said, he had given notice of his intention to present a petition from the son-in-law of the late Nawab of Surat, but he had first to ask a question as to the practice of the House. He had been informed that it was not competent for any Member to move that a petition be printed with the Votes, unless the Printing Committee had declined to print it. What he wished to know was whether in a case of urgency, when the subject-matter of the petition was about to come before the House, he might not give notice of Motion that the petition be printed. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) on the subject was fixed for Thursday next, and if the petition was referred to the Committee, it could not be in the hands of Members by that day.

said, that by the rule of the House for the last two years, no Member was entitled to move that a petition be printed unless the Committee on public petitions had refused to print it.

said, he begged to ask the right. hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Government deciding to renew the Bank Charter Act for another term of years, he would be prepared to introduce a clause to continue in force the arrangement by which the Bank of England agreed to pay to those private banks which consented to withdraw their paper circulation 1 per cent per annum upon the average issue of those banks in the three previous years, and to continue the same so long as the other private banks were permitted to issue their paper?

said, that the present Bank Charter Act did not require renewal. There was a power inserted in it to put an end to the exclusive privileges of the Bank on certain notice being given; but until that notice was given the Bank Charter Act remained in force. With respect to the provision to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that was expressly limited to the month of August in the present year. Therefore it would expire, unless it were previously renewed by the Legislature. In the event of no objection being made by the Bank of England, he should be prepared in the course of the present Session to bring in a Bill to continue that provision.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether Sir John M'Neill's Re- port was communicated to the authorities at the Horse Guards on its arrival in this country, and, if not, what were the reasons which induced the Government to withhold it.

said, that the noble Lord, in putting his question, had overlooked the fact that the Commissioners had made two Reports; and the Report which principally concerned the Horse Guards was dated London, and therefore could not have arrived in this country, for it was made in England. The first Report was sent by the Commissioners to the War Department in June last, not in the form in which it now appeared with the tables inserted, or with any evidence of Returns attached to the Report, but in a less complete form, being merely for the information of Lord Panmure. That Report was not, he understood, communicated to Lord Hardinge, I inasmuch as it concerned a branch of the military administration which was entirely under the control of the War Department—namely, the Commissariat. The second Report, along with the evidence and appendices, was prepared and printed by the Commissioners; and it was completed in January in the present year. It was submitted to Lord Panmure in the latter end of that month; and that noble Lord immediately gave directions that its publication should be proceeded with, and it was distributed without loss of time. The interval between its being seen by Lord Panmure and Lord Hardinge must have been very short indeed; in fact, it could not be said that there was anything like an endeavour to withhold it from the Horse Guards.

I should like to know from the hon. Under Secretary whether the document on the table contains the whole Report of these Commissioners, and, if not, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government of laying' the whole Report before the House?

There is no intention of submitting the Report in any other form than that in which it is at present before the House.

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is no answer to the question put to him.

said, he should renew the question to-morrow in the hope of then getting an answer.

said, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he had any objection to lay before the House the evidence taken before a Committee as to the management of the Board of Admiralty?

I must really beg the hon. and gallant Admiral's pardon, but he has given me no notice of his question, nor do I quite understand to what Committee he exactly refers. Undoubtedly some little time back a Committee sat at the Admiralty, composed of the Lords and the Secretary, to inquire into some details of management connected with the department. But I take it the results of such an inquiry as that ought not to be laid upon the table of the House of Commons.

Has not there been a Report given in as to the management of the Board of Admiralty?

Certainly: but it was a Report in reference to the private business of the department.

That is exactly what I want to see.

said, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the inconvenience now felt in the country from the want of equitable tribunals by means of which any difference between masters and operatives might be satisfactorily adjusted; and also, to ascertain whether the Conseils des Prud'hommes in France had answered the purpose for which they were established. The Conseils des Prud'hommes were councils composed partly of masters and partly of operatives, with a president and vice president appointed by the Government, to whom were referred all questions which arose between masters and men, and great dissatisfaction existed at the present moment among the operatives of this country in consequence of the want of some such tribunal to which they could appeal. In all the manufacturing towns the chief manufacturers were generally justices of the peace, and, let their judgments in disputes between masters and men be ever so just and equitable, the workmen viewed them with prejudice, as judgments given by persons who were connected by the ties either of friendship or of common interest with their employers, and, in fact, it was only natural for the workmen to suppose that the magistrates would favour their own class. In the course of the last week he had had an interview with a numerous body of persons belonging to the Association of the United Trades of London. That association represented 40,000 operatives in London, and he had been informed by it that the workmen were dissatisfied with the present state of the law on the subject. They considered that there was no fair tribunal for the settlement of their disputes with their masters; and further urged that even if the decision of a magistrate were fair, the obtaining of it was not unattended by expense. He did not ask for the establishment of tribunals precisely similar to those which existed in France; all he sought was to obtain a Committee, to be composed chiefly of master manufacturers and gentlemen who had turned their attention to this subject, which should inquire into the matter and decide whether or not such equitable tribunals would or would not be beneficial to this country. He had seen a, list of the grievances of printers, tailors, joiners, compositors, and workmen in other trades, all of whom were anxious that the law on the subject should be amended. If the committee were appointed, persons engaged in those trades might be examined, their complaints would be heard, and the Committee might then determine what would be the best course to pursue, and leave it to Her Majesty's Government, or some other persons to carry out their recommendations. It was of the greatest importance to avoid, if possible, the recurrence of strikes. Being connected with Lancashire as a coal-owner, he could speak to the great loss which had been occasioned by the strikes of the miners near Wigan. The owner had lost his royalty, the man who worked the mine his capital, the workman his wages, who consequently became destitute, and the result had been no benefit to any one, but an immense loss to all. In all probability we should, before this year was ended, have "piping times of peace," and it was in such times, rather than in those of war, that persons were likely to find fault with the Government and the institutions of the country. Let the House, therefore, be cautious how it gave the working classes any just cause of complaint. When peace was concluded many grievances would be pressed upon the attention of Parliament, and there would be many applications for the amendment of the law. A large number of individuals of education and ability would, as a matter of course, be thrown out of employment, whoso poverty would tell them that they had nothing to lose, "whose vanity that they had all to gain, and who would give not a little trouble to any Government which might be at that period in power. Was it not the duty, therefore, of the House to guard against such a result, and would not one of the best securities against it be to satisfy the lower classes by giving them equitable tribunals to decide between themselves and their employers? Now in what manner did a strike arise? The operatives met, agreed that they were ill used, and determined that they must have an increase of wages, say of 2s. or 3s. a week. The masters, getting excited, also met, and determined that they would not grant the request. Every one knew that if two individuals became excited or exasperated they were often not very fair to each other. If that applied to individuals, it applied with tenfold force to large bodies of men. The operatives, an uneducated body of men, became exasperated against their masters, and, having determined not to work, suffered the greatest hardships. The masters, although better educated, followed precisely the same course, and refused in the slightest degree to give way to the men. The result was a feud which was equally injurious to both. Suppose, however, that there was established in this country an equitable tribunal composed of an equal number of masters and workmen, with a master or a person appointed by the Executive Government as its chairman. Now, in that case, the operatives might appear by representatives as their counsel, who might explain to the tribunal how they were situated; that provisions were dear, that their work was very hard, and that they were obliged to ask for an increase of wages. The masters would then talk quietly with the representatives of the men; probably a moderate concession would be made by each side, and perfect good feeling would be restored. But as the law now stood, it was impossible to obtain such a result. He (Mr. Mackinnon) was not anxious for any particular form of tribunal, nor did he seek to give it power to fix maximum or minimum rates of wages; all he sought was the establishment of an equitable tribunal, which should be able to reconcile masters and workmen, and to prevent the recurrence of so tremendous a misfortune to all parties concerned, as a strike. He thought he was not asking too much in proposing the appointment of a Committee to consider whether something could not be done to effect that object. All he wished was, that fifteen Gentlemen should examine the subject to see what they could do with it. He could not conceive that there would be any objection to the appointment of such a Committee. It could damage no one except his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and others of the same profession, whose business might be diminished by the estaishment of such a tribunal as he sought for.

