, hut what he had done was under the authority of a very high character, and he was quite sure the House could have no wish to prejudge the question. The public were very much obliged to those who called their attention to anything which affected the custody of these very precious treasures. At the same time it ought to be known that whatever had been done had not been done hastily or carelessly. Whatever had been done had been done by Mr. Seguier, a gentleman of great experience and great ability, with the greatest care, and under the close and constant superintendence of Mr. Uwins, and Mr. Seguier stated in a letter—"I assure you that during the extensive practice I have had I do not recollect any pictures improved more to my satisfaction." A strong opinion had been expressed in an opposite sense. He did not ask the House to subscribe to the opinion of Mr. Seguier, but he thought it more fair, as the matter was about to undergo close and intelligent examination before the Committee, to leave it at present in their hands until they had the means of coming to a final decision, which their investigation would afford.

said, that he regarded with some alarm the introduction of a foreign system, and on a previous occasion he had expressed his sentiments on the subject; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Government were not pledged to the removal of the National Gallery, he should not trespass upon them with any remarks. They ought never to forget that great school which already existed for the development of those branches of manufacturing industry and ingenuity, upon which the prosperity of the country so mainly depended.

after presenting several petitions, complaining of the inconveniences of the present laws relating to the probate of wills, said, he would beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the necessity of obtaining several probates of the same will, and several grants of administration in respect to the estate and effects of any deceased person, and other alterations in respect to the proof of wills. The Bill would be an exceedingly short one. It would make one probate sufficient, and it would also enact that the probate should be proof of the devise of a real estate as it was personal property. Inconvenient as the present system was in England, it was of trifling moment compared with what was the case in Scotland and Ireland. He begged to congratulate the House on the recent speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but the matter he was introducing to their notice was of too pressing a character to be postponed until some general measure of law reform should be introduced. He had conferred with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he had his sanction for saying that he would not oppose at least the introduction of the Bill.

seconded the Motion.

said, he recognised the importance of the proposed measure, as calculated to put an end to a system which cried aloud for amendment, and which no person could wish to see continued. He remembered a case in which, for one and the same instrument, it was necessary to have a probate in Canterbury, another in York, letters of administration from Scotland, and a certified copy of the will from the Colonies. It was perfectly clear that it was a monstrous state of the law which required such a multiplicity of documents when one probate would be ample. He thought, however, that this should form part of the great measure of reform to be introduced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and that the Government would be very ill-advised if they allowed the present Session to pass without achieving the reform which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had promised—a reform which, however surrounded with difficulties, was not impossible. He trusted that they would do their utmost to deal with this subject as a whole, and to place the testamentary law of this country upon such a footing as would be consonant with the wishes of the people, and consistent with the due administration of justice.

said, he should support the measure, and begged to express a hope that it would be extended to Scotland.

