said, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions had been issued to blockade the ports of the White Sea, and, if so, when the blockade would be instituted?

said, he had not the least difficulty in answering the question of his hon. and learned Friend, and he hoped his answer would be more successful in making known the intentions of the Government than an answer which he had given more than a month ago to a similar question from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sandars). He was asked upon the 27th of March if it was intended to establish a blockade of the White Sea, and he then stated that as soon as the seas in question were free for the ingress and egress of vessels it was intended to establish an efficient blockade, and to make it from the first effective. The vessels to be employed in blockading the ports of the White Sea were now ready, had received their orders, and would proceed to their destination as soon as it was practicable from the state of the ice to approach the ports they were ordered to blockade.

Sir, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since the laying down of the telegraph, any despatch has been received by the Government from the Crimea by telegraph which has not been communicated to the public?

I hope, Sir, the House will clearly understand that the Government, in reference to communications made to them by the admirals and generals in the Crimea, must obviously, for the good of the public service, exercise the most complete discretion as to what intelligence they will communicate to the public. They may obviously receive intelligence which it would be most improper to communicate, and I wish it to be distinctly understood, in consequence of the numerous questions which have been put upon this subject, that the Government feel it to be their duty to reserve such intelligence as they think ought to be reserved. They will, as I promised the other night, communicate to the public any intelligence of interest of which it is not desirable that the Government should retain the exclusive knowledge. It is true that a telegraphic despatch has been received which was not communicated to the public, but it simply asked a question about the movement of certain vessels. In point of fact, the substance and purport of all the intelligence of public interest which, up to this time, has been received by telegraph, has been communicated to the public in the answers which have been given in this House.

I dare say, Sir, it will be in the recollection of the House that this day week I put a question to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in reply to which the noble Lord told me that orders had been sent to Lord Raglan to make daily reports to the Government, by telegraph, of the state of affairs in the Crimea. The question I now wish to ask the Frst Lord of the Admiralty, in the absence of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), is, whether any report of any kind has been received from the Crimea by means of the telegraph; if so, whether there was somebody able to read it; and if that be the case, whether any portion of it can be communicated to the public?

I do, Sir, not quite understand the question of my hon. and learned Friend, but I have stated already that the substance of every telegraphic despatch received since the telegraph wires were laid down has been communicated to the House.

Then I would ask my right hon. Friend whether a further telegraphic despatch will be sent to Lord Raglan, requiring him to send some information to this country?

said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant that part of the return moved for by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), which requires, in each case, since the commencement of the war, the reasons to be given for which such commission was granted without purchase?

, in reply, said, that, according to the only interpretation he could put upon the words of the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury there would be no objection to grant the return asked for. He understood that the hon. Member desired to know the reasons why commissions were given without purchase, and the only answer that could be given was, that they were given without purchase, either because the original holder of a commission died, or on account of the augmentation of the various regiments, and the consequent creation of new commissions. The hon. Gentleman did not ask why commissions granted without purchase were given to particular officers, and indeed it would be impossible to enter into the reasons why one individual officer had been preferred to another in granting a commission without purchase.

said, that the public had been given to understand that a most disgraceful circumstance had recently occurred between two officers of the Enniskillens at Canterbury. Many disgraceful tricks had been played, and at last one challenged the other to fight a duel. The two officers went out for the purpose of fighting a duel, when Sergeant Brodie interfered, and was immediately put in arrest by the adjutant of the regiment. He was confined under arrest for a week, and in the meantime an inquiry took place in private in Canterbury. The result of that inquiry was sent up to the Horse Guards, and it was understood that a reprimand was subsequently sent down to Sergeant Brodie, directing him to be released from the confinement to which he had been subjected during the week, assuring him that he had transgressed his duties in the course he had taken, and stating that a repetition of such an infraction of duty would militate against him in his future career. He (Mr. Stanley) now begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, with no feelings of hostility towards any person, but with a view of obtaining correct information as to the transaction, if it was true that Sergeant Brodie, of the Enniskillens, was placed under arrest for preventing a duel being fought between two officers of his regiment—Cornets Baumgarten and Evans; if Sergeant Brodie was reprimanded for his interference by orders of the Commander in Chief; and if there was any objection to place before the House copies of the charge preferred against Sergeant Brodie, and the terms of the reprimand sent from the Horse Guards?

, in reply, said, he had been informed that it was not the case that Sergeant Brodie had been placed under arrest for preventing a duel, but that ho had been placed under arrest for behaving disrespectfully to one of the officers of his regiment. As, however, he was engaged at the time in trying to prevent a duel, that circumstance was considered a palliation of his offence, and he was released without any further notice being taken of his disrespectful conduct. So far as he (Mr. Peel) was informed, no charge had been made against Sergeant Brodie, and no reprimand had been sent down from the Horse Guards.

said, he had observed in the Gazette on Tuesday last a notification to this effect—that, to avoid all doubt in future, Her Majesty had been pleased to order that officers serving in the Indian army should take rank in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions and in all parts of the world with the officers of the Royal army. He wished to ask whether, in consequence of that notification, Her Majesty was now empowered to command the services of the officers of the East India Company in any part of the world where the Crown and the country might deem their services advantageous; and whether officers in the service of the East India Company were at this moment eligible to posts and offices in Her Majesty's army?

said, he thought it was perfectly well known that Her Majesty could command the services of officers of the Indian army in any part of the world, even before the memorandum referred to by the hon. Gentleman was issued. The object of that memorandum was simply to regulate the rank and precedence of officers of the Indian army, with respect to which some doubt had existed. As the whole question of the state of the Indian army would be brought before the House on a future occasion by an hon. Member, perhaps the answer he had now given would be considered satisfactory.

said, he wished to know if, by the order just issued, officers of the Indian army were to have command over Her Majesty's troops in this country?

said, if Her Majesty chose she had a perfect right to employ officers of the Indian army in this country.

said, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the commissariat supplies for the Sardinian Contingent were to be furnished gratis, or whether the expense would be deducted from the amount of the loan?

said, it was originally intended that the Sardinian Contingent should provide themselves with stores, and take charge of their own commissariat. With that view they had loaded two large vessels with provisions to last a considerable time, but one of the vessels had unfortunately been burnt very soon after it left the port, and the loss of the stores it had contained would, he apprehended, render the Sardinian troops dependent upon our commissariat stores for a portion of their supplies. But whatever they derived from our commissariat stores they would pay for, as they would for supplies which they might have procured by other means, and the cost would not be added to the amount of the loan.

said, he begged to ask what arrangements were intended to be made in connection with the department of science and art, and particularly with regard to the Museum of Practical Geology, in consequence of the death of Sir Henry de la Beche?

said, the loss of Sir Henry de la Beche would, of course, be deeply felt by the institution, as well as by science and art generally. It was, however, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy by the appointment of Sir Roderick Murchison. Sir Roderick Murchison was fully competent for the office, and a memorial bad been presented in his favour, signed by almost every distinguished man connected with science.

said, he was desirous of putting a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government in reference to the present position of his (Sir J. Pakington's) Bill on the subject of education. He had been informed that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies did not intend to proceed further with his Bill until the sense of the House had been taken upon that now partly discussed, and he (Sir J. Pakington) believed it was the intention of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) to adopt the same course in reference to his Bill. He (Sir J. Pakington) was somewhat unwilling, after the great courtesy already shown him, to make any further appeal with regard to his Bill, but he thought the House would feel, after the extent to which public attention had been called to the subject, that it was desirable to resume the debate upon it as early as possible. He therefore hoped, upon public grounds, that the noble Lord would be good enough to fix an early day for resuming the adjourned debate.

said, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that the Government were fully impressed with the great importance of the subject to which the question of the right hon. Gentleman referred, and also of the importance of resuming the adjourned debate as early as was consistent with the pressing and urgent business of the House. But, having communicated with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he feared that matters of urgency, in point of time, connected with the supplies of the year, rendered it impossible to accommodate the right, hon. Baronet with any Government day before Whitsuntide.

said, he would then beg to ask if the noble Lord could fix the first Government night after Whitsuntide for the adjourned debate?

said, he would give the right hon. Baronet the earliest possible day after Whitsuntide.

said, it would be very inconvenient, the House having gone at some length into the discussion of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to discuss any other Bills upon the subject before it was disposed of.

said, he would recommend that, unless some positive arrangement was made as to what should be done with the three Education Bills now before the House, they ought to be treated equally. Supposing that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) passed a second reading, the noble Lord and his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) might be in a difficulty with regard to their Bills. He thought many Members would consent to the second reading of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet if it was to be referred to a Committee, who would vote against it if that arrangement were not made.

said, he would suggest whether the three Bills on this subject which were before the House might not be read a second time pro formâ, with the view of referring them to a Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee might lead to the introduction of a measure founded upon all these Bills, and a general discussion might then take place on going into Committee of the whole House.

said, he considered that the House would scarcely consent that any of the three Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, affecting a question of so much importance, should be read a second time pro formâ, more especially after the discussion which had been commenced yesterday, and the necessity that he thought existed for affording the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) an opportunity of answering the very able speech of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). It was of course in the power of the House to read any of these Bills a second time or to reject them; but his own opinion was, that each of the three Bills should be read a second time, and that they should then be referred to a Select Committee. He considered that, whatever objections might exist to the passing of the Bills, it was desirable that a Select Committee should examine all their details before the subject was brought under discussion in a Committee of the whole House.

said, he felt bound to state that, sensible as he was of the great importance and difficulty of the question, it had always been his intention to suggest that the Bill he had submitted to the House should be referred to a Select Committee. He had had some private communications with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on the subject, and he concurred in the opinion the noble Lord had just expressed; and so far as he was concerned, he was ready to agree that his Bill, with those of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson), should be referred to a Select Committee, by whom their details might be fully considered.

said, he objected to these Bills being referred to a Select Committee until the House had come to some I decision as to the principle on which they were founded. He knew that many hon. Gentlemen were anxious to express their opinions on this important subject, and if the Bills were referred to a Select Committee they would be prevented from doing so.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible to afford an opportunity for the discussion of these Bills before Whitsuntide? The matter was so urgent, and public attention was so anxiously directed to the subject, that he hoped the noble Lord would make some arrangement for the early discussion of the Bills, even at the expense of a morning sitting.

said, he wished to state briefly the object of the measure, which did not propose to interfere with the operation of the existing law. He proposed to confer no new rights nor to take away any old ones. His sole object was to enforce the better carrying out of the present law, and to secure to the poor of Scotland those benefits which the Scotch Poor Law Act professed to give them, but of which they were in fact deprived. Previously to 1840 the Poor Law in Scotland was in an exceedingly unsatisfactory and uncertain state. There was a prevalent idea that the poor had a right to relief, but practically they obtained no efficient relief. Between 1840 and 1844 proceedings were taken in the Scotch courts to ascertain the power of those courts to interfere and prevent such relief from being altogether illusory and inefficient. The courts interfered with great caution and forbearance, and they decided that they had not only a right to declare that a person was a pauper, but that they had also a right to I determine to what amount of relief he was entitled. The court remitted the cases which had been brought before them to the several parishes, intimating that, if the parishes did not afford the paupers the relief contemplated by the statute, the courts would compel the parishes to afford such relief as they thought fitting. The consequence was, that the parishes, seeing they could no longer elude the requirements of the statute, gave these paupers relief, and so took away from them the opportunity of again appealing to the courts to determine to what particular amount they were entitled. The Government, however, interfered, and issued a Commission to inquire into the whole state of pauperism in Scotland. That Commission reported in 1844, but, instead of proposing to give the pauper increased facilities for getting relief in the locality in which he resided, the report recommended that the right to appeal should be taken away, and that he should have no appeal at all. That report, however, was not unanimous, one of the Commissioners, a person subsequently entrusted with an important share in the poor law administration in Ireland, having strongly protested against it. The suggestion to take away the right of appeal was thought by the Government rather too strong, and accordingly in the measure which they introduced the year afterwards, they did not carry out the recommendation of the Commission. From the beginning, in Scotland, the character of pauper had been strictly limited to a person who, from age, infirmity, or other circumstances, was unable to maintain himself, the able-bodied in Scotland never having had, and had not at the present day, according to the law as interpreted, any title to relief. The Act of 1845 in no way interfered with the description of pauper thus recognised, but left him exactly where he was. An entirely new system of parochial relief was, however, introduced. The Act established poor boards, and the levying of rates, and gave power to erect workhouses, and appoint inspectors—in short, the most ample machinery was established for taking care of the paupers, if that machinery was properly put in motion. It took away, however, the appeal of the pauper to the supreme court of law, giving him no appeal whatever, unless he could produce a certificate, signed by the central authority under the Act, declaring that the pauper had a good case for such appeal—so that the power of appeal was lodged in the hands of the central authority. It was obvious, therefore, that the whole well-being of the pauper was placed in the lands of this central authority, called the Board of Supervision. When the Bill of 1845 was before the House, it was opposed by Mr. Rutherford, since Lord Rutherford, and on looking back at the remarks made by his lamented Friend on that occasion, he could not help being struck by the admirable foresight with which he had warned the House of the evils the omissions in the Bill were likely to give rise to. The Bill was likewise opposed by Lord Panmure, then Mr. Fox Maule, who thus expressed himself regarding the measure:—

"If, indeed, I look on the Bill with the single eye of a landed proprietor, I would allow it to pass without opposition, but it would be a Bill not for the benefit of the poor, but to protect the rich from contributing too much for the maintenance of the poor."—[See 3 Hansard, lxxxi, 431.]