seconded the Motion.

said, that, when the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion moved for a Committee to inquire into the functions of the Conseils des Prud'hommes, he (Sir G. Grey) objected to its appointment, because he thought that such information could be obtained without the intervention of a Committee, and he then undertook to obtain full information as to the functions of those tribunals. With the assistance of the Board of Trade he obtained that information, and it was laid upon the table of the House. His hon. Friend then gave notice of a Motion, which he had very judiciously altered, as to the appointment of tribunals for the settlement of differences between masters and their workmen. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that it would not be advisable to attempt by means of a Committee to obtain information as to the operation of a foreign law on the inhabitants of a foreign country; and the Motion for such a Committee had been withdrawn by the hon. Gentleman, who now simply moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of establishing tribunals analogous to those Conseils des Prud'hommes, with the view of settling the differences between masters and workmen. He (Sir G. Grey) was not aware that there was any objection to such an inquiry, provided it were undertaken with a full knowledge of what those Conseils des Prud'hommes really were. He was afraid, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that he had not profited so much as he might by the information which had been laid upon the table, and that he seemed to contemplate that those tribunals would have power to settle disputes between masters and workmen as to the rate of wages. Having attentively perused the papers upon the table, he (Sir G. Grey) would state what were the functions of the Conseils des Prud'hommes. They are of two kinds, administrative and judicial. The judicial functions were confined to the decision of questions relating to subjects which were already matters of contract between masters and workmen, and had nothing to do with the rate of wages that ought to be paid by masters to workmen. The only questions on which those tribunals had power to decide were such as arose upon pre-existing contracts. It certainly might be desirable to establish in this country tribunals empowered to deal with questions analogous to those which commonly engaged the attention of the Conseils des Prud'hommes in France; but he would warn the hon. Member against the delusion of supposing that it was possible, through the intervention of any tribunal, or at all otherwise than by agreement between the parties, to regulate the amount of wages to be paid by masters to their operatives. If the hon. Member was of opinion that any practical good was likely to result from the Motion the Government would not oppose it.

said, he must beg to explain that it was not intended that the tribunals should fix a maximum of wages. Their great duty would be to promote kind feelings and amicable relations between the employers and the employed.

said, he thought that it would conduce to the interests of all parties that there should be tribunals which, though not empowered to pronounce authoritative decisions, might yet be qualified to give advice, pronounce opinions, and generally to act such a mediatorial part as might tend to mitigate the bitter antagonism of classes.

said, that on previous occasions and in various forms, he had endeavoured to call the attention of the House to the important subject of which he had given notice, and he was happy to say that, dry as the question was, it was now becoming to a certain degree popular. It had awakened the interest of many thinking men, who perceived how desirable it was that the living law should be presented in an accessible form, and extricated from the vast mass of dead matter with which it was incumbered. When, on a former occasion, he submitted a proposal to that House having simply for its object the compilation of such an edition of the Statutes as would make the law more accessible and more intelligible to the country he was strenuously and at the same time he must say most unexpectedly opposed by the Government; and, in consequence of the great activity displayed by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, in enticing into the House at a late hour of night a number of Members some of whom knew little or nothing of the Resolution under discussion, he was defeated by a majority of nine. Feeling, however, that the judgment which the House had pronounced was a vote against a great truth and a great fact, he subsequently introduced another Resolution, for which, remembering that it embodied the very words used on the subject by the Lord Chancellor in 1853, he anticipated a more favourable reception on the part of the Government. That Resolution was opposed by the Government who were defeated as they deserved. The question had attracted the attention of the Statute Law Commissioners before the close of the Session; and during the recess it was taken up in a very zealous spirit by the Society for the Amendment of the Law. That society appointed for the consideration of the subject a special Committee, of which he was proud to say that he was Chairman. It comprised the names of many able and energetic lawyers, and among others that of Mr. Pitt Taylor, an enthusiast in the cause of law reform. From the Report of that Committee he would read one or two passages, which seemed especially worthy of attentive consideration—

"In any systematic attempt to consolidate the statute law, the very first step which obviously ought to be taken is to ascertain, with as much precision as possible, how much of that law is still in force.

In another place the Report went on to say that such an edition, as he advocated—

"Would vastly facilitate any measures which might afterwards be taken for the consolidation of the statute law. Nor would the advantages derivable from this work be confined to the legistor, for the judge who has to administer the law, the counsel or attorney who has to advise upon the law, and the subject who has to obey the law, would at least be equally benefited, and this in two ways—first, the labour of ascertaining what the written law enacts upon any particular subject would be lightened, not only in proportion to the diminished bulk of the Statute-book—which would probably be reduced by the process from forty quarto tomes to ten or twelve octavo volumes—but also in proportion to the number of marginal references."