in rising to move for a Select Committee upon this subject, said it was incumbent upon him to make a few observations in order to explain the general objects he had in view in making this Motion. It was impossible perhaps for the House to approach a subject which contained within itself principles of greater difficulty, or had led to more diversity of opinion. It was impossible to look at these associations in one view without regarding them as trade associations; and it might be said, with some amount of justice, that so long as the principle of public and open justice was relied on in this country, the interference of the Government, in any way, was likely to destroy the beneficial effects of that competition, to create a false reliance upon the Government, and to inflict injury upon the public at large. Upon the other hand, it might be as fairly contended with regard to associations of this description which asked for peculiar privileges, that it was the bounden duty of the House, in granting those privileges, to accompany them with such securities as should afford a proper guarantee that they would be used for the public advantage. Between these two conflicting opinions, on which, he admitted, much might be said on both sides, it was not his intention to decide; but he thought the House would agree, that if they were to interfere at all, they ought at least to see that their interference, while it impeded as little as possible the objects of private trade and competition, yet would honestly confer on the public the security which such interference on the part of the Government professed to give. With regard to these associations, he would particularly guard himself from being supposed to be the advocate either of one class or the other. He was well aware there was a contention between the two classes—the old proprietary offices, and the new offices, established generally on mutual principles. He particularly requested that the House would understand that he had no object whatever, and that the Government could have no object, in advancing the interests of one class in preference to the interests of the other. The only object was to see that the privileges given by Acts of Parliament were not so far abused that the public were placed in a condition of insecurity against which they ought to be protected by that House. Perhaps it was not generally understood to what an enormous magnitude these associations had grown, and what a vast amount of capital was now invested in the hands of those who managed them. In Scotland alone the liabilities of fifteen assurance offices amounted to 33,000,000l. The assets already paid up amounted to 6,000,000l. sterling; and the annual income exceeded 1,500,000l. Then, with respect to Great Britain, the House would probably be astonished to hear that the accumulated capital of the companies with whom it was now proposed to deal amounted to 150,000,000l. sterling, at the smallest estimate; and that the annual income derived from premiums paid by the best and most deserving class of society—a class who, from the provident habits which they exhibited, the self-denial they exercised, and the enormous amount of their annual savings, were, he thought, justly and properly entitled to all the protection which the House could give them—the income derived from this source in England and Scotland amounted to no less than 5,000,000l. sterling, a sum almost equal in amount to the whole revenue derived from the income tax. When the House, considered, therefore, the enormous magnitude of the interests involved in these associations—when they knew the unsatisfactory condition in which many of them were placed—when they reflected that hundreds of associations were springing into existence one day, and falling like an autumn leaf the next—he thought they would hardly be prepared to allow such a state of things to go on without endeavouring at least to apply a remedy, and take means to endeavour to place them on a more satisfactory basis. One of the earliest things to which the attention of the Government was called on their accession to office, was the abuses which existed in these institutions; and, having given it their best consideration, they felt it was impossible for the Executive of the country—responsible as they were in some degree for the working of these associations—inasmuch as they had been formed under the sanction of an Act of Parliament—they felt that Parliament was by implication responsible for any evil consequences that might result. It therefore was impossible for them to stand by with their eyes open, and, knowing that abuses existed, allow them to go on, without at least making some effort to call public attention to them, and by means of a Parliamentary inquiry to try and discover some mode by which associations of so much importance could be placed on a safer footing. Every individual in the House, as well as out of it, he was sure would agree with him as to the enormous benefit which these associations were capable of conferring on the people of this country. He knew of nothing in the history of modern inventions, or in the progress of modern ingenuity, which, in a social point of view, was of greater importance than the establishment of these offices, calculated, as they were, to win the people to provident habits, and to present an easy and facile mode of making a provision for those who came after them; and just in proportion as the House and the public felt, the importance of these institutions were they bound to take measures to place them on such a footing as should give a natural and fair security to the public, in order to induce people to use them to the greatest possible extent. But not only were these institutions to be regarded as a means of enabling individuals to make provision for the future, but there was another point of view in which they were of great importance, and that was that their large accumulated capital was capable of being used with great advantage in various ways in which the deposits and assets of other institutions could not be made available. He believed that, from the funds of insurance offices being of a nature which enabled them to be invested for a longer period than the funds of banking establishments could ordinarily be, the landed interest had derived the greatest possible facilities in the improvement of their land from the funds accumulated in the hands of these offices. As another example of the benefit derived from large funds being brought together in single hands, he might mention that the loans which had been raised on the security of Government for the improvement of the West Indies, and other parts of the British dominions, had been chiefly taken by insurance offices, and thus those funds which were accumulated for the benefit of private individuals became in the meantime useful instruments of public utility. It was, therefore, impossible, in taking that view of the matter, to overestimate the responsibility of the gentlemen who undertook the management of these institutions; and he confessed he should be glad if he could feel any degree of assurance that in every case the gentlemen who undertook to bring into existence companies having objects and ends so sacred, and operations so beneficial, felt the full weight of the responsibility which they thus incurred, and that they only did so for the advantage of those whose interests they professed to consult. But he was afraid that the investigation of the Committee he now proposed, would tend to show that in too many cases the establishment of these companies had been made a cover for frauds of a most gross and extensive description. He begged the House to bear in mind that the character of the institutions now referred to was different from that of the other joint-stock companies which existed under the Act of 1844. With regard to banks and other joint-stock companies, their liabilities and responsibilities to individuals were of a comparatively momentary description. If a person was dissatisfied with a bank, he could at once close his account and withdraw from it; or, if a bank failed, it would doubtless entail great loss; but the loss would only be temporary; and so even with regard to fire insurances. The yearly premiums paid for fire insurances had reference merely to the risk of fire within the year. At the end of the year the responsibility of the company ceased, unless the premium was renewed; and if any one had reason to doubt the solvency of the office in which he was insured he could remove to another; but with regard to a life office, the case was entirely different; for, while the premiums were paid from year to year, the responsibility of the company extended to an indefinite period, and a person could hardly be said to be in a condition to change his policy, whatever doubt or apprehension he might feel with regard to the company. Therefore he looked upon these institutions much more as a sacred trust for the future, than as the means of mercantile operations for the present. He looked upon them as a sacred trust, because present payment was to secure future benefit, and because individuals, actuated by the best feelings of human nature, were induced to make great sacrifices and to exercise great self-denial, in order to provide for those who followed them. He thought this was a reason, therefore, why these companies should be taken out of the strict category of commercial institutions; and, if the House was justified in interfering by Act of Parliament to regulate joint-stock companies in general, it was doubly justified in interfering with respect to institutions where the operations were so great and the effects so distant. Whatever difference of opinion might prevail with regard to the question of interference at all—and he knew that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) felt strongly on that point, and he (Mr. Wilson) confessed that he, for one, participated in his feeling—the House was not now in a position to judge whether they should interfere or not. They had already interfered so far as to induce the public to rely upon those institutions, and became, therefore, to a certain extent, re-responsible for their good management. Having gone so far, therefore, they were bound to go a step further, and sec that under the shade of their Parliamentary sanction gross frauds were not perpetrated on the public. The Act of Parliament which regulated those institutions was the 7 & 8 Vict., c. 110, which was passed in 1844 "for the registration, incorporation, and regulation of joint-stock companies." By that Act it was provided that those institutions should, in the first place, be regulated like other joint-stock companies, and, in the second place, it was provided that each company should be obliged to make a return to the registrar of joint-stock companies of its annual balance-sheet, in order to prove the financial condition of the company. He regretted extremely to say, however—and this was the reason why the Government had felt themselves bound to take the present step—that both these securities had been grossly violated and abused. He was bound to say that the registration had in many cases been effected more in name than in reality. The Act required that before the complete registration of a company took place, a deed should be produced, signed by a certain proportion of the partners, and setting forth the sum proposed to be raised, and other important particulars; but it was a notorious fact that the greatest possible frauds had been perpetrated in the process of registration. Two or three persons, and in some cases twenty or thirty persons—of whom, upon inquiry, no trace could be found—were got to put down their names for enormous sums as subscribers—the fact being that they had subscribed nothing whatever, and were men of no responsibility whatever. With respect to the working of the law, he would, with the permission of the House, read a short extract from the report of the assistant-registrar of joint-stock companies, which was so conclusive with respect to the evil operation of the Act—going so far as it had done to create a certain amount of reliance on the associations, and yet not going far enough to justify that reliance—that it would convince the House at once that the law could not remain in its present state:—