He was prepared to show that the actual state of the case fully justified the language which was thus used when the Bill was before the House. The Lord Advocate stated in reply, that the object of the Bill was to secure proper relief to the poor, and the powers given to the Board of Supervision were quite ample enough for that purpose, being, in fact, identical with those possessed by the English Poor Law Board. The Board had not only power to inquire itself into all cases, but could appoint Commissioners with the same authority which it possessed itself. The House, trusting to these assurances, passed the Bill, but the obvious intention of the Legislature was, while it took away one mode of appeal from the pauper, to give him another appeal—namely, to the Board of Supervision—and that this should be a readier and more easy mode of appeal than that which he previously possessed. If, therefore, he could prove that the Board of Supervision had not acted up to its powers—if he could show that, as regarded large districts of the country, the Board had entirely failed in the object for which it was appointed—that there was no system of local inspection or control on the part of the Board—that, in fact, the pauper had practically no means of redress—that complaints made had been treated with contempt and disregard, such complaints as in England would at once have been inquired into by the Poor Law Board—that facts had been evaded and reports made founded on error, tending to persuade the Government that the Poor Law was put in operation when the contrary was the fact—if he could prove these things, then he thought it would be seen that the pauper was deprived of the privileges Parliament meant to give him, and that he would have made out a case for the interference of the House. He might be able to make out a general case of neglect founded on returns made to that House, and which, therefore, could not be disputed, but it was very difficult, in most cases, to be able to light on particular instances to illustrate a state of things an hon. Member desired to bring under the notice of the House. Nevertheless, he thought he could produce instances, founded on authority which no one could deny, making out a case of the grossest neglect, the grossest incapacity and partiality, and of the grossest attempt to do what Lord Panmure said in 1845 this Act would do—namely, protect the rich at the expense of the poor. He wished to say one word with respect to the system in England, because, to a certain extent, it bore on the system in Scotland. It was true that the laws on this subject in the two countries differed considerably. All destitute people were paupers in England, whereas in Scotland only those who were physically incapacitated were paupers; but, as far as the object or principle of both laws went, they were identical, and required that the cases to be relieved should be adequately relieved. In England, and in Scotland, too, by the Act to which he referred, it was conceded that some control was necessary over the persons administering the relief to paupers. In England boards of guardians were not intrusted to put the law into execution without the inspection or supervision of some superior authority. Under the Poor Law Act, in England, and under what, as far as he could learn, appeared to him to be the most excellent administration of the Poor Law Board, Assistant Commissioners were appointed, whose character and position constituted a guarantee to the public that they were to be relied on. The duty of these Commissioners was to visit continually the unions, and to take into consideration complaints made to them immediately. They were to make special inquiry into all allegations against the guardians, and into all charges against the union and parish officers, and if a Commissioner had reason to suspect any maltreatment of a pauper he was to question that pauper in the absence of the officers. Nothing could be more complete than such a check upon the local authorities. Beyond these safeguards, there was in England the force of public opinion, making it impossible for a case of the maltreatment of a pauper to be concealed for a day. Now, if Commissioners were requisite in the parishes of England, where there existed such an admirable protection for the pauper as public opinion, à fortiori were they necessary in the distant parishes of the Highlands of Scotland, where public opinion could not by possibility be brought to bear on the condition of the pauper. But was there any regular system of inspection in the Highlands? He had a return in his hands, presented to Parliament by the order of the House last year, respecting the number of inquiries made in parishes in the three counties of Argyle, Inverness, and Ross, since the passing of the Act of 1845, showing, far from there being any local inspection, that since 1847 until 1851 there had been no local inquiry made into the working of the Poor Law in any of the parishes in those three counties. The return showed that the first special inquiry under the Act by any Commissioner with powers similar to those exercised by the assistant Commissioner in England was in 1851, six years after the passing of the Act, when it appeared that Sir John M'Neill, Chairman of the Board of Supervision, visited those counties. That was not a spontaneous visit on the part of Sir John M'Neill, but was caused by a positive letter from the Home Secretary, requiring an inquiry to be made. As far as he recollected, only twenty-seven parishes in those three counties were visited by Sir John M'Neill, and his Report, indeed, appeared to be more of a general description in reference to the state of the Highlands, which were at the time in a condition of distress, than an examination into the management of the poor. There had been no inquiry since of the same description, except one by Mr. M'Kenzie, now a Judge of the Court of Session, and Sheriff of Ross-shire at the time, and it appeared that in 1853 he did make inquiry, but that inquiry only occupied one day. The Board stated that they had made inquiries on other occasions, but practically they amounted to no inquiries at all. Since 1851 up to the period of this Report—an interval of two years—it appeared that no local inspection had taken place. In fact, there was no local inspection of any kind. In the absence of any such inspection, the only appeal open to a pauper who was refused all relief was to the sheriff of the county. But in the Highlands—to which his remarks now mainly referred—the sheriff was often separated from the pauper by such a distance as to be almost inaccessible; in some instances the pauper would have to travel 200 miles even to get at him, and, practically speaking, therefore, there was no appeal at all. He had received a letter from a rev. friend of his—a person whose usefully spent life and philanthropic exertions to better the condition of his fellow-countrymen were well known throughout Scotland. He meant Dr. Norman Macleod of Glasgow, who, referring to this point, stated most distinctly that in the remote districts of the Western Highlands the appeal was practically a dead letter, and could not possibly be carried out. He put the case of a pauper on the island of Barra desiring to appeal against the decision of the Board. In the first place, he would have to walk some twelve miles to the ferry, and if he could not muster up money enough to pay for the ferry he would have to wait there until some benevolent person gave him a passage over. When he arrived at the mainland he would have some twenty or thirty miles more to travel. But the case of a pauper appealing from Islay or Jura, two islands in Argyleshire, which the rev. gentleman also instanced, was much stronger. In the first place, he would have to travel from twelve to twenty miles to the port where the steamer called, he would proceed by that to Greenock, and he would then have to go by steamer to Campbelton where the sheriff resided, so that, altogether, before he reached the sheriff he would have to travel 200 miles by sea and land, at an expense of half the amount of a year's allowance in the most liberal parish in the Western Highlands. He was justified, therefore, in saying that in very many instances the appeal to the sheriff was no appeal at all. In the case of a pauper admitted on the parish rolls, but with an utterly inadequate relief—a penny a week, for instance—the appeal was not to the sheriff, but to the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh. That appeal, however, was equally illusory. In the first place, the pauper had to go to the inspector—the person who had denied him adequate relief—in order to be furnished with a printed form of appeal; that filled up, he had to take it back to the inspector, who was required to write upon it his observations on the pauper's case, and then to forward it to the Board at Edinburgh. The Board had no means of ascertaining which was the true statement, that of the inspector or of the pauper, but it referred the appeal hack to the parochial board, and upon the answer of the parochial board it decided. In the Western Highlands the inspector was appointed by the parochial board, and they, of course, would stand by him, and under such circumstances a poor illiterate pauper could not have much chance of success in his appeal against statements of a well-educated inspector, supported, as he was sure to be, by the board of ratepayers to whom he owed his situation. He had now shown, he thought, first, that the Act of 1845 contemplated an adequate and efficient supervision of the Poor Law in Scotland; secondly, that that supervision did not exist; and, thirdly, that the means of appeal provided were wholly illusory. He now came to special cases, which he thought unquestionably proved the miserable state in which the poor were, and the very disgraceful state of the administration of the law. He must, however, in the first place, say a word upon the subject of eviction. It had one of two objects in view—perhaps both: either to get rid of the people on whose account poor rates had to be paid, or to clear the land for the purpose of letting it to one large tenant who paid a better or surer rent than a number of small ones. In either case the interest of the proprietor was the chief object. He (Mr. Ellice) expressed no opinion against emigration. Where properly conducted, it was beneficial to the able-bodied part of a redundant population. But indiscriminate eviction of old and young alike, of those who were fit for emigration and those who were not, was, in his opinion, a cruelty not defensible on any grounds of justice or expediency. Now parishes differed very much as to the relief required for paupers. In scarcely any Highland parish did the paupers exist upon the parochial allowance. That, from the smallness of those allowances, was obviously impossible. They depended for their existence chiefly upon the charity of their poor neighbours. Thus in a parish where eviction had not taken place, the pauper was better off upon 1s. allowance than upon an allowance of 3s. in another parish where eviction had taken place. In the latter they were deprived of the assistance of neighbours and friends, and were left with nothing but an inadequate parish allowance. It was very doubtful too, whether in such places helpless women and children, deprived by eviction of their usual shelter and means of existence, did not thereby become legally entitled to parochial relief. He contended that, under such circumstances, the proprietor had no right to complain of increased rates. The eviction had been for his supposed benefit, and he was bound to make up to the pauper the support he had been deprived of. The first case he would particularly allude to was that of the parish of Strath, in the Isle of Skye, the papers in respect to which were before the House. That was a case of eviction, the poor people there being turned out of their houses, he believed, in the winter. One death consequently occurred through exposure. The facts connected with the case had for two months appeared in the newspapers, they were communicated to the Board of Supervision by a highly respectable clergyman, and yet no notice was taken of them by the Board, though in England inquiry would have been made under such circumstances a day after the facts had become known. In these evictions it was actually found that the ground officer by whom they were made was the inspector of the poor, whose special duty it would be to watch over and protect their interests. Upon this becoming known, the Board of Supervision did issue a circular, in which they directed that no inspector of the poor should in future act as ground officer, but they took no other step until, on the 6th of February, he moved for a return on the subject in this House, and then, on the 27th of February, the Board issued an inquiry. That inquiry was not, however, such an one as was contemplated by the Act of Parliament. The Board sent down Mr. Peterkin, a clerk in the office of the Board in Edinburgh. He (Mr. Ellice) wished to say nothing against Mr. Peterkin. No doubt he was a very intelligent and active servant to the Board, but he was in a subordinate capacity, and had neither position nor authority for such an important inquiry. Well, he issued a Report, on the whole favourable to the management of the local authorities, with which he stated that he saw no reason to justify interference, adding that the parish had increased the pauper allowance by 1s. a month. So far, therefore, the poor had benefited. The evidence of the minister, however, and the Report itself showed, in his opinion, that a disgraceful state of things existed in the parish of Strath as regarded the relief of the poor, and it was evident that the Board had not instituted inquiry until they had been forced to do so. He understood that matters in that parish were, notwithstanding what had been done, in an unsatisfactory state, and he had lately moved for further returns that had not yet been presented. Upon this subject, he thought he was bound to read a letter sent to him by Lord Macdonald, the proprietor of the parish of Strath. Circumstances had led to that part of Lord Macdonald's estate being put under a trustee, who, unfortunately for the people, had power to do what ho liked. Lord Macdonald said—

"That the evictions had been in direct opposition to his feelings and wishes, and that he had repeatedly written to the trustee on his estate representing to him the cruelty of the measure he had in view, and begging him to send orders not to proceed with it, or, if he insisted upon such a measure, to delay it till spring, when the people would be better able to provide for themselves. His wishes had not been attended to, and these cruel proceedings had been carried out to the utmost extent of harshness."