The learned men who composed the Committee saw no such great difficulty in the execution of this task. They even, contrived among themselves a plan for the expurgation of the Statute-book, which proceeded on the principle of taking one reign at a time and working backwards; they would have persevered in the work, were it not that they feared that if the Government should not sanction the project their labour would be in vain. Their scheme was, in effect, that proposed by Lord Bacon, who desired first to clear away from the Statute-book all repealed statutes, and then to remove all obsolete ones. The Law Amendment Society also agreed unanimously to a Resolution couched in these words—

"That the publication of a revised and authorised edition of the public general Acts now in force should be the first step taken towards the consolidation of the statute law."

The progress of time did but aggravate the evils of the present system. During the twenty-two years of the reign of James I. there were passed only 134 public and 168 private Acts. Now, our legislation proceeded at the rate of some 400 or 500 statutes a year. Lord Bacon complained, 200 years ago, that "the living died in the arms of the dead;" and that the laws were so complicated and incumbered that "neither common people could practise them, nor lawyers sufficiently understand them." Sir E. Coke, who lived about the same time, expressed a similar opinion, declaring that it was most desirable—

"To omit all those (laws) that be repealed, that none by them be deceived …. To make one plain and perspicuous law, divided into articles, so that every subject may know what Acts be in force and what repealed, either by particular or general words, in part or in the whole; or what branches and parts abridged, what enlarged, what expounded, so as each man may clearly know what and how much of them is in force, and how to obey them. It were a necessary work, and worthy of singular recommendation."

Lord Hardwicke, speaking more recently—100 years ago—uttered these remarkable sentiments—

"Our Statute-books have of late increased to such an enormous size that no lawyer, not even one of the largest and most extensive practice, can pretend to be master of all the statutes that relate to any one case that comes before him; and this evil goes on increasing so much every year that it is high time for this House to begin to put a stop to it."

At that time there were only six quarto volumes of Statutes; now there were forty. Since Lord Hardwicke complained of the accumulation of our laws there had been added in the reign of George III. 6,953 statutes; in that of George IV. 1,066; in that of William IV. 678; and during the first sixteen years of that of Queen Victoria, 1,864; making in all 10,561 statutes since the time of Lord Hardwicke. Were lawyers and legislators in modern days so much superior to those of bygone ages that they could overcome this enormous additional mass of Statutes in addition to that which such men as Bacon, Coke, and Hardwicke could not? He differed from what was said, the other evening, by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Baines) as to the plan proposed by the Lord Chancellor being similar to that presented to the House by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). The Lord Chancellor's plan was to expurgate first. The hon. Member for East Suffolk was to consolidate first. The following were the Lord Chancellor's words in February, 1855:—

"The first process will be to ascertain precisely the text of the statute law as it now exists by determining what statutes have been repealed (expressly or virtually), what have expired, and what have become obsolete or unnecessary in the present state of society."

The Lord Chancellor, complaining of the form of the statutes on the 14th of February, 1853, said:—

"They are all in the most repulsive form; there is no classification, but they are huddled together in the most complex fashion. The Judges are supposed to be acquainted with all law; but no human mind could master them. … Knowledge of them is impossible, and, therefore, ignorance has ceased to be a disgrace."

Again, the Attorney General only the other night said that—and he now claimed his support.

"In his judgment the best plan would be to sweep away all the statutes or parts of statutes which had been repealed, and then proceed to consolidate what remained."

And here he would, perhaps, be allowed to quote an extract from the leading journal, which met this case exactly. In a recent article The Times said—

"The indispensable requisite, then, to a consolidation of the statutes is that we should devise some exhaustive principle of division by which our labours may be economised and directed; but, in order to do this, we cannot but think it would be necessary clearly to ascertain and carefully to discriminate the subject-matter with which we have to deal. The Statute-book contains, as we showed on a former occasion, an enormous mass of private, local and personal, obsolete, expired, repealed, and partially repealed Acts, which obscure our view and impede the justice of our conclusions."

The words that immediately followed ought to be particularly attended to:—

"We must clear away the rubbish before we can ascertain the ground plan and elevation of the edifice. In order that we may divide we must distinguish, and in order that we may distinguish we must fully and completely comprehend. For these reasons, without at all pretending to deny the force of anything that was said in the late debate, we take the liberty of adding to it our suggestion of the absolute necessity that, as before we begin to codify we should consolidate, before we begin to consolidate we should divide, so before we divide we should carefully clear away and expurgate."

He regretted to have to weary the House with these extracts, but he would only read one more, which appeared in a pamphlet written two years ago by an eminent Queen's counsel, Mr. Graham Wilmore, and which gave an excellent insight into what the Statute-book really consisted of. The pamphlet, which bore the appropriate title of Confusion worse Confounded, in describing our statute law, said—

"It resembles some gigantic, deep, roomy, patched, wormeaten, old fashioned chest, perforated with drawers, pigeon-holes, corners, and other places of repository and concealment, stuffed full of a heterogeneous medley of every kind of matters concealed and confused with mould, cobwebs, dust, and rubbish, where whoever wishes to procure anything in haste has to go frantically about, opening, shutting, diving, groping, rummaging into every place, often failing in his search, and, even if he succeeds, always doubting whether he has found all that he wants. In sober fact, the printed statutes—public statutes alone—up to the end of the Session in 1851 inclusive consist of thirty-eight quarto volumes, amounting to 221½lbs. avoirdupois weight, and containing 32,903 pages.

Since that was written two volumes of new statutes, extending over 2,000 pages, had been added. The example of what had been done with the written law in France had been frequently referred to. Suffice it, therefore, to say that the French code was compressed within the compass of a single pocket volume, was published at the price of 7d.; or if a much handsomer edition was preferred, it could be had for 11s. Now that contrasted very strongly with the published price of our Statutes, which amounted to more than £100. It would be said, however, that France, being a despotic country, offered no analogy to England on such a question. The case of the New York code might therefore be more in point. On that part of the subject Lord Lyndhurst had observed:—

"In some instances the acts of our Transatlantic brethren would seem to justify the belief that men, like plants, acquire fresh vigour from being transplanted. In the State of New York all our Statutes, up to the time of the declaration of independence, were in force. From that period there had been an immense accumulation of Statutes, arising out of their new position. The inhabitants of New York were in the same unfortunate position as ourselves in this respect, but they resolved to get rid of the evil, and in 1835 competent persons were appointed to revise and consolidate the Statutes. In two years from that time the object was accomplished, and in a manner quite satisfactory, not only to the legal profession, but to the general public of that State."