"This Act had not been long in operation when public attention was forcibly directed, by the discovery of a series of frauds, which, when contrasted with the station and resources of the individuals concerned in them, may be described as of unexampled magnitude, to the imperfection of a state of the law under which such frauds were possible. Some half-dozen of adventurers, any one of whom in his individual capacity would have found it difficult to obtain credit to the most limited extent, boldly announced to the world the formation of an imaginary assurance company with a capital of 1,000,000l. sterling: and, constituting themselves into a board of direction, and assuming all the outward characteristics of a wealthy and flourishing corporation, contrived, by holding out tempting inducements to the ignorant and unwary, and professing to conduct business on unusually liberal terms, to defraud the public in the course of about Jour years to the extent of upwards of 200,000l. There was nothing to which the public generally bad access from which it could be discovered that this was not a company properly constituted, and possessing the capital to which it laid claim. Only a searching investigation, such as few persons would think of undertaking, and which was not unattended with personal risk (for actions of damages were in this case brought against the first denouncers of the fraud, who might thus have been seriously injured, if not ruined, before they had succeeded in bringing it fully to light), could make it appear that there was nothing of a company but the name—no capital but the contributions of the dupes themselves. So it was, however; four men, personally without credit, character, or education—with no resources but boldness and cunning—succeeded in making the world believe for four years that they represented a company composed of some hundreds of partners, and that they bad the command of a capital of 1,000,000l. Stirling, simply because, there being no ready means of putting the truth of such representations to the test, the public had got very much into the habit of taking them for granted, or at all events, of relying upon very slight presumptions in their favour."