He (Mr. Ellice) could hear testimony to the esteem in which Lord Macdonald was held in the Highlands, where he was one of the few resident proprietors. He now came to another case—the case of the parish of Glenelg. In Knoydart, in that parish, an indiscriminate eviction had taken place, and it was rumoured throughout the country that the people were in a state of the utmost misery, the lives of many being endangered by the wretched state to which they were reduced. Now, here was an instance of the difference between emigration properly and improperly conducted. On another large estate in the same parish, belonging to a near relative of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire, a considerable emigration had taken place under the auspices of the proprietor. But in that case it was purely voluntary. Liberal means were given to those desirous of emigrating, but no one was forced to go. There was no hardship—no violence was used, or cause for complaint given. The consequence was, that the emigration was quite as satisfactory to the people sent out, as it could be beneficial to the proprietor who promoted it. But how was it in Knoydart? There violent proceedings were had recourse to. The people had no choice given them; their houses were pulled down over their heads. Two women nearly died under premature labour caused by the hardships they suffered. The people were reduced to the condition he had described, and which the proceedings of the Board of Supervision tended to protect and to conceal. In order that the public might be made properly acquainted with the facts of the case, the proprietor of a newspaper sent down a commissioner to make an inquiry upon the spot, and the description afterwards published of his visit was truly appalling. The state of the persons who had been evicted was found to be most miserable, and he (Mr. Ellice) sent the newspaper description to the minister of the parish, requesting his attention to it. The answer he received from the clergyman fully bore out the account which had appeared in the newspaper, of the condition of the people who were suffering from the evictions. In the course of ten days, however, he heard from the rev. gentleman that nothing had been done, and stating that, in consequence of something that had since occurred, nothing could be done in the matter. It was then that he ascertained that the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh had been applied to, and had sent down certain instructions which, he was led to infer, had had the effect of inducing the minister of the parish to change the humane intentions he had previously expressed. He (Mr. Ellice) then sent the case to the Board of Supervision, and for a month or two he was in correspondence with that Board, but could not get them to take a single step in the matter. All he asked for was an inquiry, but for two months, in spite of all he could urge, it was obstinately refused. But, fortunately, there was a good police in Scotland. The police represented to the sheriff that the state of the people was alarming, and the sheriff at once communicated with the Lord Advocate in Edinburgh, expressing his conviction that a case existed for inquiry. Instead of heartlessly refusing inquiry, like the Board of Supervision, the Lord Advocate directed the sheriff to proceed to the district and thoroughly to investigate the circumstances. In obedience to that order, the sheriff went to the district, taking with him the sheriff's clerk, the procurator fiscal, and a medical gentleman of considerable eminence in his profession. The sheriff, in his Report to the Lord Advocate, said he found thirty-eight paupers in the district, two receiving 1s. 6d. a week each, two 1s. 3d. a week each, and the allowance of the rest varying from 6d. to 1s. a week. The ages of these poor people ranged between 50 and 100. The sheriff also reported that the medical officer—one-half of whose salary was paid by a vote of that House—had, during the two years and a half for which he had held his appointment, only visited three paupers three times each, and twelve paupers once each, the rest of the paupers never having been visited by him at all. The sheriff stated that the houses of these poor people were of the very worst description; thatch was wanting in all of them, so that the wind and cold, snow and rain, found ample entrance. Almost all their houses were without windows, and some without doors; the wretched inmates were scantily and miserably clad, without shoes and stockings or change of raiment. The food was scanty and bad, and the potatoes rotten. Some of the paupers had nothing for their food but potatoes, many of which were diseased, and sea-weed. He (Mr. Ellice) thought this statement would satisfy the House that these unfortunate people were in a condition which it was distressing to contemplate, and that they had been deprived of the means of support which the law intended them to possess. He might mention the case of a man who was in circumstances of the utmost destitution, and who applied to him (Mr. Ellice) to know what he should do. He instructed the applicant to appeal to the sheriff, who made a permanent order upon the parish for his relief. The man's wife had, however, been in the receipt of 1s. a week, and the parish complied with the sheriff's order by taking 6d. from the allowance of the wife and giving it to the man. This unfortunate couple, therefore, only received the allowance that had previously been made to them, and the order of the sheriff was entirely evaded. The sheriff, having found from his inquiries that the state of the poor was disgraceful, and that the conduct of the officials had been illegal, arrested the inspector to answer four criminal charges for neglect of his duty. The explanation given by the inspector was, that he had acted under the orders of the parochial board, who gave him no discretionary powers; he admitted that, to a certain extent, he was aware of the wants of the paupers, and knew the allowance made to them was inadequate for their support; and he also stated that in some cases he had recommended an increase of the paupers' allowance, but that the Board decided against it. A second Report was afterwards made by the same sheriff, who found that, although some improvements had been effected in the district, one old woman had died in consequence of the privations she had suffered, and a man had been driven mad by the starving position to which his family had been reduced. During these inquiries the condition of the paupers was in some degree ameliorated, the parish having given them 3d. a week in addition to the allowance which they previously had. Still they were left in a state of deplorable destitution. After the Sheriff's report, the Solicitor General, as one of the law officers of the Crown, delivered a finding on the subject, in which he admitted the defective administration of the Poor Law, but declined to prosecute the inspector on the ground of a difficulty which existed in the statute itself, and the improbability of being able to procure a conviction from its being impossible to bring up the poor and infirm people as witnesses. At the same time the Solicitor General contemplated the prospect of something being done to remedy this state of things. In August, nine months after ho had first represented the state of the case, the Board of Supervision sent a Commissioner to inquire into it; and who was the person they sent? They sent—not an Assistant Commissioner, or some other impartial person—but they sent Sir John M'Neill, the chairman of the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, and who was responsible for the management and conduct of the Poor Law Board. Sir John M'Neill was the last person who should have been intrusted with that inquiry, and his Report must of necessity be looked at with suspicion. He was sorry to allude to persons; but this was a grave matter, and he should not be doing his duty if he refrained from making a full statement of facts. In the inquiry by Sir John M'Neill no ground ought to have existed for a suspicion of partiality. But the result would show that the inquiry was not conducted in that spirit of impartiality which the case demanded. The first thing he did was to send for him (Mr. Ellice) to give evidence in the matter; and, though he knew nothing personally of the circumstances, and had originally made his representation solely on the authority of others, Sir John M'Neill subjected him to examination, and endeavoured to get him to make admissions and arguments that could possibly have nothing to do with the case. Accordingly a good deal of Sir John M'Neill's Report was taken up with meeting statements and opinions that he (Mr. Ellice) had made, and this could only have the effect of involving the facts in perplexity. He also examined paupers and some of the respectable people of the district, from whom, considering the prejudices they entertained regarding the Poor Law and the position of the paupers, he was likely to get evidence that should be received with caution. The Roman Catholic priest, however, who had distributed the funds subscribed for the poor people, was not summoned to give evidence before Sir John M'Neill, and did not give evidence. It was true he was by accident absent from his parish at the time, but a note would have reached him sooner than it reached him (Mr. Ellice). That gentleman would have attended the inquiry if he had had the slightest knowledge of its taking place. Beyond this Sir John M'Neill entirely evaded the sheriff's report to the Lord Advocate, and the cases there established. He took no notice of the fact that the inspector had been criminally charged with neglect of particular paupers or of the cases of those paupers. In fact he ignored those judicial proceedings—the decision of the Solicitor General, which had forced the Board to order an inquiry. He called none of the parties who had, in their official capacity, visited the paupers in winter, and of whose impartiality there could be no doubt. In short, the only witnesses on whom Sir John M'Neill relied belonged to a particular class, whose interests were identical with those of the parochial board, and who, therefore, could not be depended on for unprejudiced evidence. It was not surprising, therefore, that he arrived at an extraordinary conclusion. His report was, that the parish was in a good state, and he expressed his conviction that there was danger to the welfare of the working population, arising from the facility of obtaining parochial relief, and the increasing frequency with which they already sought it. Instead, therefore, of making these poor people aware that they had a right by law to be provided for, Sir John M'Neill stated that everything should be done to discourage relief and to support the parochial board. Mr. Peterkin, clerk of the Board of Supervision, expressed an opinion which Sir John M'Neill quoted, and was therefore responsible for, that the condition of the paupers appeared not only as comfortable, but often better than that of paupers in large towns. What, then, was the House to think of the two Reports—one by the sheriff, the administrator of justice in Inverness-shire, and the other by Sir John M'Neill, who made a Report which, in effect, amounted to a statement that the sheriff had told a falsehood, and that the sheriff and the respectable gentlemen who coincided with him were in a conspiracy? What did the Government intend to do in such a case? They could not leave those two men in responsible situations, remaining under a doubt as to which of their statements was true. Either the sheriff should be removed from his situation, or Sir John M'Neill should be dismissed from the post of Chairman of the Board of Supervision. He wanted to know, too, what was to be done with the inspector whom Sir John M'Neill praised, and whom the sheriff had put under arrest? This was a serious matter. He made no charges—he stated no facts of his own authority. He could have adduced other cases, but he now confined himself to those already established on the printed records of that House, and to which every hon. Member had access. Those facts could not be controverted or got rid of, and he did not see how the Government could give the question the go-by. He now thought he need make no apology for asking the House to read his Bill a second time. The Bill proposed that inspectors of character and position should be appointed to superintend the local administration of the Scotch Poor Law, having analogous powers with those exercised by the Poor Law Inspectors in England. They should be personally wholly independent of the Board of Supervision, and only subject to it as regarded instructions as to the way they should perform their duty. It was the object of the Bill to secure a regular visitation of the different parishes, a month's notice being given of the visits of the inspectors, who would have power to call for documents and examine persons on oath. He did not desire that any special power of interference should be given them, but only that they should satisfy themselves of what was going on in the different parishes, and make reports to the Central Board, which might then interfere if necessary. As a check on the Central Board, he proposed that abstracts of the reports of the inspectors should be made to Parliament. The duty of the inspectors would be, not to interfere with the existing law, but to see that it was properly administered in districts removed from the influence of public opinion. He proposed that these inspectors should be appointed, not by the Central Board of Supervision—for such an arrangement would be useless after what had taken place—but by the Home Secretary. He understood that the Lord Advocate intended to oppose this Bill, but if the right hon. and learned Lord would suggest any other course—if he would promise him a Committee, before which he could prove his case—he should be content. His only wish was to see justice done, and so long as the case was not evaded he should not complain. All the statements which he had made to-night were contained in printed papers lying on the table of the House, and they could not therefore be got rid of. In the face of such a state of things he could not conceive that any Government would expose itself to the odium of standing by idle, and he felt convinced that sooner or later something must be done to remedy the evils which he had described.

seconded the Motion.

said, he believed that the hon. Member (Mr. E.Ellice) had considerably exaggerated the present condition of the districts in question; but it was not necessary for him (the Lord Advocate), with regard to the course which he recommended the House to take respecting this Bill, to comment in detail on the statements of the hon. Member. He could assure him that the ideas which he (Mr. E. Ellice) entertained with regard to the working of the poor law, and the facilities given to paupers to appeal against the decisions of the Poor Law Inspectors, were exaggerated in the extreme. He (the Lord Advocate) sat as Solicitor General for a time on the Board of Supervision, and he could bear testimony not only to the exceeding ability and unwearied industry of Sir John M'Neill, who presided over that Board, but to the many hours which he devoted to the consideration of appeals from paupers in all parts of Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman would only look at the minutes which were contained in the last Report of the Board of Supervision, he would see with what careful anxiety those appeals were considered, and he would also find that many cases were remitted even more than once to the Board below, because the Board of Supervision was not satisfied, when the amount of relief was increased, that that increase was sufficient. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt at considerable length on what he thought were the defects of the existing system. He (the Lord Advocate) did not mean to follow him into that matter. He was very far from saying that the Scotch poor law was a perfect system, or that there were not parts of it which required to be amended. No poor law that he had ever heard of was a perfect system. It was a misfortune to be under the necessity of having a poor law, and it was a greater misfortune that that necessity had always a tendency to increase. As he stated when this Bill was brought in, he did not think it would be expedient to disturb the settlement which was made in 1845, unless they saw their way clearly to an efficient substitute. His simple objection to this Bill was, that it was not in the slightest degree required, as the powers contained in the present law were quite sufficient to accomplish the purpose aimed at by this Bill. Further, ho did not think that it was in the least degree calculated to produce the effect or the object at which the hon. Gentleman aimed. The 11th section of the existing Act enabled the Board of Supervision, with the consent of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, to appoint some person or persons, not being a member of the Board or of the College of Advocates, to act as a Commission or as Commissioners for the purpose of making a special inquiry into the condition of the poor in any district in Scotland, and to report thereon to the Board of Supervision. Whenever a Secretary of State believed that there was ground for inquiring into the administration of the poor law, he might send a person to make an inquiry, and to report thereon. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman provided that special inspectors should be appointed, but their appointment would necessarily cast a slur upon the administration of the Board of Supervision; and before the House consented to such a course, they ought to consider whether there was any ground which would justify it. He thought it was unfortunate that there was no direct representative of the Board of Supervision in that House to answer the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He did not think that he was called upon to take their part in this contest. On the contrary, having other functions to perform with regard to the matter, he should decline taking one side or the other; but, at the same time, he was not satisfied from anything that had been said by the hon. Gentleman that there was any ground for the strong and sweeping charges which he had made against the Board of Supervision. That Board did not consist simply of Sir John M'Neill, It comprehended not only that gentleman, but the sheriffs of three counties, who had always been able and intelligent men, and attended most sedulously to the business entrusted to them. That was all that he (the Lord Advocate) meant to say with respect to the general question. With regard to the more immediate matter referred to by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, that stood on a very different footing. He alluded, of course, to the state of the Highlands, and it was impossible not to see that there were elements there of very considerable importance, which gave rise to feelings both of distrust and anxiety. In the first place, there had been a failure of the potato crop. Then there were what the hon. Gentleman called evictions—that was to say, the owners of property had exercised a right of which it was impossible to deprive them. The poor cottars had been turned out, not by the poor law, certainly, nor by any defect in any other law that he was aware of. Next, they had to consider the Highland character. Every one who was acquainted with the Highlands must admit that they were indisposed to exertion, and were rootedly attached to their own soil. That attachment, no doubt, if properly directed, might be made an instrument of great good to the Highlanders; but when they were turned out of their dwellings it made the administration of the poor law, with regard to them, a matter of great difficulty. Sir John M'Neill said that the giving of indiscriminate relief to such unfortunate persons encouraged them to rely on eleemosynary aid, instead of on their own exertions. There could be no doubt that it would have been very undesirable to have given them indiscriminate relief, but he (the Lord Advocate) did not mean to deny that some very distressing and unfortunate cases had arisen. There was, in particular, that case with respect to which he ordered an inquiry, and which, notwithstanding the report of Sir John M'Neill, he still thought the inspector and the Parochial Board ought to have taken care to have remedied. The real difference between the sheriff and Sir John M'Neill was the constructions which had been put upon the Poor Relief Act by the Parochial Board and by the Board of Supervision. He (the Lord Advocate) thought it right to state, clearly and distinctly, that he did not approve of the stringent interpretation which Sir John M'Neill had put on that Act. Sir John M'Neill stated, in his report, that unless a pauper applied for relief, the inspector had no duty to perform in regard to him. If that was the duty of the inspector, Sir John M'Neill was perfectly right with respect to the whole of his report, and there had been no neglect on the part of the inspector. But what appeared to him (the Lord Advocate) to be the most unfavourable feature of the case was this, that, although there was no application for relief, there was distress which was known to the inspector and to the local Board, and which, he thought, they ought to have remedied. This Bill was, in his opinion, rather too crude to be engrafted on the poor law system of Scotland, and he would suggest that the hon. Member, who had done good service in bringing the question under the consideration of the House, should content himself with that proceeding, and refrain from persevering with the measure. In the absence of Sir John M'Neill on an important mission, he did not wish to pledge the Government to a particular course; hut if his hon. Friend would leave the question in his hands, he would promise to procure for it an early and careful consideration.