What was there, he would ask, therefore, to hinder us from doing what had been accomplished under greater difficulties than we should have to encounter in the State of New York. The Government, however, despaired of being able to do the work, the Statute Law Commission also failed to do it, Mr. Bellenden Ker, the paid Commsioner, actually argued against and rejected the instructions of the Lord Chancellor, his chief. In this state of things, he (Mr. L. King) therefore proposed that an edition of the Statutes should be prepared, which, although it would not at first be authentic, would soon practically become so, after it had been subjected to correction by practice. He would recommend that the work should be done by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who was known to be a gentleman of indefatigable industry and who delighted in being usefully employed. The task assigned to that officer would not be a very difficult one, because in the library of the House of Lords there already existed an index to the Statutes from 1801 down to 1852, together with a list of repealed Statutes. Availing himself of those facilities, as well as of the labours of Messrs. Anstey and Rogers, the whole body of the living statute law might be speedily reduced by that officer within the compass of ten moderate-sized volumes. The execution of the great work of law reform would add to the popularity of any Government, and serve to render illustrious in after times the reign of Her present Majesty. The great Napoleon, after subjugating to his Imperial sway the larger portion of the civilised globe, looked upon his military conquests as insignificant in comparison with the fame to be won by the accomplishment of a peaceful improvement such as that to which the present Motion referred, and gave utterance to his noble sentiments on this subject in the memorable words—"I shall go down to posterity with this code in my hand." Whatever victories this country might be destined to achieve, no victory could be greater than that which should make justice triumphant over injustice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he doubted whether the Clerk of Parliament could undertake the duties proposed; but, with that exception, he fully concurred in the Motion of his hon. Friend, and the House was indebted to him for his perseverance, and, as a Member of the legal profession, he thanked him for it. If we were to have codification, it would be necessary to begin with the codification of the statute law. The first thing to be done was such a codification that the people might know what the law was. Even the most barbarous nations promulgated the law so that it should be understood. What his hon. Friend proposed was, as far as possible, to simplify the expression of the statute law, and to get rid of many vain and useless repetitions. He agreed with the Law Amendment Society, that they should begin with an expurgation of the Statute-book. He would now call attention to the Commissions which had been appointed for the purpose of consolidating the statute law. Mr. Bellenden Ker's Commission had been guilty of great inconsistency. It adopted a course of proceeding quite opposed to the instructions which the Lord Chancellor had laid down. What was the present Commission, of whom was it composed? It consisted of many distinguished names. There were the names of the Lord Chancellor, of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, and of other learned personages, but it was obvious that they could not devote their time to the consideration of this subject. He (Mr. Ewart) said that they ought to get rid of ex-officio Commissions altogether. They ought to appoint paid Commissioners. He would propose that they should appoint three chief Commissioners, who, with a staff of subordinate officers, should devote their whole time to the duty of consolidating the statute law. So simple was the codification of the French law that a knowledge of it did not require the viginta annorum lucubrationes mentioned by Lord Coke, but could be mastered by a person of reasonable ability within the space of three years. He believed that nothing satisfactory would be done until a Minister of Justice were appointed to guide and direct the proceedings of the Commissioners. Such an officer would supply the real motive power which would give an impulse to the subordinate machinery. For those reasons he should give his most cordial support to the Resolution of his hon. Friend.

said, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) in his observations with reference to the appointment of a Minister of Justice and the general question of the consolidation of the Statutes, for those subjects were entirely foreign to the Resolution under consideration. He must say that he hoped the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King), in many of whose opinions he fully concurred, would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the work contemplated by his Resolution was one of a very important and gigantic character. It was not only a work of very great time and labour, but it was one that could not be performed mechanically. It did not involve the mere excision from the Statute-book of those statutes which had been partially or entirely repealed, but it was a work that could only be performed by a person who possessed great legal knowledge, and who was thoroughly acquainted with the subject. Could it be assumed that a gentleman whose time was already so fully occupied as that of the Clerk of the Parliaments would be competent to undertake a duty of this important and extensive nature? There was, however, another ground of objection to the Motion, which called upon the House to resolve that an edition of the Statutes should be prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the use of that House. Now, the Clerk of the Parliaments was not an officer of that House, but the only person properly designated by such a title was an officer of the House of Lords, and he did not think the House of Commons could direct an officer of the other House to prepare an edition of the Statutes for the use of hon. Members. Now, that alone appeared to him an insuperable objection to the Motion; but, however they might agree in the expediency and in the necessity of an expurgation of the Statutes, he thought such expurgation—which must precede the consolidation of the Statutes—and the consolidation of the law itself should be placed in the same hands. The two things were parts of one great and entire work, and the sooner it was achieved the better. If the present machinery was inadequate for the purpose, let other machinery be devised; but he thought it quite clear that the expurgation of the Statutes and their consolidation should be placed under the superintendence of the same persons. He thought, therefore, the hon. Member for East Surrey would see that the means by which he proposed to accomplish that important object were not adequate for its attainment. He did not wish to disparage in the slightest degree the labours and exertions of that hon. Gentleman with reference to the consolidation of the Statutes and the improvement of the law; but when the hon. Gentleman complained that his proposition did not receive the concurrence of the Government, but on some occasions met with their opposition, he should remember that he did not always bring forward those propositions in such a form that the Government could assent to them. In the present case, certainly, the hon. Gentleman must feel that it would be useless for that House to adopt a Resolution, calling upon an officer of the House of Lords, without the consent of that House, to perform certain duties for the House of Commons.

said, he entirely concurred in many of the observations that had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General; but his objection to the Motion was, that the two objects which it proposed were impracticable. In the first place, it provided that the Clerk of the Parliaments should ascertain what Statutes or parts of Statutes had expired or were repealed, and, next, that a revised edition of the Statutes—with the repealed enactments struck out—should be published for the use of that House. Now, the Clerk of the Parliaments, independently of his not being an officer of that House, was no more qualified for that task, and had no greater means at his disposal for its accomplishment, than any individual who might by chance have been named. Then, with regard to the publication of a revised edition of the Statutes, the Motion referred only to statutes and parts of statutes which had expired or had been expressly repealed; but there were many statutes which had become obsolete and nugatory, and, some months after the publication of the edition of the Statutes contemplated by the Resolution, it might be found that a new and revised edition was required omitting the obsolete statutes. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) refer to what had been done in the State of New York, as if it bore any similarity to what was called for in this country. In New York they had to deal only with the general public Acts that related to their own State; but here we had to deal with all the public Acts relating not only to England but to Ireland, Scotland, the East Indies, and the Colonies, besides the innumerable local Acts and the financial and revenue measures that from time to time had been passed by Parliament. To undertake the consolidation of our Statutes would therefore be a work of much greater magnitude in this country than in New York. In the minds of some Gentlemen codification and consolidation appeared to be regarded as much the same thing; but no impression could be more mistaken. The truth was that codification would be found utterly impracticable till it was based on the foundation of a good and effective consolidation of our statute law. He believed that if the hon. Gentleman and his friends would only act with forbearance towards the Commission which had been appointed to consider the subject, and leave them to do their best without fettering them with unnecessary instructions, they would be able, before any great length of time elapsed, to achieve more for the consolidation of the statute law than had been accomplished since the days of Lord Bacon.