He begged to say, in passing, that the sanction of the Act of Parliament had had very much to do with creating that confidence.

"A consideration of the class of persons who suffered by this fraud, and who would be most likely to suffer by any similar fraud in time to come, being chiefly persons of very moderate incomes, who had been lured by the prospect of an advantageous investment of their savings, and to whom, therefore, the bursting of the bubble disclosed the fact of their ruin, had much effect in stimulating the Legislature to devise some means by which the perpetration of similar frauds might be prevented for the time to come. A Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1841 to inquire into the state of the law respecting joint-stock companies, with a view- to the greater security of the public, and continued its investigations through the years 1841, 1843, and 1844. The Committee began by ascertaining the means by which the fraud just referred to bad been committed, then passed from it to other cases of proved or suspected fraud of recent occurrence, so as to bring, as nearly as possible, into one point of view the whole capacity for being turned to fraudulent purposes inherent in the system of joint-stock companies; then, extending their inquiries generally to the regulations under which, as a question of public policy, such companies ought to be placed with a view to I the security of the shareholders as well as of the public, they finally agreed upon a report, upon the recommendations contained in which was founded the Act now in force for the regulation of joint-stock companies, which was proposed to the House of Commons by the President of the Board of Trade, and received the Royal Assent; on the 5th of September, 1844."

It was under the Joint Stock Companies Act that these evils and abuses had taken place, and he was afraid that the investigations of the Committee would disclose in too many cases similar frauds. Another security provided by the Act for the solvency of these companies—the production, namely, of an annual balance sheet, had been as much evaded as the other regulations laid down by Parliament. In many cases the returns which had been laid before the House, professing to show the annual balance sheets, had been of such a character that he believed no Member of that House, and no actuary out of it, could there from accurately tell the condition of any one of the companies. It might he quite true that there was nothing absolutely false on the face of any one of the accounts; but you might put an account in money in so many different forms so as to create delusion, and prevent any one from forming a clear and accurate idea of its contents. There was one very striking fact which he begged to mention to the House, and it was this: that in the case of twenty-five offices who had submitted their accounts, it appeared upon their own showing that, while the sums received as premiums for the last year amounted to 462,032l., the costs of management, according to their own showing, reached 375,300l., leaving only a balance of 86,732l. out of an income of nearly half a million. He thought the House would agree with him that, in the face of striking facts of this kind, it would be criminal in the highest degree for the Executive of this country to stand idly by with folded arms and not take some step with a view to applying a remedy. At the same time, he was anxious to avoid creating any unecessary alarm in the pub-lie mind with respect to the condition of these associations. For himself, he had not the slightest doubt that the great bulk of what were known as respectable offices were not only solvent, but in a highly sound and prosperous condition; and he wished the House distinctly to understand that the cases of gross abuse to which he had referred formed the exception, and not the rule. It was well known that those offices which submitted in an intelligible form their accounts to their shareholders were, from the improved tenure of life which had prevailed during the last fifty years, and the advantages afforded by their tables, among the most profitable of commercial undertakings. He begged to say, also, that it was not the wish of the Government to interfere unnecessarily either with existing or future offices. All they wanted was to make certain that whatever securities Parliament might have taken, or professed to have taken, for the security of the public in the Acts under which these institutions were established, should be fairly carried out, and that they should not be converted into mere shams and delusions, under the sanction of which the grossest frauds would be perpetrated. He was anxious, while this inquiry was pending, that the public should not relax in their habits of prudence; but he wished also that they should learn to distinguish between the principles which governed good and safe offices, and those on which bad and unsafe offices were founded. All the Government wanted was that the securities taken should be securities of an absolute and living character, and not mere shams and delusions. It had been proposed with great reason that the assurance companies should be subjected, like other joint-stock companies, to a test of solvency, by requiring them to pay up a portion of their capital before they were allowed to be registered. This was a point which would be matter of consideration for the Committee. He was sorry to say that so numerous had been the institutions of a mushroom description which had sprung up of late, and so palpable were the frauds which they practised to entrap the unwary, that they deserved to be characterised as swindling establishments. He would call the attention of the House to the multiplicity of these institutions. Since the Joint Stock Companies Act passed, 335 new assurance offices were projected, of which 149 were actually founded; and of these, 90 had ceased to carry on business; so that out of 335 projected, there were only 59 in existence. In the last year—for every year appeared to make matters worse—there were 72 new companies projected: only eighteen of these were founded, and twelve of them had ceased to exist, leaving only 6 out of 72 which had been projected. For the reasons which he had stated, he thought that the House would feel satisfied that this state of things could not go on without inquiry, and he trusted that measures would be taken, by which the existing Act might be carried out, and such other provisions introduced as Parliament in its wisdom might think necessary. He would, therefore, beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the subject of Assurance Associations."