said, that much of what had been stated by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, with regard to the administration of the poor law in Scotland, demanded the serious attention of Government. He should, however, advise his hon. Friend, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, to defer to his request, and leave the matter in the hands of Government. If a sufficient remedy were not brought forward by Government, it would then be open to the hon. Member to introduce a further measure on the subject. When he found the allowances to poor and infirm persons from 1s. to 6d. a week, he felt it was high time that a more efficient supervision of the poor in certain districts should take place. Had such instances of distress and misery occurred in Ireland or England, where the people were not quite so passive as they were in Scotland, as those which the hon. Member had represented to-night, they would not have so long remained unnoticed, and if the Government failed to do anything to remove the evil in the course of the Session, the present measure should certainly be revived. Had such cases as those of the Highlands occurred in England, the Poor Law Board would not have allowed twenty-four hours to have elapsed before they would have been inquired into; but the real cause of the evil was the want of a proper inspection. It would appear that in some parishes an inspection of the poor actually did not take place for two or three years together; whereas, in England, an inspection took place at least once in every month. Such a state of things as that which appeared to prevail in Scotland, where the relief was sometimes no more than 6d. a week, demanded an immediate remedy, and he called upon the Government to apply it.

said, that it was notorious that many of the inspectors in Scotland had interests directly opposed to those of the poor, and it was to be hoped that, in future arrangements that might be made with a view to amend the poor law system in that country especial care would be taken to remove from office persons who were so circumstanced that they could scarcely be expected to act with impartiality. He believed that it was but too true that there were gross abuses and most serious defects in the administration of the poor laws in Scotland, and that there was reason to apprehend that the poor did not receive anything like the allowance of food or relief which ought to be awarded to them. He had confidence in the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's declaration that the subject should receive his consideration, and he had no doubt he would exert himself to provide a remedy for the evils which at present existed. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would withdraw his Bill for the present; hut, if nothing were done in the matter, he would promise to give his support either to this or any other Bill which he might introduce on the subject.

said, in the course of the debate many reflections had been cast upon the conduct of Sir John M'Neill and the inspectors towards the poor, and more especially in reference to the parish of Glenelg. Now, what were the facts more immediately concerning those parties to whom the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice) had referred? It appeared that a class of persons called "squatters" had settled themselves upon property in the parish of Glenelg without paying any rent. It was intimated to them that if they would remove they should be provided with a free passage to Canada, and that no demand would be made upon them for their arrears of rent, amounting to about 1,500l. A number of families, amounting to about 400 persons, accepted this very liberal proposal, and their passage, clothing, bedding, &c., were provided at a cost of 1,700l. Four or five families were unable to go, and these were not ejected. Some, however, refused to embark, and continued to occupy the houses which they had been summoned to vacate. Against these legal proceedings were resorted to, and their houses were pulled down, but they were allowed to retain their cattle, crops, and other property, and no demand was made upon any of them for rent, except in one instance. These were the parties whose case the hon. Member for St. Andrew's had brought before the House as a grievance. The charge of harshness and cruelty on the part of Mr. Ewing Campbell, the inspector, towards the poor of the parish of Glenelg was completely met by the testimony of the Rev. Mr. Macrae, the minister of the parish, of Mr. Macleod, and other witnesses who were examined by Sir John M'Neill. The Rev. Mr. Macrae was asked what was his opinion of the manner in which Mr. Campbell performed his duties, and his answer was, that he considered he had performed them faithfully, diligently, and humanely, and he believed that the parochial board had on more than one occasion expressed their high approbation of his conduct. He had no reason to believe that Mr. Campbell had at any time wilfully misrepresented the circumstances of a pauper to the parochial board. Mr. Macleod said he considered Mr. Campbell to have performed his duty in a humane manner towards the poor, and he believed that the people thought so too. The whole evidence went to show that the inspector did his duty not only to the poor and to the ratepayers, but also to the parochial board. It was his opinion that his hon. Friend had taken up this question without that examination which it deserved. He could wish that his hon. Friend would not press his measure to a division until every Member had had an opportunity of reading the last annual Report of the Board of Supervision for the relief of the poor in Scotland. The pauper in Scotland had greater facilities for compelling relief than in England, for if it was refused to him he might appeal to the Board of Supervision, who, if the parochial authorities still persisted in their refusal, gave him the power of bringing his case before a legal tribunal without any expense, whereas in England no such power was given, and Sir John M'Neill in his Report had stated that from May, 1853, to May, 1854, not a single pauper residing in Glenelg had complained that the relief granted was inadequate. He had also stated that the rapid increase of pauperism, from one in seventy of the population to one in fifteen of the whole parish, and to one in ten in Knoydart, while the proportion in Ireland was reduced to one in ninety-one, would alone have been strong presumptive evidence that both in its amount and in its form the relief afforded to the poor was too attractive to the labourer. The amount of poor relief in that parish, according to Sir John M'Neill's Report was 11½ per cent on the actual rental, and 7s. 4¾d. per head upon its present population. It must be remembered, too, that many of those who had to pay the rate were, as respected their condition in life, raised but little above the persons receiving relief. All these circumstances led to the conclusion that the poor were not either harshly or unjustly treated, as had been alleged; and, feeling that reflections had been made upon a gentleman of high honour and integrity, whose character had been unjustly assailed he thought it his duty to take the present opportunity of making these remarks in that gentleman's vindication.

said, he was satisfied that Sir John M'Neill was correct in stating that great difficulty existed from the peculiar circumstances of the country, but, with respect to the statement that the rate of relief given to the poor, varying from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a week, offered great inducements to the labouring class to embrace a life of pauperism; the truth was, that the able-bodied men were not entitled to that relief, and in the case of the parish of Glenelg it related to poor people whose ages varied from fifty to one hundred years, the average being seventy-six. The Report of the sheriff showed, however, the necessity of some further inspection, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate referred to the power in the Act of Parliament to cause an inspection from time to time. But that inspection only lasted forty days, and the remedy required was, as had been pointed out, a constant superintendence, like that which existed in England. What was wanted in the Highlands was, that the people should feel confident that they enjoyed the rights which the law gave them. In former days they had been ruled by the lairds, without much regard for the law, and a feeling had grown up that they could get no redress for any wrong. He was very anxious that justice should be done to the poor and infirm, for if scenes like those reported to have taken place were allowed to go on, a strong feeling of indignation would be raised in England, which would lead public opinion to insist upon some change, and this change might be carried further than the people of Scotland desired.

said, that after the assurance which had been given by the Government with reference to the subject with which his Bill proposed to deal, he had no difficulty in at once consenting to withdraw it.

said, that although he should be glad to see the Sabbath kept as a day of religious observance, yet he doubted whether it was desirable that the enforcement of that observance should be made the object of legislative enactment. He would suggest that the Bill had better be referred to a Select Committee, when he would then be able to judge of its merits, and give his vote accordingly. Looking at the question in a religious point of view, he contended that the Bill was not consistent with the principle upon which it had been framed, inasmuch as it admitted of certain exceptions both of time and place, with respect to the legal prosecution of Sunday trading. It would be lawful, for instance, under the operation of the Bill, to sell certain articles after one o'clock upon the Sabbath, but not before, while cream and milk might be sold even before nine o'clock. Now, surely, if it were a desecration of the Sabbath to sell certain articles at one particular hour on Sunday, it was equally a desecration of it to sell them at any other hour of the same day. Several attempts had been made to carry into effect the system of legislation which the Bill before them had for its object, but the framers of former measures had failed to obtain for them the sanction of the Legislature, in consequence of the difficulties by which the question was beset. For his own part, he could not help thinking that if they were to agree to the passing of the Bill, they would to a certain extent be legislating against the poorer and in favour of the more independent class of traders.

said, he should support the measure, mainly on religious grounds, though he was quite prepared also to advocate it on the lower grounds of expediency and political economy. They had been told by Mr. Bianconi that horses which rested on Sundays did more work in six days than others did in seven, and he maintained that the repose of the Sabbath was necessary both for man and beast. The petitions in favour of the Bill were mainly signed by those who were suffering under the operation of the present state of things, which led to unfair competition between tradesmen, and to injurious treatment of workmen. He must deny that the shopkeepers would be injured by the Bill, as the goods which could not be purchased on Sunday would be purchased on another day in the week, and the shopkeepers would have the day to devote to religion or to recreation, and their receipts would not be diminished. Looking at the question in an economical point of view, he was prepared to contend that labourers would produce more in six days' labour, having the seventh for rest, than they would were they to work on all seven days, and their wages would be in proportion. He thought, therefore, that on religious grounds, on grounds of expediency as well as of political economy, it was necessary that some such measure as this should be passed, and though there certainly were some things with which they might in consistency be called on to deal, but which this measure did not touch, he thought on the whole the Bill was a good and would be a beneficial one.

said, he could not allow the occasion to pass without thanking the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), and congratulating the House on having the Bill brought before them. It had been so long since a Committee sat on this subject—in the year 1832—that it was probable its Report had escaped the recollection of the House. That Committee had expressed a very strong opinion on this question, stating that it was convinced that it was a proper object of legislation to obtain the solemn and decent observance of the Lord's day, and also to see that every man in the community possessed the enjoyment of that day of rest which had been mercifully given to him. That opinion of the Committee there could be no doubt was a sound one, and he was rejoiced that a measure had been brought forward which would give effect to that opinion; and he hoped it would receive the positive sanction of the House. He trusted it would result in relieving one class of tradesmen from the bondage which they endured from the competition of other tradesmen who kept open their shops on Sundays, and also for relieving the servants of tradesmen from labour on Sundays. He regretted that the Bill, which was likely to be so useful, passed over the sale of spirits and beer. The sale of fish, game, and other things was prohibited; but for reasons which were well known he supposed the noble Lord was not able to touch the sale of spirits and beer. When it was known that from six to ten on Sundays the public-houses were filled with persons carousing, and reducing themselves to the level of beasts, he could not conceive a subject more cognate to the present, nor more deserving the attention of Parliament.