said, he was at a loss to discover in the present Motion anything like a step towards law reform, or a simplification of the laws. The proposition of the hon. Member for East Surrey appeared to have for its object the getting a convenient pocket edition of the Statutes at the public expense, Now, he must deprecate the idea of that House deputing to the Clerk of the Parliaments, an officer of the House of Lords—even if they could do so, or any other officer, such a work as that contemplated by this Motion; for there was nothing more difficult than for the Judges to decide whether one statute, or part of a statute, repealed another, and it had occurred that a wrong decision had been given in consequence of a misconception of the powers of an enactment. If they were to consent to such a revision of the Statute-book as that proposed, it would have no more authority in the courts of law than any of the editions of the Statutes now published by members of the legal profession, and besides which, it would be a useless expenditure of the public money. With regard to the codification of the laws, he had not yet heard in that House a practical suggestion for its accomplishment. It was all very well to talk of the codifications of Justinian and Napoleon, but they had neither of them a House of Commons to deal with, and it would be impossible for England to obtain a codification of her laws without its being discussed phrase by phrase in that House, and he need hardly ask hon. Members how long it would take to discuss, and what sort of a thing they would make of such questions as related to religion, education, the game laws, &c. If the House consented to name a Commission for that purpose, with absolute power to form a code, they would soon have it; or if they empowered Her Majesty in Council to draw up a code, they might have it in a few months, or a year; but so long as there was a House of Commons to be consulted on every phrase and on every branch, it appeared to him codification was impossible. Consolidation would eventually lead to a simplification of the laws of the country.

said, he considered the Motion now under consideration as one great step towards law reform. It was, however, perfectly idle to talk of the consolidation of the Statutes before their expurgation; and he thought that if the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) effected it within eighteen years, instead of within eighteen months, as he had stated he could do, a statue should be raised to his honour on the highest spot in London, The present condition of the statute law was an utter disgrace to the country. It was contained in the forty-five volumes before them, through which the law student and the practitioner had to wander in search of information, and when they had so wandered, it was questionable if they had not passed over the very statute that they had been in search of. Indeed, it was known that oftentimes, notwithstanding all the care both of the bar and of the Court, the particular statute applicable to a case on trial was overlooked, and when the mistake was discovered, the suit had to commence anew. The portions of the Statutes which were repealed should he expurged from the Statute-book, and when that was done they should have a statute on every subject, so that when they wished for a change in the law they would have but that one statute to alter. As an instance of the present state of the law let them look to the law of landlord and tenant upon the subject of distress, or the right of the landlord to distrain the goods of the tenant. On that one subject they had seventeen or eighteen separate enactments, so that if a country gentleman wished to ascertain his rights in the matter he would have to wade through that quantity of legislation. He would certainly suggest that that portion of the Motion which said that the consolidation should be performed by the Clerk of the Parliaments should be struck out. For himself, provided it was done, he did not care by whom it was done; but if a tree was to be judged by its fruit, he was bound to say that, seeing that the Commission of which the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk was a Member had effected nothing during three years, he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would be able to carry out his promise and complete the consolidation within the space of eighteen months. If they would look to the earliest statutes on the books, they would find that they were in themselves codes, short, precise and accurate. Such was the character of Magna Charta itself. The laws of the reign of Edward I. were just the same, being short, simple, and to the point. It was not until the time of Henry II. that they began to envelop their laws in a quantity of words. The evil then commenced had gone on from time to time until it was now longer to be endured—whether it was that such a course had been deemed necessary, or that, like law proceedings, it became profitable to write out a quantity of what was called rigmarole. He should like to see all that changed, and a Commission appointed to carry out the codification of our laws, so that each man might know what the law was on any particular point, how he should act in relation to it, and where to go for his remedy, if required. Now, he must say that he considered it right that that House should take the first step towards so desirable a result, and he thought that the consolidation proposed by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) would be of benefit not to the House only, as had been stated by an hon. Member opposite, but to the country at large, and it behoved them to put their shoulders to the wheel and carry it out.

said, he thought that though the hon. and learned Member for Hull (Mr. Watson) had discussed matters in which the Members of that House generally agreed, he had not addressed himself to the Motion then before them. There was no doubt that it was desirable to have a consolidation of the Statutes; and it was no doubt desirable that when they had such a consolidation, they should have such an edition of the consolidated Statutes as would give lawyers and every other portion of the community the easiest and best mode of acquiring a knowledge of the law. However, the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey would not accomplish that object, nor enable a person to see at once what statutes existed, and what had been repealed. Should they, therefore, take up the time of the House discussing the general proposition, on which there was no difference of opinion, when it was clear that the Motion could not effect what all agreed was wanted. Under these circumstances he put it to the good sense of the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion.

said, he would move an Amendment on the original Motion, to leave out the words "under the direction of the Clerk of Parliaments," and, also, "for the use of this House."

said, he must deny that the term "obsolete" could be applied to any statute as long as it continued on the Statute-book. The first thing to be done was to strike out repealed and expired statutes and repealed clauses of statutes; when that was accomplished the Statute-book would be reduced to a small number of volumes.

said, he was willing to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), but could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General and withdraw the Motion, because he was in earnest on the subject, and would persevere until he had accomplished his purpose.

said, that even in its amended form the Motion was very objectionable, for it set forth that there should be a revision of the Statutes, without stating in what manner, or by whom, such revision was to be effected. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put, and negatived."