said, he begged to express the satisfaction which he had felt at hearing the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that the supervision of the Legislature would be extended to benefit societies as well as assurance associations. The poorer classes of society, he begged to assure the Government, required protection, even more than the middle classes, from the schemes of designing adventurers. He had had bitter experience in the part of the country in which he resided, of the utter demoralisation which had been occasioned by the failure of benefit societies. Within a circuit of something like ten miles, comprising a population of nearly 30,000 inhabitants, the habits of prudence and thrift which had been created among the labouring population had been seriously endangered, because the present law had failed to insure to them the provision which they believed they had made for sickness and old age. The same principle operated in the case of burial societies, and all other societies of the kind; and he hoped the attention of Government would be seriously directed to this important subject.

said, that Parliament had already interfered in the regulation of joint-stock companies, and had done harm by its interference; consequently, it must undo what had been done, or it must go further. Having paid a great deal of attention to this subject, he had become acquainted with a good many of the abuses which were going on under the present system; and he must say, that the country was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) for bringing this matter under the attention of the House. It was impossible that the vigilance of the House and of the public could be aroused upon a subject of greater importance. The Act of 1844 had greatly aggravated the evils which it was designed to check. There were undoubtedly great difficulties surrounding the subject; but it would be the business of the Committee to inquire into the whole question, and see what remedy could be applied. It was clear, at any rate, that if matters were allowed to go on as they were doing, the public would be involved in most serious losses. As there was to be an inquiry, he would not prejudge the case, but wait for the Report of the Committee. In the meantime, however, he hoped that the able and clear statement which the hon. Gentleman had made, to the accuracy of which he could himself bear testimony, would go forth to the public, and arrest the evil which was in progress.

said, he should willingly express his gratification that the Government had taken up this most important subject. He was certain the determination of the Government would give great satisfaction generally to the institutions which were solvent, and would only be unsatisfactory to those which had certainly attempted frauds upon the public. He thought it was most important, as these institutions had been in a measure sanctioned by Parliament, that Parliament should endeavour to guard the ignorant and unwary against a system which, if it was allowed to go on, would be attended with most injurious results.

said, he would be the last person in the world to advocate legislation upon questions which might be left to the discretion, prudence, and care of individuals themselves. He had, however, had a good deal of experience in matters of this kind, and he considered that this was one of those subjects with regard to which the public did require to be protected by legislation. He did not deny that legislation had very materially increased the evils of this system, by giving to those who wished to establish such institutions opportunities of covering over the inherent weakness of societies by apparent legislative sanction. It was, he thought, of essential importance that these societies should be placed upon such a foundation, and under such supervision, as to afford some guarantee that their business was conducted upon safe principles. He might just allude to one view of the subject which he thought not unimportant. The old established societies had a very large business in consequence of the credit they derived from the publication of their accounts, which showed the large amount of funds in their hands, and also from the persons of known eminence and respectability who were connected with them. Persons consequently paid to these offices a much larger premium than it was really necessary to pay in order to secure all the advantages of life assurance, because they were afraid to venture their money in societies which had been more recently established. Now, he thought it most desirable, if possible, that there should be such legislation on this subject as, while it afforded some guarantee for the character of the societies, should allow a fair and effective competition.