said, he had understood the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) to be willing that the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and that he would take the sense of the House upon it when he saw the shape in which it came out of the Committee. Under these circumstances, it seemed hardly necessary to protract the discussion. The hon. Member for Lambeth had appealed to the Government, but the Government were quite ready to support the second reading of the Bill. He was not sure that the measure would accomplish all that was expected from it, but he should be very glad if it had the effect of enabling them to enforce the present law, for it should be remembered that this was no new principle. The existing law, however, contained defects, particularly as regarded the difficulty in enforcing penalties, which made it practically inoperative. He regarded the present measure, not as one to force upon the inhabitants of the metropolis the religious observance of the Sabbath, but it was one which would consult the general convenience of the inhabitants, while at the same time it would correct a great and crying evil. He believed the principle was in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the tradesmen of the metropolis, and, under the circumstances, further discussion, he thought, had better be reserved for a future stage of the Bill.

said, he wished to inquire whether he was to understand that the Bill was to go to a Select Committee? According to precedent, all Bills of this nature went to a Select Committee before they were brought before a Committee of the whole House; and if this Bill was to go to a Select Committee, it would he hardly worth while to discuss its provisions now. He would, therefore, ask, what did the Government intend to do with regard to sending it to a Select Committee? All the Bills on this subject—that brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Hindley), one which came down from the Lords, and one brought in by the hon. Member for Lambeth in 1851—were all sent to a Select Committee, and all fell to the ground. That had been the case with all the Bills of this kind which had been introduced. He did not distrust the intentions of the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor), but he had undertaken to deal with a delicate and difficult subject. He (Mr. Buncombe) had not had a deputation of barbers, like the noble Lord, but he had had deputations from the working classes, and he knew that they had no desire to desecrate the Sabbath—they had no desire to make purchases on Sunday morning, but their necessities required it. He thought that on inquiry it would be found that there must be a great many changes in our social arrangements before you could legislate on this subject. In the first place, there was the question of paying wages on Saturday evening. It was said that some employers paid wages at an early hour; but it should be recollected that a great deal of the work done in the metropolis was piece-work, and a working man who took home his work on a Saturday evening, though he might find his wages ready, yet had to wait to get his next week's work given to him, and it was often past twelve o'clock before he got not only his wages, but his work; and how was he at that late hour to lay in his meals for the following day? Again a great many contracts were made with workmen by builders who took them into the country on Monday morning and brought them back late on the Saturday evening. How could these men manage to make their purchases on the Saturday night? He was told that working men went to the public-houses on Saturday and spent their wages in getting drunk, but it was no such thing, for they had not time to do so after they got their wages. Another change must be made before you could legislate on this subject with effect: you must improve the dwellings of the poorer classes. What was the use of a man in this town, who often lived with his family and five or six others in one room, bringing in meat or other articles on Saturday evening; they would be putrid before the night was half over. You must, therefore, in the first place, give those classes better dwellings. It was all very well for those who had larders and cellars to say that those persons should make their purchases on Saturday night. He was told that many tradesmen themselves were anxious that there should be a law against trading on Sunday, and that the very circumstance of their trading themselves did violence to their consciences. But no one was compelled to do so, and the conscientious man should suffer for conscience sake. What was it that compelled them? Why, they said that if they did not, their neighbours would profit by it; and they were not the sort of conscientious men that were worthy the attention of the House of Commons. But he might be asked, what ought to be done? He was told that the trading on Sunday afternoon was disgraceful, and ought to be put down; but that was a mere question of police. They had had many Bills on this question—such, for instance, as Sir Andrew Agnew's Bill; but the only successful lawgiver on this subject was Charles II., but those laws were not sufficiently stringent for the present time. He would have one law for the whole country, for why should a measure be confined to the metropolis? Why should Birmingham and Liverpool, and other large towns, be exempt? There should be one law, which should declare that there should be no Sunday trading after half-past ten in the morning of any sort or kind, and it should be applicable to rich and poor. That would be legislation with regard to the Sabbath worthy of the attention of the House, but such little things as the sale of milk, eggs, and fruits, which they were going to discuss, were unworthy of that assembly; but they should enact one general law for all classes of the community.

said, that having been largely connected with the working men in the metropolis receiving wages, and having had some experience of them, he could say that there was no class better able to judge of their own interest; and as regarded the value of a day of rest to them, he was convinced that if they were referred to it would be found that they would claim their right to that advantage. The intelligence of that class was not to be measured by the wages they received, and they were entitled to retain a privilege which had been sanctioned by a higher legislative power than that House, and which had declared that there should be a day of rest and a cessation from the ordinary labours of life.

said that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe's) account of the result of sending Bills of this kind to a Select Committee was not very encouraging, and after the fate of these Bills he was unwilling to send this to a Committee upstairs—especially as the clauses of the Bill were very few, and such as he considered the House could make practicable. When his noble friend introduced the Bill he (Sir J. Shelley) said that he was favourable to the principle of the Bill, but he could not pledge himself to all the details of a Bill which he had not seen. There were some points in the Bill which he thought objectionable; still he thought it was not a Bill which was for the benefit of tradesmen only, but one for the promotion of the comfort of the working classes, and he was glad therefore that it had been introduced. There was a growing feeling that there should be greater opportunities for relaxation afforded to the working classes. He never believed that you could make people religious by Act of Parliament; but the rest of Sunday was the greatest he himself knew, and he wished to see it enjoyed by the working man. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) would not send the Bill to a Select Committee. There was a prejudice out of doors against Bills of this kind, but all the former Bills on the subject were impracticable from their very nature. He thought, however, that this would be a practicable measure. He could only say that if any one doubted the state of trading in the metropolis on Sunday let him go to Clare Market, a part of his constituency, and he would find that it was carried on all day; and much to their credit he had that evening presented a petition in favour of the Bill signed by all the butchers in that locality with one or two exceptions. He therefore hoped the House would give their assent to the second reading.

said, that this had always been found to be a very difficult subject for legislation, but the reason why other measures had failed was because they had gone too far. His hon. Friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was mistaken in supposing that this Bill was unfavourable to the working classes; and as to the necessity of making other changes before such a measure was passed, he thought such a Bill would rather force masters to pay wages earlier, as it would be urged on them to do so to enable their workmen to go to market on the Saturday, whereas now they did not mind detaining them late on the Saturday, because they could go to market from eight till one o'clock on Sunday. As to the lower class of tradesmen, they had presented many petitions in favour of the Bill; and he had laid some stress on one petition, which came from the New Cut, in Lambeth, because it had been said on a former occasion that the tradesmen in that locality could not do their business if such a Bill passed. He would support a measure which would enable all persons better to observe the Sabbath.

said, that no answer had been given to the objection of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), that this was merely a local Bill; and he was of opinion that nothing could be more injurious than legislating for particular places. He thought that the 9th clause, which gave large powers to the police for enforcing the law, would lead to great oppression if it passed as it stood.

said, he hoped, if the Bill went to a Select Committee, that gentlemen would be put on it who were practically acquainted with the management of large concerns, and the mode of paying wages earlier on Saturdays and on Fridays, for their experience and philanthropic feelings towards the working classes would be found of great value. The real question was the regulation of the payment of wages, so as to enable working people to arrange their affairs in such a manner as to leave time for rest and recreation.

said, he hoped that if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, that Committee should be composed of the class of men just described by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield), who were practically acquainted with the inconveniences suffered by working men, and how they should be remedied. The principle of the Bill was somewhat different to that which it had been described to be by some gentlemen, who seemed to think it was based on the religious ground of the observance of the Lord's-day. But, in fact, it only went to the question of trading, and had nothing to do with that species of work, and especially of household service, to which the commandment applied. It was curious that the Bill came to the House recommended by its supporters on the ground that it was not in conformity with public opinion. It was said that a number of tradesmen were obliged to open their shops on Sunday, or their customers would abandon them; but if the public feeling were in favour of the principle, it would be more likely that such conscientious persons would obtain customers. If the Bill were founded merely on the wants or the consciences of society, it ought to be rendered more comprehensive, and applied to the whole country as well as to the metropolis, and not only to butchers and bakers, but to many things much more important. After the recommendation of the Committee on public-houses last year, he should have thought that no Bill should have been brought in on this subject which did not extend to the question of the enjoyments of the people, as well as restrictions on the existing state of things on Sundays; but it appeared that the recommendations of the Committee with regard to restrictions were to be carried out, but the other recommendations were not attended to. He should not, however, oppose the Bill at this stage.

said, that the keeping of the Sabbath holy was morally binding on every man; and how could that principle be carried out when the Sunday was desecrated in so extraordinary a manner in the metropolis? Every Sunday, on his way to a place of worship, he passed through a locality near to that House called Strutton Ground, where there was more trading than on a week day, and he was sure that such a Bill was required to put an end to such trading, both in the metropolis and all over the kingdom. He would support the Bill in every stage, and any measure against all trading on Sunday, whether in goods, clothes, or spirituous liquors.

said, he hoped that the House would not, by referring the Bill to a Select Committee, violate one of its own recent enactments, and give it an intramural interment, which would certainly be the result of such a reference. Three Committees had previously sat upon the subject, and had produced three blue books, so that he thought the House of Commons were quite competent to deal with the measure themselves. In respect to the objection of the measure being only applicable to the metropolis, he would remind hon. Members that it was always the practice to confine such measures to the metropolis in the first instance, with a view of testing their efficiency, and afterwards, if necessary, to extend them to the country generally. The great reason for proposing this measure exclusively for the metropolis was, that the evil it proposed to remedy was greater there than in any other part of the kingdom. Indeed, it was remarkable that in many of the towns in England, such as Exeter and Halifax, there was no such thing as Sunday trading. If the Bill be read a second time he would give ample time before he proposed its going into Committee, for any classes who had solid objections to it to bring them before the House.

said, he was quite ready to support the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. As an old citizen of London he was fully aware of the great inconvenience and immorality attendant upon the existing practice of Sunday trading. He hoped that the measure would not be referred to a Select Committee—a course which would occasion a great loss of time and considerable discussion to no purpose.

then proposed that it should be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

said, he should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee in conformity with the practice usually pursued in reference to Bills of the same hybrid character. He understood the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department to agree to this course. [Cries of "No, no!"] He hoped that hon. Members would allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak for himself. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) had declined to divide the House on the second reading, with the understanding that it would be referred to a Select Committee. This was one of the most stringent measures introduced within the last few years. ["No, no!"] He said yes, for it proposed to punish a man by sending him to the House of Correction for fourteen days—after they had taken all his goods from him, and left him unable to pay the lawyer's costs. If they passed the Bill in its present shape, they would have continual riots and rows between the people and the police upon this subject.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had misunderstood what he had said. He had never assented to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He had merely suggested to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) to postpone his objections until the Bill was in Committee. It was altogether a mistake to suppose that there was any rule of the House for referring such measures to a Select Committee. He thought that the House, when in Committee, was just as competent to amend the Bill as a Select Committee.

, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that his object was to afford facilities for the formation of more convenient divisions for the assessment and collection of the land and assessed taxes. At present these divisions were regulated by the boundaries of counties, and the consequence was, that persons living near the edge of two counties were often put to great inconvenience by being taken, when prosecuting appeals, to attend the sittings of the commissioners of the county in which they lived, although they were much nearer the place at which the meetings of land tax commissioners were held in the adjoining county. He thought the land tax divisions should follow those of the poor law unions. In order to enable such arrangements to be made as would tend to public convenience, he proposed to give the local commissioners, with the assent of the Lords of the Treasury, power to transfer any parish from one land tax division to another, without reference to the counties in which they were respectively situate for the purpose of hearing and disposing of such appeals.

said, the districts in which the land tax was collected were, like the land tax itself, of considerable antiquity. Each county was divided into hundreds, in which the several Commissioners presided for the collection of the tax. It was competent for the general Commissioners of the county to recommend the transfer of any parish from one division to the other, and if the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue approved of such transfer, it could be effected. He was not aware that any extensive inconvenience existed at present. There was, however, a great objection to give such a power as the hon. Member proposed because the rateable amount of the land tax differed very much in every county. The tax, too, was sometimes not assessed equally over the whole county. He did not, therefore, feel justified in assenting to the second reading. At the same time, if it were shown distinctly that the present law in any material part was defective, he would undertake on the part of the Government to introduce a measure by which it would be improved. As to giving the power proposed to the Lords of the Treasury, it should be observed that they were necessarily deficient in local information; and their opinions would therefore be influenced by persons placed in a subordinate position. The Bill, in fact, proposed to increase the size of one district at the expense of another.