said, he rose to move that the House would resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the tax known as "Ministers' Money," in order that the said tax might be wholly abolished. He had so often brought the subject under the attention of the House that he would not then occupy much of its time, hut it would be only right upon his part to state clearly in what position the question had been placed by the Bill of Sir John Young passed in 1854. That measure was not, as had been alleged, a compromise between the Government and that party with which he had the honour of acting upon this question, nor did he believe that it was a compromise between Members of the Government who differed in opinion upon the subject. On former occasions, when he brought the question before the House, he had based his opposition to this tax on the objection that it was vexatious and irritating; that it was a test of religious ascendancy in the minority, and of religious inferiority in the majority. He also objected to the tax because it was partial as an impost. It was confined to eight towns in Ireland—and those, too, Roman Catholic towns—while other rich towns, like Belfast, where the Protestants were more numerous, were exempt from the collection. Now, Sir John Young's Act was an aggravation of both those grievances, and for that reason, because, not content with the impost as it stood before, it required the town councils to be the collectors of it—the tithe proctors of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the result of its effect was, that those town councils, with one accord, had resolved not to collect it; and, for the last year, they had collected none of it. Dublin, indeed, in that respect, was an exception, for there it had been collected; but there the town council were not required to be the collectors. However, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a gentleman of Conservative tendencies, and strongly attached to the Church, had attended a meeting convened to protest against the tax, and, at that meeting, he had taken the lead in opposition to the tax. He might say that he had never known a greater agitation in Ireland—not excepting the famous tithe agitation, if he might compare great things with small—than that which existed during the last year in those eight towns against the tax in question. That argument which used to meet him about the existence of the tax for 200 years, and that the abolition of it would be a spoliation of the Church in favour of the owners of houses, into whose I pockets the money would go, could not now be raised, seeing it had been removed by the Act of 1854. Moreover, injury to the incumbents, which he for one never desired, and always had provided against, was no longer to be feared from the abolition of the tax, for they had been paid during the last year out of the fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Protestants themselves were now strongly in favour of the repeal of this impost. He, therefore, maintained that such a payment out of the fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was quite consistent with the Church Temporalities Act—indeed, that it was intended to have been included in it; for certain he was, if excluded, that then the £12,000 or £15,000 which was omitted from its provisions was more vexatious to those eight towns than the £70,000 which was provided for by the Act in question. The income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was very considerable, amounting, he believed, to very nearly £100,000 a year, and was every year increasing. He would admit that within the last two years their expenditure had also increased, for last year they had a surplus income of £12,000, in addition to a very large sum in hand, and he saw no reason why the House of Commons should not ask them to pay the incumbents, and thus relieve the Roman Catholic inhabitants of those towns from this highly objectionable tax. If the Government could adopt some plan for facilitating the sale of perpetuities, the funds of the Commissioners might be largely augmented. The estimated value of perpetuities yet unsold amounted to £600,000, which alone, if well administered, would be ample for the purposes to which the existing tax was applied. He did not know what course the Government intended to take that night, hut for himself he would say that he would persevere year after year until he succeeded in repealing the tax; but he must confess he should almost despair if the Government, under existing circumstances, refused to allow him to bring in the Bill. He could not believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, after he had given the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) permission to introduce his Church Rates Bill, which would interfere with the large sum of £600,000, would object to his bringing forward this Bill, which involved a question of only £12,500, especially as the noble Viscount was bound by the pledge which was given by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) at a time when he was one of the Members of that noble Lord's Government. On that occasion, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland supported his Motion. All the law officers in Ireland also tendered it their support, and he believed that, if he now went to a division, he should receive the votes of a very large majority of the Irish Members.

seconded the Motion.

said, he must admit that his hon. Friend (Mr. Fagan) was fully entitled to the character he had claimed for himself of having always been an honest and straightforward agitator on this question, and that his agitation had been accompanied by a considerable degree of moderation and good sense that had commanded a success which agitation did not always carry with it in that House. With regard to his consistency, also, he readily admitted that the hon. Member had been perfectly consistent in having taken no part in that which he termed a compromise—namely, the Act known as Sir John Young's, and which he now asked the House to amend. He (Mr. Horsman) thought, however, that it would be inconvenient to follow his hon. Friend through all his criticisms on the present law, his remarks on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the remedy he proposed for altering a law which he stated was not satisfactory. Thus for he would say, that, as regarded the operation of the existing law, it was not satisfactory. He quite agreed with him that in some respects the Act required amendment; but he did not think it was necessary that he should go further, and state in what respect it required amendment, or whether he could concur in the views expounded by his hon. Friend with regard to the manner in which he would have it amended, or as to the ultimate object he had in view—the total repeal of the tax. His hon. Friend had stated distinctly that in his opinion the tax should no longer be levied in the present manner, but that it should be provided for out of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was evidently a subject upon which they could not now enter. The discussion upon the proposal would come more properly on the second reading of the Bill, if the House chose to permit its introduction, and agreeing, therefore, on the part of the Government, to allow his hon. Friend to introduce a measure with a view to amend the Act of the 17 & 18 Vict. he would reserve any observations which he might have to make in regard to the ultimate proposal until the second reading, when the whole question might be fully and satisfactorily considered and discussed.

said, he must confess that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken him altogether by surprise, because when the Government were asked the other night if they had any measure in contemplation with regard to the Act respecting Ministers' Money, the answer was shortly and emphatically "None." [Mr. HORSMAN said, he had never given any such answer.] He did not say the right hon. Gentleman gave that answer; but when the Government were asked the other night if they had any measure in contemplation with regard to the Act respecting ministers' money, the answer was very emphatically—"None." Whatever were the inconveniences of working that Act, of course the Government must be aware of them; and if, seeing an evil to exist, they had themselves no remedy to propose, but allowed a private Member to bring forward a measure, the discussion upon which they reserved until the second reading, when, in all probability, it would be got rid of for another year, he put it to the good sense of the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether there was any more effectual way, especially with respect to a question which affected ecclesiastical property, of keeping open a running sore, and of perpetuating discord and animosity. He contended that it was an unworthy and unmanly course of proceeding, and that whatever the Government thought to be fair and right, they should have come forward in a manly way and proposed it, and then have left the House to discuss it fairly and say "aye" or "no" to the proposition. Let the House observe how the matter stood. The measure was introduced in 1854; and who introduced it? Sir John Young and the present Attorney General for Ireland, then Solicitor General for Ireland. Subsequently, however, the names were changed, and that of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), at the time Secretary of State for the Home Department, was placed on the back of the Bill, in lieu of that of the Solicitor General for Ireland; but the hon. and learned Gentleman gave his support to the Bill throughout. Hero, then, was a Bill passed two years ago, when the noble Lord was Home Secretary, to settle the question upon certain terms, which were at the time thought proper and convenient terms: and now in the beginning of the year 1856, the noble Lord was prepared to allow a Bill to be introduced by a private Member for unsettling the whole of that arrangement. What he wished to observe was this, that the course taken by the Government was an inconvenient and unmanly course; and that he said without meaning the slightest disrespect towards them, but only to speak his mind in plain, hut not uncourteous language. If any inconvenience had arisen in the working of the Act, the proper party to bring forward an amended measure was the Government itself. He granted that the arrangement with regard to the town councils might not, perhaps, have been well considered; but an alteration on that point was not the real object of the Mover of the Resolution. Suppose they changed the hands that received the money, did they believe that that would settle the question? [Cries of "No, no!"] But if that was to be the settlement of the question, surely the Government ought to have proposed it. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) of inconsistency, for he was not in office at the time Sir John Young's Bill passed; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was Home Secretary at the time, seconded the Motion for the second reading, and his name was on the back of the Bill. He remembered the noble Lord on the occasion putting the argument in this way:— This tax, said he, was a charge upon property; the large proportion of the owners in fee of the houses which were assessed to the tax were Protestants, and he thought it would be hardly fair to relieve those wealthy Protestants from the charge. If the Bill were allowed to be brought in, it would lead to great disappointment, and again ho repeated that the course taken by the Government was not one that was cither creditable or manly.

said, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) that it would have been more creditable to the Government if they had themselves brought in a Bill to amend the Act of 1854, supposing it required amendment, than to have endeavoured to avail themselves of a measure introduced by a private Member to effect that object. The question of Ministers' Money was one of great annoyance to the inhabitants of the eight corporate towns where the tax was levied, and what the Government ought to have done was to introduce a measure for its total abolition at once.

said, he must, in common with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, express his astonishment at the course the Government had announced its intention to pursue, and thought, that if the Government sanctioned the introduction of a Bill the object of which was to upset what was regarded as the settlement of an important question two years ago, they should now be prepared to say fairly and frankly how they proposed to deal with that question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that Sir John Young's Act did not work satisfactorily; and surely the right lion. Gentleman ought to be able to inform the House in what respect he conceived that to be the case, and to show in what way he would amend it. But the Resolution of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) went a great deal further than the Chief Secretary seemed disposed to go, for the last line of that Resolution stated that the object was to accomplish the entire abolition of the tax, and the hon. Mover and Seconder had both frankly declared that they would be disinclined to support any measure that had not that object. He thought, therefore, the House was entitled to hear from the noble Lord (Viscount Paltnerston), who was a party to the settlement of 1854, whether it was the intention of the Government to support the entire repeal of the tax, or whether it was merely intended to propose a Bill which should have for its object an alteration in the mode of levying the tax. He (Lord Naas) regretted exceedingly that the question had been reopened. He believed that it had been settled in a satisfactory manner, and seeing that such a number of grievances complained of by the hon. Member for Cork had been removed by that settlement, he could not help saying that it was rather premature, at the end of two years only, to come down and propose to reopen the question in this way. At all events, the Government should be prepared to state clearly what course they intended to take respecting it.

Sir, with regard to the unmanliness of not opposing a Bill upon its first introduction, and reserving one's views upon it for the second reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) may entertain peculiar opinions; it is sufficient for me to say that I do not entirely agree with him. As to the zeal with which ho and his friends have prepared to resist the Bill, I may appeal to the benches opposite. [The noble Lord alluded to the small number of Members present upon the Opposition side of the House.] They afford a striking proof of the real sincerity and earnestness with which the friends of the right hon. and learned Gentleman have prepared to support the Government in the course which they say it is unmanly not to take, namely, opposition to the introduction of the Bill. Certainly, if we had intended to resist the Motion, it is quite clear that we should have received the extreme and cordial support of the numerous gentlemen now sitting upon those benches. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Oh, you ought to have refused permission to bring in the Bill on the simple ground that this question ought to be settled once for all." This is not the first time we have heard language of that kind. I am old enough to remember many occasions upon which this House has been urged for similar reasons to refuse to permit the introduction of measures for the relief of the Roman Catholics. But does the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that it matters much upon what stage of a measure the House arrives at a decision with regard to it? Does he imagine that there is any particular virtue in a refusal to permit a Bill to be brought in, which does not attach to a refusal to allow it to be read a second time? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have just the same means of enforcing his opinions by argument upon the second reading as upon the introduction of the Bill. We think it more respectful to those whose feelings are interested in this question to allow the measure to be brought in, than to reject it at once; but we reserve to ourselves full and entire liberty to take upon the second reading whatever course we think it best and most expedient to adopt.

said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated, that it was a matter of no consequence whether the decision of the House was pronounced on the introduction of the Bill, or on the second reading. Now the object of the Resolution was, the total and entire abolition of the tax, and he did not understand from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he was prepared to support a measure of that kind. He merely said, that he was disposed to admit that the working of the Act had not been satisfactory, and that the measure might he amended. By that, he (Admiral Jones) presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that, possibly, the money which had to be collected under the Act, might be collected in some other way than at present, and not that the tax should be entirely abolished. But the Resolution of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) went to its entire abolition, and if he consented to the Resolution, he considered that as an honest man he should be bound to vote for the Bill.

Sir, I think, with regard to the form of this Motion, that it is generally inconvenient to pass Resolutions, from which it may appear that the House had made up its mind as to the questions to which they relate. In dealing with certain questions, we are forced to take that course in order to introduce a Bill, but in this case no necessity of the kind exists, and such a course would naturally give rise to misapprehension and induce many persons out of doors to think that the House had come to a resolution to abolish this tax. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fagan), without at all disapproving the view taken by the Government, that leave ought to be given to bring in a Bill with regard to Ministers' Money in Ireland, that it would be more convenient for him simply to move for leave to bring in a Bill in order to abolish that tax. No doubt, upon the second reading we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland what his views are with respect to the substance of the question. I had hoped that the measure prepared by Sir John Young would have been satisfactory, but I am sorry to hear both from the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, and from the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Horsman), that it has not. If that be the case, it would then be the duty of Government to propose some Bill to amend the defects in the present law. Upon the second reading of the measure, we shall no doubt hear their views on the subject, but I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fagan) will now adopt the course I have suggested.

said, that Sir John Young's Act, so far from being satisfactory, was protested against by every corporation in Ireland affected by it. Numerous petitions were presented against it, and he and his friends remained in the House night after night for the purpose of defeating it. Sir John Young, in proposing it, was actuated by the mischievous spirit of wishing to carry out his own proposals in spite of every remonstrance. He (Mr. Maguire) wished to express his extreme dissatisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. The Government were expected to take some decisive step, and it was not manly or straightforward on their part to refuse to deal with the question, and to leave it in the hands of a private Member. If the right hon. Gentleman attempted to cobble up the miserable abortion of Sir John Young, he would signally fail, for the people of Ireland would spurn and resist it. They would not be satisfied with the amendment of the present law, they desired its total abolition.