said, he never had any confidence in the Act of 1844; and if people did not take care of themselves, what could Acts of Parliament do for them? To his mind, nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Wilson) that out of 335 insurance companies projected since that Act, only fifty-nine now remained. The same erroneous principle had been applied to banking companies, and the day was not far distant when the country would appreciate at its true value that course of legislation. His hon. Friend saw that Parliament had done wrong, and he thought he was quite right to "try back." As to balance sheets, they were of no use. If he were disposed to be a rogue, he would make out as fair a balance sheet as any man could show-in the Kingdom. The question upon a balance sheet was, whether the account presented was a true account. He did not know anything that was more material to the welfare of the community than a well-established assurance office; but, after all, every man must look after his own affairs, for they could not be safely left to any one else.

said, he thought it was a disadvantage to interfere by legislation with existing commercial institutions, whose security and stability were the pub-lie confidence and credit, by inviting Parliamentary inquiry, on the ground that many of these institutions were not deserving of the confidence which they enjoyed. He considered, therefore, that the proposed inquiry would be attended with imminent peril. He did not think any amendment of the existing law could secure an advantage which no legislation could insure, namely, that personal care and caution on the part of individuals should be rendered unnecessary. The annual balance sheets of assurance companies did not give the slightest indication of the stability of such institutions, for they were mere statements of the receipts and expenditure; whereas a balance sheet, in the proper sense of the term, to convey any information as to the stability of a society, should show the value of all the assets and of all the liabilities. He thought the House should certainly not require that assurance societies should go to the expense of preparing such statements oftener, say, than once in five years. He would put it to the House, however, whether the public did not take take of themselves in this matter? There were fifteen assurance offices in Scotland, with a capital of 33,000,000l., and an annual income of 1,500,0000l., and he considered that they were all witnesses against the course proposed by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), for the fact that they had the public confidence, and had enjoyed it so long, was a proof that that they deserved that confidence. In Great Britain, without Ireland, there were assurance companies with a capital of 150,000,000l., and an income of nearly 5,000,000l. annually. These, also, were witnesses against the hon. Gentleman, because the fact of their existence, and of the confidence placed in them by the public, was a proof that that confidence was deserved. The hon. Member for Westbury had said that 355 assurance societies had been projected, of which only fifty-nine were now in existence. Was not that a proof that the public took care of themselves? Nearly 300 of these societies had fallen to the ground, simply because they did not deserve and secure the confidence of the public.

said, he quite agreed that we ought not to legislate to attain only problematical advantages. He would offer his personal thanks to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Wilson) for having brought this subject forward. He was entirely unconnected with any assurance office; but in the course of the inquiries before the Committee relating to benefit societies, several gentlemen, who were actuaries or managers of some of the most respectable and long-established assurance offices, were examined, and he believed, from their statements, it was their wish and desire that some such investigation as that now pro- posed should be made. If they looked to the number of new offices since 1845, and how widely their sphere of operation through society was extended, they would see that scarcely a family in the country was without interest in them, and therefore it must be borne in mind that the principle of assurance was taking deep root, and that was one reason why there would be a great extension of offices. It was considered by actuaries that the interest was now of such magnitude—involving 350,000,000l. of capital—as to require separate legislation. He trusted that Government would no longer allow the public to be deluded by an Act of Parliament which did not in any way extract a true picture from assurance companies of what was their actual condition. He was aware that this was a somewhat critical matter to deal with. He knew that if they attempted to do anything which would be an interference with the fair exercise of individual operation on the part of any one of these societies, they ran great risk of giving something like a guarantee on the part of Parliament for the security of those who invested money in such institutions. He only wished, however, to express the great satisfaction he felt that the Government had taken up this important question, and his hope that the inquiries of the Committee would result in a Report which would afford grounds for beneficial legislation.