said, it would be found that there were many places from which people would have to travel some ten or twelve miles before they could reach the place of meeting of the Commissioners, and that that was an evil which ought to be remedied. He apprehended under present circumstances that there would be a great increase of appeals, in that case it would be a hardship on a man, especially where he was overcharged only a trifle, but which trifle might be of importance to him, to be put to the expense of travelling that distance to establish his appeal. He saw no reason why the Commissioners might not represent an inconvenience, where it did exist, to the Treasury, or why the Treasury should not have the power to act upon the recommendation. He hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

said, in calling the attention of the House to the measures which he had introduced connected with Chancery reform in Ireland, it would not he necessary for him to occupy much time in enforcing a principle long since asserted in England, and which it was his object, with such alterations as might be necessary in reference to the difference of practice, to apply to Ireland. He would, however, as shortly as possible, explain the nature of his propositions. He believed that, since the reign of Charles I., many attempts had been made to reform the Court of Chancery, but that laudable task was not successfully performed in this country until, by the aid of two distinguished laymen in that House, and several able lawyers, the Court of Chancery in England was radically reformed. Very great benefits were conferred on the suitors and the public in this country by the reforms thus effected. He had taken the liberty of inquiring of one of the Vice-Chancellors what had been the result of the reforms accomplished by that House within the last few years, and as the answer he received would have more weight than anything he could say, he would beg to read one sentence from a letter addressed to him by Vice-Chancellor Stuart. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here read an extract from the letter referred to, in which it was stated that the alterations in the procedure of the Court of Chancery under the Act of 1852, especially those relating to the change in the Masters's Office, to proceedings in Judges' chambers before a chief clerk, to the substitution of concise certificates in lieu of voluminous reports, to the abolition of the warrant system, &c., had worked satisfactorily, and had conferred on the suitors the benefit of an enormous saving in point of expense.] Now, he desired to enable his countrymen to participate in that enormous benefit. In the year 1819 the first attempt to reform the Court of Chancery in Ireland was made. That was done by an inquiry into the fees paid in that Court. That inquiry terminated in a reduction of those fees. It was only a partial reform, and did not affect the great question of reforming the voluminous pleadings. It was a curious fact, however, that even that partial reform had the effect of greatly increasing the business of the Court. Subsequently, another reform took place, namely, the abolition of the Six Clerks' offices. The effect of that reform was not, however, very serviceable to the public, although it conferred considerable benefit on the solicitors of the Court. A great number of orders were issued by the Lord Chancellor for the regulation of the business transacted in the Master's Office, but which orders clogged them more than before, and the effect was to increase the delay in those offices, and in many respects the expenses. During the time Lord St. Leonards was Lord Chancellor of Ireland a great reform was effected by abolishing the warrant system, or summons system, by compelling the Master not to proceed from summons to summons every hour, but to proceed continuously by one summons. That reform increased the business in the Master's Office, although the amount of the staff was never altered. He held in his hand a paper drawn up by Master Brougham, which set forth all the objections to the Master's Office in this country (which had since been abolished), and which equally applied to the Master's Office in Ireland. It showed that there existed evils in the system which were incurable, and that if a decisive remedy were sought it could be found only in abolishing the Master's office altogether. That, therefore, was the object of the first Bill which he had to submit to the House. It was a Bill for the more speedy and effectual despatch of business in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland by abolishing the Master's Office altogether. But there was a difference between the Bill relating to Ireland and the Act which had been passed relating to England. That difference would be explained by a short reference to the second Bill which he had to submit, and which was a Bill to amend the practice and course of proceeding in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland. Sir John Romilly introduced a Bill for the benefit of the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, which proved to be a real and practical reform, and by which both the time and the money of the suitor were saved. He introduced a form if pleading by petition, and abolished, as far as he could, the old forms. That measure had succeeded to a great extent. But what was the principle of that measure? It was to give to the Master judicial authority in a great variety of cases, the effect of which was that, instead of the business being referred first from the Lord Chancellor's Court to the Master, then from the Master to the Court, and oftentimes again from the Court to the Master, the Master, by Sir John Romilly's Bill, was required and enabled to discharge a great deal of such business judicially; but in so far as Sir John Romilly's Bill did not wholly abolish the subordinate character of the Master, it was defeating, the fact being that at the present moment the Master of the Court of Chancery in Ireland was partly a judicial and partly a ministerial officer. The Masters were Judges in all cases in which they had original jurisdiction, and ministerial in all cases in which they had not. They were, therefore, without that power, weight, and influence, which Judges ought to possess, and the consequence was that the business of the Court of Chancery in Ireland was in a state of confusion as to its practice in the Master's Office. His argument, however, was that the country was not at present in a condition to abolish the offices of the five Masters, who had yearly incomes of 3,000l. each, and give them compensation for their salaries, by which they would be enabled to retire to Italy or elsewhere, and then to appoint Vice-Chancellors in their places. What, therefore, he would submit to the House was, that as the Masters had been proved competent to discharge a portion of the business of the Court satisfactorily, speedily, and cheaply, so they might be fairly intrusted to do the rest. It was, therefore, proposed that the existing senior three Masters in ordinary should be constituted Judges, under the style of Vice-Chancellors, with the same power and authority which the Vice-Chancellors of England possessed. Very few appeals had been made from the decisions in cases in which they had original jurisdiction; he therefore could not see why they should not give them original jurisdiction in all other cases. The saving of the public would be great. In England the salary of the Vice-Chancellor was 5,000l. a-year. In Ireland he proposed to fix the salary at 3,500l., being equal to that of a Puisne Judge. Thus, they would have three Vice-Chancellors competent to transact all the business of the Court of Chancery. The value of this measure would be apparent when he explained to the House the course of the business under the 15th section of Sir John Romilly's Act. Under that section no less than eighty cases in one day were thrown into the Master's Office. All that the Lord Chancellor did was to ask whether the cause came within the 15th section of Sir John Romilly's Act, and if he were told that it did, he at once sent it into the Master's Office, and he heard no more of it until the Master had done all the work by ascertaining the rights of the parties, and really and truly deciding the merits of the cause. The suit was then brought back to the Lord Chancellor, who knew nothing, and did not pretend to know anything about it. The effect, therefore, of the proposed Bill was, that the person who was competent to inquire into, to ascertain, and to find out the facts, and to determine the rights of the parties, should have jurisdiction from beginning to end. His second Bill, he could assure the House would tend to economy, and facilitate the progress of business to a degree that would be most gratifying to every law reformer. In 1852 the costs of the Court of Chancery, as brought into the taxing Master's Office, amounted to 170,000l., which were reduced upon taxation to probably about 150,000l., while for the same year the costs for receivers amounted to 40,000l. Well, by the Bill which was now before the House, he thought he might calculate on bringing about a saving of expense in non-contested suits of about one-half, and in litigated suits of one-third. And he might state, that his opinions were confirmed in this respect by the calculations of persons well acquainted with the Court of Chancery in Ireland. His third Bill related to a subject of much importance, and was intended to alter the law and practice in respect of the appointment of receivers under the Court of Chancery. Many hon. Members might not be aware of the mischief arising from the present state of the law in Ireland under the system of Receivers. That subject had been inquired into by more than one Committee, and it was proved that the vices of the system were such that it had sometimes led to the commission of great crimes. But the particular inquiry upon which the present Bill was founded was one which took place in 1852, when a committee, of I which his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) and the right hon. baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) were members, was appointed, which inquired into the management of estates in Ireland under receivers of the Court of Chancery, the rentals of which at that time amounted to 1,000,000l. per annum, and which prepared as instructive a Report as could be found among the Parliamentary papers. The present Bill, founded upon that Report and other information, consisted of matter of law and matter of regulation; and of the matter of law he should very quickly dispose. Receivers in Ireland were appointed in many instances in which they were not in England; why, he did not know, and he therefore proposed to assimilate the law of the two countries in that respect. In England, where the mortgagee had a right to enter into the possession of an estate he could not obtain the appointment of a Receiver in Chancery, because he could assert his right at law, while in Ireland the mortgagee could throw the estate into Chancery and get a solicitor appointed as the Receiver; and the late Lord Chancellor had informed him (Mr. Whiteside) that the consequence often was, that where the rents were small, the estate was exhausted, and where they were large it was kept in Chancery to feed the cormorants of the law. The object he had in view was to lessen the number of instances in which Receivers could be appointed, and to abolish the right of parties, except in certain cases mentioned in the Act, to obtain the appointment of Receivers where they were not appointed in England. He would cite two or three passages from the Report of the Committee in question, which would explain to the House the principle upon which the present measure was based. The two classes of estates which were chiefly subjected to the influence of the Court of Chancery in Ireland were the estates of lunatics and minors, and estates which were encumbered either by mortgages or judgments. Now, the Committee in their Report pointed out that the estates of lunatics and minors were better managed by the Court of Chancery than the estates of debtors brought into that Court, because the Lord Chancellor was supposed to have a parental authority in such cases, and made allowances dictated by a sense of justice which could only be done by Act of Parliament in cases where hostile creditors had brought the estate into the Court, and the suggestion made was, that in every such case—namely, that where the estates were brought into Court by creditors, the proceedings should be accelerated with all reasonable despatch. It was accordingly that object he had sought to accomplish by the Bill No. 2, to which he had already referred. The Committee further said, with great truth, that, though a Receiver might be appointed who could manage the estate beneficially, yet where the demands of a creditor were small the rents might be exhausted, and where the estate was small the rentals were often swallowed up by the present system. The Committee therefore recommended to limit the appointment of Receivers to cases in which the debt did not exceed 150l. a-year; but he was of opinion that the limit ought to be applied to those cases in which the estate, and not the debt, was small, and he therefore ventured to suggest that no Receiver should be appointed in cases in which the rental did not exceed 200l. a-year, giving the Court the power to put the encumbrancer into possession, not, however, with the fees of a Receiver, and taking care that he should not be disturbed by other creditors till his debt was paid off. Under the present system it was generally assumed that the appointment of a Receiver sealed the fate of a debtor; his property was exhausted, and during the interval of delay in the proceedings the inheritor, by collusion or contrivance, obtained all the rents he could. In order to obviate this, he proposed that when it was evident the property must be sold the sale should be ordered as early in the suit as possible. The difficulty at present was to get a proper person to act as Receiver. Now, the present Bill proposed to take away from the parties the power of nominating Receivers, and vest it in the jurisdiction of Receiver-masters, to be appointed under the Act. It was proposed to make the three senior Masters Vice-Chancellors, and the two juniors Receiver-masters, whose duty it would be to obtain and record the names and qualifications of persons fit and competent to become Receivers before their appointment. The expenses of the management of estates in the Court of Chancery were at present 20 per cent, but if these provisions were adopted they would be reduced as nearly as possible to the ordinary agency expenses of a gentleman's estate—namely, to 6 or 7 per cent. Every application now made to a Master by a Receiver was made through an attorney, and caused an addition to the bill of costs; he proposed that the Receiver should communicate directly with the Master personally, and by letter, so as to get rid of the costly system of employing solicitors to do nothing but to quarrel before the Master. Another recommendation of the Committee was that the mode of letting estates under the Court of Chancery should be changed. An estate was now let for seven, years, pending the cause, the supposition being that a Chancery suit would not last longer than seven years, and the consequence was that the tenant, not expecting to retain possession for a longer period, wracked the estate as much as he could, and when he left it was sold at a depreciated price. Another consequence of the system was to lower the value of the adjoining property as the tenants applied for a reduction of their rents in the same proportion as the reduction which had taken place on that particular estate. The Committee recommended that there should be a power of granting leases for fourteen years, but he saw no reason why the Receiver-master should not have authority to grant leases for twenty-one years upon the principle that the estate should be managed in the way in which a good proprietor would manage it. Lord St. Leonards had proved before the Committee that when he was Chancellor he had no power to grant abatement of rents or allowances to tenants, when an estate had been brought into Court by hostile litigants. This was consequently fatal to the interests of all parties, and he, therefore, proposed that power should be given to the Court to make abatements of rent and reasonable allowances for repairs such as would be made by a good and careful landlord. He had several high authorities in favour of this Bill, which he believed would give peace to the tenantry under a rental of between 600,000l. and 800,000l. a year, and he therefore trusted the House would permit him by its means to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. The object of the next Bill was to provide for the sale of estates through the medium of the Court of Chancery, and to secure the titles of the purchasers of estates sold in Court. A few years ago the Court for the sale of encumbered estates had been established. The principle of that Court was, no doubt, a sound one, but he had asserted, as much as eighteen months since, that in a short period the Court would be choked up with business, and would have to be removed. The then Solicitor General for Ireland had opposed a Bill upon this subject which had passed a second reading in 1853, but he had then told the hon. and learned Gentleman that in a short time he would support the principle of that Bill with as much sincerity as he then opposed it. That Bill gave the Court power to confer a Parliamentary title to property sold under its decree and dispensed with the necessity of instituting two suits—one in the Encumbered Estates Court for a sale, and another in the Court of Chancery for a receiver; but on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman it was thrown aside. What had since taken place? The Encumbered Estates Court had got hold of estates to the value of several millions of money. At first it worked very well, because the original Act gave the Commissioners power to avail themselves of the inquiries which had previously been made with respect to the property by the Court of Chancery; but when they came to exercise an original jurisdiction, to do the work of the Court of Chancery as well as that of a great auction mart of land, to decide difficult questions of law and equity relating to marriage settlements, deeds, and wills, they became clogged with business and incapable of providing a remedy. One principle had been acted on in the establishment of that Court, which he trusted the British Parliament would never again sanction; power had been given for the sale of the property of every Irish gentleman—for the sale of an estate upon the possession of which his happiness and that of his family might depend, and he had no power of appeal unless the Commissioners themselves were pleased to grant it. He had opposed that principle, but a high authority had said that it was a right one, and that the Commissioners had always given an appeal when it was demanded. He would now give the House a sample of the operation of that principle. He did not blame the Commissioners, for he was more surprised that so many of their decisions should have stood than that so many of them should have been reversed, considering the difficulties with which they had to contend. The Bar had generally been unable to attend the Court in consequence of its distance from the ordinary tribunals, and the Treasury had refused to place it in a more convenient situation, because it only concerned Irish property to the amount of millions. It appeared, from a Return which he had obtained, that out of forty-two cases there had been only six reversals from crises No. 1 to 19; but, then, from the reasons he had stated, the number increased, and there had been twelve reversals from the 21st to the 42nd case. He submitted, therefore, that it was high time for an alteration in this Court. He would never again agree to the argument that there ought to be an exceptional course of legislation in reference to Irish property. Let them pass a law founded upon the principle of the Encumbered Estates Act for Scotland and England, if they pleased, but they would find that any such law would be opposed by a strong cohort of Scotch Members, and justice was far too much respected in England to allow of the establishment of a Court in which the right of appeal depended upon the discretion of the Judge from whom the appeal was to be made, and in which one of the paid Commissioners was also one of the Judges of the land. He wished it to be understood that he made these observations without any disrespect to the learned Commissioner to whom he had alluded, but he trusted that when a new Court was created that no Judge of the land would be taken from the Bench to sit on it. He would state another instance of the manner in which this Court worked. An estate had been sold for 25,000l., and the unfortunate owner was obliged to pay 1,300l. interest on the debts, while the 25,000l. was lying in the Court bearing no interest. Instances of this kind had occurred to an almost inconceivable amount. He believed that it would take the Encumbered Estates Court five or six years to discharge the arrears before them. One member of the Bar, indeed, told him that in ten years they would not conclude their labours. That Court had cost the country from 14,000l. to 16,000l. a year. He did not complain of that, although every year the estimate had increased; but he proposed to increase the vigour of the Court of Chancery, to cheapen its expenses, and to engraft what was good in the Encumbered Estates Courts upon the amended procedure of the Court of Chancery. Some persons had objected that no Parliamentary title was given to sales under the Court of Chancery, but why should not the Court of Chancery give the purchaser a Parliamentary title? It cost Parliament nothing to give a Parliamentary title, while it put three or four years' purchase into the pocket of the vendor. There was an additional reason why the Court of Chancery should give a Parliamentary title, for there existed in Ireland, what England did not possess, a system of general registration which had been in existence since the reign of Queen Anne. Every conveyance was registered, and if there were an honest title to property it would generally be found registered. To the learning, authority, and experience of the Court of Chancery he proposed to super add the power of giving a Parliamentary title. He therefore proposed to appoint three Vice-Chancellors competent to do the work that the Commissioners now performed. The Masters were competent to transact the business of the Court of Chancery and of the Encumbered Estates Court, so that in July, when the functions of the latter Court expired, the Court of Chancery could dispose of the business and the arrears of the Encumbered Estates Court, if Parliament should so determine. As it was plain that the business of the Court of Chancery would be greatly increased, and as important principles where small sums were concerned would sometimes be at stake, it would be necessary to create a local Court of Appeal. At present there was no appeal except to the House of Lords, and that was a very good Court of Appeal where the estate was large, where the parties could wait three or four years, and where a large bill of costs was no object. But in cases where moderate and small estates were concerned, the liberty of appealing to the House of Lords amounted to a denial of justice. There was practically in such cases no appealing from the Lord Chancellor. The Encumbered Estates Act gave an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which cost nothing. A Court of Lords Justices, had been created in this country, which he regarded as a valuable improvement in our system of equity jurisdiction. Why should they not in Ireland avail themselves of the services of the retired Lord Chancellors and other eminent persons, and hear appeals upon the spot? He did not propose to create a new Court, or a new Judge, or a single new officer, or to put the country to the expense of a single guinea. He proposed to give the suitors the power of a rehearing before two members of the Judicial Committee called to the aid of the Lord Chancellor—a Court which could be summoned and sit at less expense than the fees of a single counsel in an appeal before the House of Lords. He had another short Bill to complete this scheme for the reform of the Court of Chancery. It was, indeed, rather a suggestion for the Treasury, since it related to the subject of stamp duties. The 4th of Geo. IV. created a Chancery fund stamp, and he proposed that stamp duties of a similar amount to those levied on proceedings in the Court of Chancery should also be paid in the Encumbered Estates Court. He never could understand why proceedings in the latter Court should be exempt from stamp duty. At present there was no Stamp in the Encumbered Estates Court either upon affidavit or any other forms of the Court. Property in Ireland had risen in value, and his proposal would raise a fund to meet expenses. He proposed to levy a shilling stamp upon notices, and a ten shilling stamp on petitions, which would bring in a considerable fund. It must be recollected that the principle of these reforms had been accomplished in England, and there was no reason why they should not be extended to Ireland. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had heard his statement, and, in conclusion, begged to say that he had remarked of this Parliament, whether its existence might be long or short, that, in his judgment, there never had sat, nor ever would sit, a body of Gentlemen more anxious to reform the laws and to recommend them to the feelings and attachment of the people; and of this he was certain, that the first duty of all who professed to be Conservatives was to remove abuses from our system of judicature, and to recommend it to the respect of the country.