said, he must confess that the statement made by the Secretary for Ireland had disappointed him, for he had not expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have been insensible to the deep feeling which this tax had produced, not only in the particular towns where it was imposed, but generally throughout Ireland. On the day when the deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman, several hon. Members of that House, unconnected with corporate towns in Ireland, voluntarily attended, in order to impress on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of settling this question. He had heard with deep pain the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) that evening, and he was sure that, if that right hon. and learned Gentleman were acquainted with the oppression which the tax caused in the city he (Mr. Sullivan) had the honour to represent, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last to advocate it. In the last valuation, the clergyman in one of the parishes of that; city, anticipating what might occur by reason of the passing of a Bill on the subject, took care to value property which had never before been brought under the imposition of the tax, and raised his income 40 or 50 per cent. Was that the species of justice which the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocated, and was that the sort of tax which he claimed as property for the Established Church? He would tell the Government that the Catholic population of the taxed cities were determined by every legal and constitutional means in their power to resist the imposition. He could only characterise the Bill introduced by Sir J. Young on this subject last Session as abominable, and declared that it produced universal dissatisfaction. The people of Ireland, particularly the Catholic portion, expected that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who owed his position in that House to no particular party, but to the universal assent of the people of England and Ireland, would have on this occasion shown some sympathy with the people oppressed by this tax, and would have, to a certain degree, made his Government memorable by announcing in an honest and manly way the total repeal of the abominable imposition.

said, that, in consequence of what he had heard in the course of the debate, he should withdraw his Motion for a Committee, and move at once for leave to bring in a Bill for the total abolition of Ministers' Money in Ireland.

said, he wished to observe, when he heard hon. Members denouncing this odious tax, which was imposed on eight cities in Ireland, that a similar odious tax was imposed on two cities in Scotland, one of which he had the honour to represent, and it was called the Annuity Tax. He trusted, therefore, that if the Ministers' Money were repealed in Ireland, there would also he a repeal of the Annuity Tax in Scotland, for what was good for one country would be good for the other.

said, he was given to understand that neither of the two great parties in the House intended to oppose his Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for compensation to tenants for improvement of land in Ireland. However, instead of expressing his satisfaction at there being no opposition to the introduction of his Bill, he ought rather to express his surprise that they should leave to a Member sitting below the gangway the honour of introducing a measure with regard to the necessity of which both parties were agreed. Two Bills on tenant right were introduced in the Sessions of 1852 and 1853, by two successive Ministers; the one under the auspices of the Government of Lord Derby, and endorsed with the responsible names of the then Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Secretary for Ireland; the other, under the sanction of the Government of which the present Premier was a distinguished Member, and the care of which was confided to the Irish Secretary. The preambles of the two Bills concurred in reciting that it would tend to the improvement and better cultivation of laud if provision were made by law for securing to tenants in Ireland compensation for improvements made in land in their lawful possession, and likewise would be expedient to provide compensation for improvements made by outgoing tenants. It followed, or ought to follow, that both parties were of opinion compensation should be made for improvements to Irish tenants. How was it that no such Bill had been introduced by the Government? The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) said he had received no encouragement to do so. He (Mr. G. Moore) candidly confessed that he must admit the truth of the reply. The noble Lord had received no encouragement to protect the rights of the tenantry of Ireland, just as the noble Lord the Member for the city of London received no encouragement in 1847 to protect their lives. The noble Lord had not received that wholesome encouragement which alone induced Ministers to move—that encouragement which, subsequently to 1847, was extended to the noble Lord the Member for London at the time of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and was so exceedingly efficacious, pour encourager les autres. In many successive Sessions Mr. Sharman Crawford endeavoured in vain to induce Parliament to consider this question. At the general election in 1852, however, the Irish people, admonished by previous errors, sent to those benches, not the scanty remnant which lingered there, but half a hundred representatives, pledged to carry a measure for securing Irish, tenant right. Yielding to that most formidable encouragement, the Attorney General, under Lord Derby's Government, discovered that his whole life had been passed in the elucidation of the question, and that he had just succeeded in arriving at its solution—that Mr. Sharman Crawford was only a young beginner, and that he was the real Simon Pure. He would do the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) the justice to say ho did introduce a measure which, under proper encouragement, might have been ultimately moulded into a great boon for the tenant farmers of Ireland. Unfortunately that result was prevented, and the measure and the Government perished together. On the accession of the next Ministry, the motive power, encouragement, was divided nearly half and half, and the consequences were half and half measures on the part of the Government and the Opposition. Both Bills were sent to a Committee, and the Committee reported to the House. He hesitated to pursue the question further because he hesitated to speak with disrespect of either side of the House of Commons, but he thought no hon. Member would venture to assert that the proceedings which ensued were creditable to either party. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin and the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) taunted the right hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) and the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald). The hon. and learned Members for Athlone and Ennis retorted upon the hon. and learned Members for the University and Enniskillen, the hon. and learned Serjeant the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) plaintively upbraiding both sides in succession, and both sides in succession laughing at the learned Serjeant. Those matters were written in Hansard, and he had no wish to revive disagreeable and ridiculous reminiscences. But, although in the present state of Irish encouragement, he believed that neither party in the House would undertake the conduct of this disturbed and perplexed question, at the same time he was glad to say, neither party was so lost to a sense of what was due to their own character for consistency, as, by refusing leave, virtually to admit that two successive Executives had made two successive bids in a dishonest auction for Irish votes. He felt satisfied that such men as the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin on the one hand, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England on the other—men fairly representing the legal authority of both parties, men responsible not only to party and ephemeral reputation, but to their own name and fame as jurists and statesmen, meant what they said when they declared it was just and wise and expedient, to provide compensation for improving tenants in Ireland. He would not, therefore, at the present stage of proceedings, be guilty of such impertinent waste of time and words as to endeavour to confirm by any authority such as his principles which rested on such high authority as theirs, or to argue that which they had admitted and maintained, namely, the claim of Irish tenants for compensation for improvements of land, in whose behalf he now asked leave to introduce his Bill. He would simply conclude by moving for leave to introduce a Bill—

"To provide for the better securing of and regulating the custom of Tenant Right as practised in the province of Ulster, and to secure Compensation to improving Tenants who may not make claim under the said custom, and to limit the power of Eviction in certain cases."

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that since he had originally stated his intention to refer it to a Select Committee, it had been represented to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that it would be more convenient to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole subject of civil service superannuations, to which Committee this Bill might be referred. That was therefore the course which he should propose to pursue, as it would give greater facilities for an investigation into the entire subject. The Committee would not be confined to the examination of evidence strictly within the four limits of the Bill, and all persons affected would have the opportunity of stating their case before it.