said, he was bound to offer some remarks on the Bill of the hon. and learned member, especially as he (Mr. FitzGerald) was a member of a Commission to which the hon. and learned gentleman had not alluded. If he thought that this legislation was calculated to work the reforms the hon. and learned member had stated in his amusing and exaggerated speech, he would not have opposed these Bills; but as he did not believe that they would have these results, but would have a contrary tendency, and as the hon. and learned member had thought fit to introduce his Bills while a Royal Commission was sitting to inquire into these matters, he should feel it his duty to ask the House to negative them. He had to apprize the House that the hon. and learned member in his speech, had dealt, not with the present, but with the past. Many of the evils to which he alluded had been swept away, for by the Act introduced by Sir John Romilly, in 1851, the abuses which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen had to a great extent now ceased to exist. He would offer some remarks now on the Royal Commission, to which the hon. and learned member had not alluded. In 1849 a great experiment was tried in the establishment of the Encumbered Estates Court, which had been attended with entire success. In five years the sales of land had amounted to 14,133,000l., and of this sum 12,000,000l., had been distributed to the proper parties. The hon. and learned member had stated that it would take from five to ten years to bring up the arrears of this Court, but, he (Mr. FitzGerald) could tell the hon. and learned member that he was entirely mistaken on this point. He spoke upon the authority of one of the Commissioners, whose opinion of the Court was as far from that of the hon and learned member as the statements of the hon. and learned member were from the facts.

said, he understood the hon and learned member to state in the House that he (Mr. Whiteside) had stated what he knew to be totally at variance with the facts. He begged to state that he had said nothing of the truth of which he was not satisfied.

said, he did not believe that he had used language that was at all un parliamentary. He never meant to suggest to the House that the hon. and learned member had knowingly made misrepresentations to the House. All he meant to say was, that the hon. and learned member had made statements to the House, grounded upon information which had been given him, that information being totally mistaken and erroneous, and he now repeated that statement. The House would recollect that it became necessary, year after year, to renew the Encumbered Estates Court Act, and it became a matter of controversy whether the Court should or should not be kept up. This difference of opinion caused Her Majesty's Government, under Lord Aberdeen, to issue a commission to ascertain whether the power of sale given to the Encumbered Estates Court, which gave an indefeasible Parliamentary title, ought to be continued, and whether it ought to be transferred to the Court of Chancery, having regard to the existing practice of that Court. The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls of England, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns), the Solicitor General for England, the late Attorney General for Ireland (Dr. Longfield), and he (Mr. FitzGerald) was also a Member of the Commission. The Commission had worked diligently, and though it only commenced its sittings early in December, the Irish Commissioners were at present sitting to settle their Report, which he expected would, in a short time be transmitted to him for the approval of the English Commissioners, and as soon as it was in his hands a Bill should be laid on the table of the House to carry its provisions into execution. It was with a knowledge of these facts, as though to turn the Commission into derision, and to render it useless and unavailing, that the hon. Member had, in the month of February, introduced six Bills, which, with one exception, dealt with the subjects which the Commission was appointed to inquire into, and there was not a suggestion contained in these five Bills which had not been brought under the notice of the Commissioners in December last. When the hon. and learned Gentleman brought in his Bills he (Mr. FitzGerald) certainly understood him to say that he introduced them in order that they might be considered by the Commission; and he would still make this promise to the hon. and learned Gentleman—that when the Government came to legislate upon the Report of the Commissioners they would be ready to adopt anything that was valuable in these Bills, and give the hon. and learned Gentleman the credit of it. The draught Report of the Commissioners was printed ten days ago. Having inquired into the success of the great experiment of 1849, the Commissioners unanimously came to the conclusion that a tribunal ought to exist having the powers of the Encumbered Estates Court, with this difference—that it should have power to sell unencumbered estates as well as those that were encumbered, it having been found in practice that the advantage of the indefeasible Parliamentary titles given by the Encumbered Estates Court had induced the owners of estates subject to no encumbrance to effect a mortgage on their property, in order to give the Court power to deal with it, and thereby enhance its marketable value. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill, however, would confine the powers of the Court solely to the sale of estates that were encumbered. Now, the Commissioners proposed to confer the powers above described on the Court of Chancery, but they recommended that that Court should first be remodelled, that the system of Masters should be wholly swept away, and that the procedure should be rendered more simple, cheap, and expeditious than the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill would make it. They suggested that two Vice-Chancellors should be substituted for the present Masters, and made other recommendations as to the formation of a Court of Appeal. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bills, one of them was intended to improve the procedure of the Court of Chancery, but it did not abolish the system of Masters for the present, and it translated the three senior masters into Vice-Chancellors at once. This was the plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he at the same time said that the Masters had allowed the business to accumulate, and consequently implied that, to some extent at least, they had failed to perform their duty. Again, his Bill proposed to continue the remaining two Masters in their present position, and to appoint a Registrar and a staff of clerks, thereby greatly increasing the expense. The existing procedure with regard to references was also to be preserved, and the Masters would remain, though under another name. As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Procedure Bill, a learned dignitary gave the opinion that the measure had been drawn up by a person who was ignorant of the rules and practice under Sir John Romilly's Chancery Regulation Act, which provided much better than this Bill did for cause petitions. The ignorance here alluded to was not imputed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he did not prepare these Bills himself, although he had brought them in. This Bill, however, carried absurdity to an extreme length. The Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls had power to make general orders under Sir John Romilly's Act. The orders that were framed by the Lord Chancellor were not approved by the Master of the Rolls, while those that were made by the Master of the Rolls were rejected by the Lord Chancellor. An Act was passed to enable the Lord Chancellor alone to make general orders. Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the rejected rules of the Master of the Rolls and turned them into a statute. Again, another enactment of the Bill was, that every notice of Motion should have placed over it the title of "cause petition." And the Act contained a number of other similar provisions fit for general orders but not for a statute. He next came to the Receivers Act. At present there was in the Court of Chancery one Receiver-master, who was able to do all the business, and more, and do it well. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, appointed two Receiver-masters in the place of this one, to do the reduced duty. The House was not informed that, according to the plan proposed by the commission, Receivers would be comparatively unnecessary, or that the appointment of a Receiver under a judgment was now very rare. The Bill, therefore, was unnecessary, and the same learned functionary, whose opinion he had before quoted, had stated that the person who prepared this Bill—not the hon. and learned Member—was entirely ignorant of the subject. Next came the Sales of Estates Bill, the greater part of the provisions of which were taken from the Encumbered Estates Act. Now the Commissioners intended to recommend the extension of this power much further, and while this Bill dealt only with encumbered estates, they thought it was right that any owner of an estate, if he chose to incur the expense, might go into the Court of Chancery and say, "I want to sell my estate; inquire into it, and enable me to give a purchaser a clear indefeasible and Parliamentary title which no man can question." No. 5 Bill, that relating to appeals, was the last upon which he should have to trouble the House, for as to the sixth he quite concurred in its object. He quite agreed that there ought to be an Appellate Court, but he differed from the hon. and learned Member as to what the constitution of that Court should be. The proposed Court was to consist of legal functionaries, some of whom could not, without much inconvenience, leave their other du- ties to attend the sittings of that Court; and then how would it work? First, there would be an appeal from the Vice Chancellor, whom the hon. and learned Member created, to the Chancellor; from the Chancellor to the new Appellate Court, and then there would be the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal. The hon. and learned Member proposed that any one who appealed to this new Appellate Court should not be permitted to carry the case further; but his adversary, who had not appealed, was to be allowed to go to the House of Lords. In his opinion, such a provision would be in every respect unsatisfactory. He agreed that an Appellate Court was necessary, but he would not deprive any one of the right to carry a final appeal to the House of Lords; and he could never assent to the doctrine, that a man who had appealed to a local tribunal without success, should be prevented from having recourse to another tribunal in the last resort. One of the fifteen recommendations of the Commissioners was, that a local appellate tribunal should be created, to which a person might appeal from the decisions of the Vice Chancellors; and that, at the same time, a power of appeal to the House of Lords should be open to every one. Under all the circumstances to which he had alluded, he would put it to the House whether the hon. and learned Gentleman should not have been content to leave his Bills upon the table of the House until the Report of the Commission was before them; and whether he was justified in asking the House to affirm the principle of these measures by acceding now to the second reading? Could the House, in fairness, agree to this measure until it knew authentically what were the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the Encumbered Estates Court, and as to whether it would be advisable to transfer its powers to the Court of Chancery? The Commission had found it necessary to consider the construction of the Court of Chancery, and to submit recommendations which would tend to simplify it, and render it fitted to receive and deal with the new jurisdiction. On these grounds, therefore, considering that inquiry was still pending—without any wish to impute to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had stated knowingly what was erroneous, but only that the information upon which he spoke was inaccurate—he called upon the House now to reject these Bills, and to accede to the Motion he was about to make—namely, that they should be read a second time that day six months.

said, he wished to suggest the propriety of adopting a medium course between the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), who moved the second reading of these Bills, and the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, who moved that the House should reject them altogether. He thought sufficient reason had been assigned why the House, at all events, should not reject the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen until the report of the Queen's Commission was laid upon the table. He regretted that in the course taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, his hon. and learned Friend had not exhibited his usual consideration and judgment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to Her Majesty's Commission, but that Commission was merely required to Report to Her Majesty, and it would be for Her Majesty to say whether the Report should be laid upon the table of the House. The course taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was most unfair to the Commissioners, and, indeed, his hon. and learned Friend seemed to have forgotten altogether what sort of thing a Report was. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated to the House the contents of a draught Report not yet even approved by all the Commissioners, which was therefore subject to change, and which was confidential until it had been submitted to Her Majesty and ordered to be laid on the table of the House.

said, he could not refrain from remarking that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had commented in a tone of great bitterness upon a proposition which was the result of extreme labour on the part of his (Mr. Malins') hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen, and was dictated by no other motive than an earnest desire to improve the state of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Instead of addressing the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen in a tone of bitterness and sarcasm, he (Mr. Malins) should have expected that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would have tendered thanks to his hon. and learned Friend on behalf of a reforming Government for the efforts which he had made to reform a profession of which he was himself so distinguished an ornament. But, instead of meeting with thanks, the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen had been reproached with misrepresentation, and was told that he was totally ignorant of the subject he had brought before the House, but that he was not so much to blame as some other person who had prepared the Bills which had been introduced by him. Now, he (Mr. Malins) had never understood that when an hon. Member brought a Bill into that House he was to be told that it was not his Bill, but that it had been drawn up by some other person. Would the Government like to be treated in a similar manner? It was perfectly well known that a Bill brought in by the Government was not drawn up by the individual Member who introduced it; and, indeed, one of the most important Bills brought into the House since he had been a Member of it—the Succession Duty Bill—was not drawn up by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced it; but was drawn up upon the best legal advice that could be obtained, and did signal honour to those who prepared it. He (Mr. Malins) totally deprecated the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and he thought that the criticisms which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman were quite unworthy of his position. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the absurd character of the Procedure Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen; but was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland aware that it was almost entirely the same as the Bill which regulated the procedure in England? The hon. and learned Gentleman reproached the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen with having proposed two enactments, which showed the contemptible character of the Procedure Bill, one of which enacted that all affidavits were to be made in the first person. Now, was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the enactment in question was absolutely a rule in the Court of Chancery in England, made by the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellors in pursuance of the Act of Parliament? Was it then to be a matter of reproach to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside), that he had provided for the Court of Chancery in Ireland a regulation that was now a regulation of the Court of Chancery in England, rather than leave it to the Judges to make rules which, when affirmed, were as much a part of the Act as if they had been contained in the Act itself? Previous to the year 1852 practices prevailed in the Court of Chancery in England which he, as a professional man, had no hesitation in asserting were a disgrace to civilised society, and they were removed by a Bill similar to that now proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) for Ireland. The hon. and learned Solicitor General made an indignant appeal to the House, and said that the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen was guilty of an impertinence, not only to the Government, but to the House itself, in laying upon the table these six Bills while a Report was under consideration upon the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman then adopted the course which had already received the condemnation of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) of reading a draught of the Report of the Commissioners, and then said it was discreditable to bring forward these Bills while there was a Report in progress which might be totally opposed to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget, however, that only a few nights ago the Government themselves brought in a Bill respecting testamentary jurisdiction in opposition to a Report of twelve distinguished Commissioners, which was not a draught Report, but one signed and sealed after having been maturely considered. When the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill was again brought before the House, he (Mr. Malins) should certainly claim the vote of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, after his speech that evening, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Fitzgerald) could scarcely sanction the proceedings of a Government which set a Report at open defiance and acted in direct opposition to it. It was certainly with great surprise, after the indignant remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he (Mr. Malins) had found that the provisions contained in the Bills of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) so greatly coincided with the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he was almost inclined to attribute the bitterness exhibited by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to the fact that he had found himself rivalled and forestalled in bringing forward Bills for reforming the Court of Chancery in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman, said, the Encumbered Estates Court worked well. He (Mr. Malins) acknowledged that it worked well in converting Gentlemen's estates into money, but he was exceedingly misinformed if there was not a great arrear of business in that Court. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to transfer the jurisdiction with regard to encumbered estates to the Court of Chancery, and to give that Court all necessary powers. It was said that his hon. and learned Friend had copied the clauses of the Encumbered Estates Act; but he (Mr. Malins) would venture to say that if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland were to introduce a Bill on that subject he would find it necessary to copy those clauses also. The next Bill was an important one, as it effected a reform relative to the appointment of Receivers to estates. The Report also was anticipated in this respect. His hon. and learned Friend bad hit the right nail on the head ill all respects, and he suspected that the cause of all the ill-feeling towards his hon. and learned Friend evidently was, that his hon. and learned Friend would make the Report when it was presented nothing more than a series of recommendations, in conformity with his hon. and learned Friend's Bills. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had said that he entirely approved the principle of the Appeal Bill, but he raised objections to the tribunal which it would constitute. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) considered that it was of the highest importance to establish a ready and cheap Court of Appeal in Ireland. In that country an appeal lay from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and from the Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords in England; but in a great majority of cases the appeal to the House of Lords amounted to a denial of justice, on account of the delay and expense attending such a proceeding. The Lord Chancellor of England, it must be remembered, heard no original causes, but merely appeals. In Ireland, however, the Lord Chancellor heard causes originally, and the consequence was that there was virtually in that country no Court of Appeal. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to constitute a ready and cheap Court of Appeal, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and two other Judges—ex-Chancellors, Masters of the Rolls, or Puisne Judges; and he might remind the House that there was in England a tribunal of great importance, the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, to which all appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Colonies were submitted, and which was constituted precisely in the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to constitute a Court of Appeal in Ireland. He (Mr. Malins) would give his cordial support to the Bills of his hon. and learned Friend, which were the results of the labours of upwards of two years; and he considered that his hon. and learned Friend deserved the thanks of Parliament and of the country for his efforts in the cause of judicial reform, and that he ought also to have received the warm and cordial thanks of a reforming Government. He regretted that his hon. and learned Friend, instead of receiving tke thanks of the Government, had been met in a tone of reproach, bitterness, and sarcasm which, he thought, was altogether unjustifiable. He deprecated the tone in which his hon. and learned Friend had been met on the other side, and trusted the Bills would be read a second time.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke had accused his (Mr. Keogh's) hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland of having indulged in bitterness, reproach, and sarcasm, which were directed against the hon. learned, and particularly suave Member for Enniskillen. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, before resuming his seat, had assured the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) that nothing was further from his intention than to utter any expression which might hurt that hon. and learned Gentleman's feelings; and he (Mr. Keogh) would not have expected, after such a declaration, that any charge would have been made against his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, if he had not known how particularly sensitive and careful the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen was, upon all occasions, in that House and elsewhere, not to give to any person the slightest possible offence—not to use a single expression which could jar upon the ear of the House, and not to assail the reputation of any man, whether openly or covertly, manfully or anonymously. If they had not dealt with these Bills in the manner suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) he apprehended that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was himself to blame, for he was informed, before the Bills came on for discussion, that the Report which had been referred to was prepared, and he was perfectly well aware that the Commission had dealt with all the subjects to which they referred. It had been suggested to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) that he should not press his Bills until that Report was laid upon the table; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, for some reason best known to himself—whether to obtain a temporary advantage, a momentary triumph over a Commission composed of such eminent and distinguished persons, he (Mr. Keogh) could not say—thought proper to persist in forcing on this discussion. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin (Colonel Taylor) who said "Oh, oh!" was thoroughly acquainted with all the details of the Commission. He (Mr. Keogh) would submit to the House that if the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen had chosen to take the moderate and practical course of allowing those Bills to lie over until the Report of the Commissioners was placed upon the table, they would have been spared this long discussion. Hon. Gentlemen had stated that, by the Chancery Regulation Act, a great advantage had been gained in adding to the cheapness and efficacy of the Court of Chancery, but he could only say that he remembered, when that Bill was carried, that it was carried against the strenuous opposition of the present Vice Chancellor Stuart, then a Member of that House, and of a number of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who now thought fit to approve it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) proposed to make the three oldest Masters in Chancery into three young Vice Chancellors. Now, one of these three Masters was called to the Irish bar in 1815, so that he could not be much under seventy-five years of age, and surely he could not be expected at that age to commence again as a young Vice Chancellor. He would suggest to the House the expediency of adjourning the debate until the Report of the Commissioners was laid upon the table of the House; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to let these Bills stand over, the Government would consent to that course. If, however, he insisted upon pressing them, they would be obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, that these Bills be read a second time that day six months. He should move that the debate be adjourned for a month.

said, he thought it was not desirable to come to any decision upon the Bills that evening, for if they did they might find, when the Report of the Commission was laid upon the table, that they had affirmed a principle objected to by the Commissioners, or, vice versâ, rejected a principle approved by them.

said, he understood it to be the pleasure of the House that the debate should be adjourned, and he should therefore yield to that feeling. It was a perilous thing, as he had discovered, to meddle with the Court of Chancery. About six weeks ago he had had some communication with the Solicitor General for Ireland on the subject of these Bills, and that learned Gentleman having told him that on the day then appointed for the second reading he was compelled to be absent to attend on a Commission, he had consented to postpone them, and the reward of his courtesy was the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which was clever in its way, no doubt, but which lectured him in a manner to which he was not accustomed at his hands. As to the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, he had spoken in a style of eloquence which was peculiar to him. He was not aware that he had incurred that attack upon him by meddling with the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman; indeed, it was about the last thing he wished to meddle with, and his acquaintance with the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether at the bar or in that House, was so slight, that he did not know that he had any right to do so. As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about anonymous attacks made by him, he could only say that, as he did not in the least comprehend the observation, he was quite unable to reply to it. As to the appointment of a gentleman over seventy years of age, why, did not the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that a man over seventy years of age could be a Prime Minister? The gentleman to whom reference had been made was quite competent to perform the duties which he proposed to confide to him, but he could see what was the object of the Government as well as if he were in the councils of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and he would, if he were able, defeat that object. The object was to carry on a job to get the appointment of two or three new officials, and he saw through that object clearly. With regard to the correspondent of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, who wrote in such a provincial style, and said that these Bills had been framed by persons ignorant of Chancery procedure, he begged the hon. and learned Gentleman, the next time he wrote to him, to give him his compliments, and to tell him that he had neither the feelings nor the manners of a gentleman. The Chancery Regulation Act had been praised, and he could only say that the gentleman who prepared that Act had assisted him in preparing these Bills, as he had, he believed, told him that such was the case. He could only say that he should not oppose the adjournment of the discussion until the Report of the Commissioners was laid upon the table. He had endeavoured to carry a measure which was for the good of his country, and it had, as might have been expected, met with the vigorous opposition of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland.