said, he wished to put a question to Mr. Speaker upon a matter affecting the proceedings of the House. There was a difference of opinion as to the privilege which Members had in raising discussions upon the different stages of the Appropriation Bill. It was contended by some that Members had the same right at the different stages of the Appropriation Bill that they had upon Supply, seeing that the Appropriation Bill was in fact to give legal effect to the Votes in Supply, and the application of the public money. There were others who seemed to be under the impression that upon the different stages of the Appropriation Bill they were limited to observations simply on the clauses of the Bill. He was anxious, for the guidance of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them what the rule was. He perceived by looking back that there had been various proceedings taken on the stages of that Bill. Last year, on the third reading of the Bill, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) introduced the whole question of our foreign policy, and the Italian question, and the Prime Minister also made a long speech on foreign policy on the same occasion. On a previous occasion the late Mr. Lucas brought on the unequal operation of the income tax in one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill. It was most important that they should adhere to their rules, but at the same time that they should depart from no constitutional privilege which they had enjoyed.

In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that Members have no more privileges with respect to the Appropriation Bill than with reference to any other Bill before the House, and that any observation which they may wish to make, and any Amendments which they may wish to propose, on this Bill, ought to be strictly relevant to the question before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to give me notice of the question which he has put to me, I have been able to refer to the Report of a Committee of which I had the honour to be a member in 1837, and on which also the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) sat. That Committee was appointed to consider the state of public business at that time, and I have no doubt it will be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that a very inconvenient and irregular practice had been introduced of moving Amendments upon the Orders of the Day. Members asserted that they had the right upon the Question that an Order of the Day be read, of moving any Amendment they thought proper, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) will turn to the Report of those proceedings, he will find that most of the Amendments to which he has referred were Amendments on the Orders of the Day. The Committee consulted the then Speaker, Mr. Abercromby, and all those persons connected with the House of Commons who had had the greatest experience in Parliamentary matters, and I will read to the House a paragraph from their Report bearing on this question; but I must first explain that the Committee recommended that this practice of moving Amendments on the Orders of the Day should be discontinued, and that there should only be two Amendments allowed on this question—namely, that the other Orders of the Day should be read, or that some particular Order should be read. They proceed to state:—

"Your Committee have been given to understand that, according to the practice now followed, it would be considered disorderly to interpose upon this question (unless, of course, with the excepts stated of a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means), by interposing any question not strictly relating to the Bill, which the House by its Order has resolved upon considering; and they have therefore deemed it unnecessary to provide against the occurrence of an attempt to disturb this course of proceeding, although they wish strongly to impress upon the House the propriety of maintaining what they deem to be the established practice at present, should any attempt to interfere with it be made.

This I take to be a clear statement of the rules of the House, and that Members have really no greater privileges with reference to the Appropriation Bill than on any other Bill. With reference to the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for London last year, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, the noble Lord, I remember, put himself in order by referring at the commencement of his speech to certain votes in the Appropriation Bill, upon which the noble Lord founded the observations he then made.

Was that recommendation ever affirmed by a Resolution of this House?

That Report was framed after great consideration. It stated what was the rule of the House at that time. That rule has been maintained ever since, and it is a rule which I shall consider it to be my duty to maintain until the House shall otherwise order.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the Report from the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the system of manufacturing salt in India, to effect any change in the present salt monopoly of the Indian Government in the Presidencies of Bengal and Madras, or to lower the rates of duty on salt.

said, that the Report alluded to by the right hon. Baronet was not yet completed. A great portion of Bengal had not yet been reported on, but when the Report was completed it would be the duty of the Indian Government to consider the whole system with a view to its revision. The Commissioner was a man of great experience and authority, and no doubt the steps taken by the Indian Government would be in conformity with his Report.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland the name of the magistrate before whom any informations were sworn, the date of the same, and the day upon which a warrant was issued for the apprehension of Mr. James Sadleir?

said, if he might be allowed to interpose between his right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman, he would take the liberty of pointing out the great inconvenience of putting questions of this kind when it was not in the power of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom the question was addressed to enter into a full explanation of the circumstances pending a criminal prosecution. Independently of that consideration, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had just received information from Ireland that a statement had been made that morning by the Master of the Rolls from the bench, bringing several charges of a grave character against his conduct in the administration of his office as Attorney General. If any Member of that House should think fit to bring any specific charge against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was prepared to give a complete answer to it in that House, but if no hon. Member was prepared to embody his suspicions, if he might so call them, in the form of a Resolution, to be submitted to the House; then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as soon as he could obtain an accurate copy of what had fallen from the learned Judge, would himself be ready to bring forward the question in that House, and would give the House a full and complete explanation of the course which he had pursued. In the meantime, he hoped the House would not call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman for any statement, either in reference to this question or in reference to the notice which had been given by a right hon. Gentleman for to-night, which it was the opinion of the Government it was inexpedient, under the circumstances of the case, that he should make.

said, he must beg to explain that the reason of his putting the question was in consequence of an apparent discrepancy in the dates mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald).

said, that it had been publicly stated by the officer of a company, called the Central American Commercial and Agricultural Company, that he had in his possession a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, setting forth definitively the limits of the British settlement of Belize and its dependencies. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether that document was in existence, and if it were, whether there would be any objection to lay it on the table of the House?

said, that in the year 1836 a letter was addressed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Sir G. Grey), who was then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, to a Mr. Coxe, in which he stated what were at that time the views of the British Government with regard to the limits of the settlement of Belize. If the right hon. Gentleman moved for the production of the letter, there would be no objection to lay it on the table.

said, he would then move for the production of a copy of the letter.

Sir, I rise pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the services of the corps of Royal Engineers in the Crimea. I do so because there is a disposition abroad to depreciate the services of the British army in the Crimea. I think it high time that something should be done to counteract this tendency to detract, and I believe that my statement this evening will be a step in that direction. No detractor has ventured to question the courage and the conduct of the British soldiers of the general service. So far as the special corps are concerned, I have never heard any one bold enough to say the British Artillery was second to any in the world, and my statement this evening, I trust, will show that the British Engineers were equal, to say the very least, to any body of Engineers that ever took the field. The war that has just terminated, unlike any other modern war on record, narrowed itself into one mighty siege. The victory of the Alma was but the introduction to the siege of Sebastopol, and the battles of Balaklava, of Inkerman, and of the Tchernaya, were but futile attempts on the part of the Russians to raise that siege. A fortress important rather for its uses than for its strength—a fortress so low in the scale of scientific defence that it was supposed, erroneously enough, to be open to a surprise, so moderately fortified that it was considered liable to the affront of a coup de main, became, under the pressure of circumstances and by the mere force of earthworks erected by the genius of Todtleben, one of the strongest places on record, and held at bay for eleven months the chivalrous valour and the military science of the world. This war, then, being a siege, it follows that the battle was fought by science. It was a war of engineers, and I rise in my place to claim for the British Engineers their full share in the achieving that great result which has brought about the peace. There were three great turning points on which the success of the war depended. First, there was the selection of a place of landing in the Crimea; secondly, there was the decision as to which front of Sebastopol should be attacked—for we were not in a condition to invest the whole, according to the real acceptation of the term; and thirdly, and most important, was the discovery of the key to the position of the front to be attacked. Now, Sir, I may at once avow that I claim for the British Engineers the decision on all these three points, and I shall confine myself, as much as possible, to proving that this was the case. I must trust to the indulgence of hon. Members while I place historically before them these three questions in their relative positions. It will be seen at a glance that this question widens itself from a corps question into a national one. What I now say, by the aid of the press, will be spread far and wide. What I now say will, doubtless, by many be impugned, and it therefore behoves me to start on a proper base, and to go on adding fact to fact in order to be able to defy all contradiction. In January, 1854, on account of the appearances in the East, Colonel Vicars, with three engineers, left England to place themselves under the orders of Admiral Dundas, who commanded in the East. At Gibraltar, Colonel Vicars was taken ill, and the command devolved upon Captain Chapman, now Colonel Chapman, whose distinguished services I have had occasion previously to bring under the notice of the House. These officers joined the fleet in the Bosphorus, and were despatched to reconnoitre the strong position of Maidos, near the Dardanelles. Now, at this juncture the home authorities were without any precise information with regard to the East. In this dilemma, Sir John Burgoyne, whose high position as Inspector General of Fortifications, might well have excused him from the arduous undertaking, volunteered his services, at this inclement season, to proceed to the East, to make military observations of such forces as should be sent by the allied French and English armies in support of the Turks, in the event of a war with Russia which then appeared imminent. His services were accepted with eagerness. On his way through Paris the Emperor Napoleon associated with him, Colonel Ardant, an officer of French Engineers. These two officers proceeded together to the Dardanelles, and inspected the position of Maidos, and afterwards of Boulahir, preferring which latter the officers of Engineers were withdrawn from Maidos to reconnoitre Boulahir, which they did in that inclement season, the snow being then deep on the ground. Sir John Burgoyne and Colonel Ardant then proceeded to Constantinople to reconnoitre the position of Bujukchekmedji, about twelve miles from Constantinople, a strong position, intended to be made the base of operations and to cover Constantinople. Colonel Ardant went forward to examine the position of Kara-su, where strong lines of defence were available, connecting the sea of Marmora with the Black Sea. Sir John Burgoyne meantime went to Shumla to confer with Omar Pasha, and he reconnoitred and reported upon Varna. Thence he returned to England, leaving Colonel Ardant at Gallipoli. Now, while Sir John Burgoyne was at Constantinople, there was presented to him a project for the defence of that town by certain French officers attached to the embassy—these lines of defence were to pass from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn, and from that to the Bosphorus, passing within a mile of the suburbs of Constantinople. The ground no doubt was ably taken up, but Sir John Burgoyne at once pointed out that it was faulty, because it passed close to an enormous population, and a city liable to conflagration as Constantinople notoriously was; but the principal objection, however, was, that it abandoned to the enemy the Bosphorus, which was our only means of communication with the Black Sea. This plan of defence, therefore, was abandoned in favour of that of Kara-su, which in every point resembled the lines of Lisbon, with a similar advantage of the stronghold of Bujukchekmedji. War being at length declared, the allied army was sent to Gallipoli, and took up the intrenched post of Boulahir; they then proceeded to Constantinople, leaving a small force to occupy Gallipoli. The Russians having made no impression on the Danube, notwithstanding their vast military resources, and the allied armies having advanced to Varna, in support of the Turks, the proceedings of Sir John Burgoyne and of Colonel Ardant were criticised as being too cautious and unenterprising, by taking up a defensive position for Constantinople and the Dardanelles; but it must be remembered that at that time the war had not begun, and it could not have been supposed that the Russians, who, in so arrogant a manner, had forced on the war, should have been held entirely in check by the Turks; and it was therefore requisite that Constantinople should be protected, and the Dardanelles, without which there were no means of communicating with the Sea of Marmora, the Bosphorus, or the Black Sea, which latter was at that time in the possession of the Russian fleet; in a word, it would have been impossible to trust an allied army in that country if such a strong position as Gallipoli and its adjacents had not been found. Such was the opinion of the Emperor Napoleon, and, what is more to my purpose, such was the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne. In August, Sir John Burgoyne was sent out to command the engineers in the Crimea, and was placed upon the staff. In September the army embarked at Varna for the purpose of invading the Crimea. And now, Sir, I come to the first point I wish to prove, namely, the selection of the part of the Crimea in which the landing was to be effected. A council of war assembled on board the Caradoc. It was attended, on the part of the French, by General Canrobert, by Colonel Trochu, one of the French staff, and by General Bizot, the French engineer; and on the part of the English, by Lord Raglan, by Sir George Brown, by Sir Edmund Lyons, and by Sir John Burgoyne. The French held the opinion that the best place to land was at the mouth of the Katcha, and I believe that Sir George Brown coincided with that opinion, but he said, "Before coming to a decision on this point, I think we ought to know the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who has had more practical experience than any other officer present." On this Sir John Burgoyne declared that the Katcha was not the proper place to land, that it was a difficult and defensible ground, and close to the resources and reserves of the Russians, and he pointed out, on the other hand, that the safest place for the allied forces to land was at the Old Fort. Sir John Burgoyne's representations were made known to Marshal St. Arnaud, who at once grasped the idea and consented to the proposition. The landing, therefore, was safely effected at the Old Fort, and Eupatoria in the rear was seized and occupied. The abandoning of the idea of landing at the Katcha was very distasteful to some of the officers of the French staff, but when that place fell into our hands, it was seen that Sir John Burgoyne's estimate of the difficulty was right, and that an attempt to land there would most probably have been followed by failure and disaster. I therefore think, Sir, that I have now proved my first point, and that I have a right to claim the selection of the place of landing for the British engineers. I come now, Sir, to my second point—that is, the selection of the side on which Sebastopol was to be attacked. After the battle of the Alma the troops advanced towards Sebastopol, across the rivers Katcha and the Belbek. Now, the intention of the French, and for which they had prepared projects, was to attack Sebastopol on the north side. Sebastopol on the north side was situated on a promontory, and its defences were placed on rocky heights, having in front of them strong ground of a very defensible character, narrowed by the bay of Belbek on one side and the broad and deep valley of the Tchernaya at the head of the harbour on the other side, the promontory being dominated by a strong permanent work called the "Severnaia." Now, Sir John Burgoyne did not think that the north side of Sebastopol was the side to be effectually attacked; he rather held to the opinion that it should be attacked on the south side, and he wrote a Report to Lord Raglan, giving his reasons for holding that opinion, an extract from which Report I will now, with the permission of the House, proceed to read—

"The communications with the fleet, whence all resources were necessarily obtained, would be from the fine bays and harbours of Balaklava, Kamiesch, and Kazatch, instead of from an entirely open beach, which was alone available on the north. The fronts that were exposed to attack were extensive, and, though naturally of great strength, were not more so than that of the north, which was limited, and, consequently, admitted of defence after defence. The south side covered the docks, barracks, and all the great establishments of the place; whereas, if the north promontory were obtained, there was the harbour still intervening, which could not be crossed by any means; and the only resource would have been a bombardment, and not possession. In rear of the encamping ground to be occupied by the allies in front of Sebastopol on the south side was a compact and most powerful position facing the country, and the communication to it from the harbours was direct and comparatively short, while on the north there was no favourable position on the laudside; the ground to cover the camp and landing places must have been of enormous extent, for that landing could not have been nearer than the Katcha, as the Belbek was commanded by the enemy's batteries, and the communication would have been much longer, and over two heights instead of one. The enemy, if attacked on the north, having but one front of the garrison, of moderate extent, to cover could have greatly increased the outer field army for raising the siege. In thoroughly considering every circumstance, it is impossible to conceive how the operations could possibly be sustained against the north side; nor how the army, were it to remain there, could avoid some frightful catastrophe."

This Report, Sir, was sent to Marshal St. Arnaud, and that officer, with his usual sagacity, accepted the idea, and consented to attacking Sebastopol on the south side. Then came the question, how was that to be done? If there be one axiom in war more cogent than another, it is that an army should never separate itself from its base; and if there is any other axiom equal to that in cogency, it is that a flank march should never be made in the presence of a powerful or victorious enemy. Yet, at first sight, it would seem that the proposition of Sir John Burgoyne, who said "March boldly from the north to the south," embraced both these military errors; but it was not so in fact. He proposed to leave one base, but the base moved, so that he should fall upon it again; and the flank march to enable him to reach the south side of Sebastopol was not made in the face of a victorious but in the rear of a flying and disorganised enemy, and it would place the allied army between Menchikoff and Sebastopol. The movement was, therefore, undertaken, and the army sat down before Sebastopol, never to rise from it again till it left that place and its defences a shapeless ruin. I think, Sir, therefore, that I am entitled to say that I have proved my second point, and that I have a right to claim the selection of the side on which Sebastopol should be attacked for the British Engineers. The siege was now commenced with scanty military means. There were only 300 or 400 sappers where there should have been as many thousands—for it should be remembered that behind the earthworks at Sebastopol was ranged the whole military power of Russia—and where, if there had been as many thousands, it would have saved thousand of lives and millions of money to the Allies. There were eighty officers of Engineers sent to the Crimea; of these forty-three were killed, wounded, or put hors de combat—a wholesale slaughter without a parallel. Many of these officers passed in that inclement season, and under what the French call "fire of hell," 100 nights in the trenches, making nearly a third of the whole time of the siege. Under that fire the executive officers, Chapman and Gordon, erected batteries of so substantial a character that they were not damaged by the fire of the enemy. The British artillery destroyed the fire of Todtleben, the Russian artillery swept from the face of the earth the French batteries, but no missile hurled against the English batteries stopped for one single moment their steady, sure, and onward course. I shall now come to my third point. From the first reconnaissance of Sebastopol, Sir John Burgoyne perceived that the Malakoff was the key to the position of the front attack, and he so represented it to Lord Raglan. After the battle of Inkerman he again impressed on the authorities that the Malakoff was the place to be attacked. Upon the arrival of General Niel, the French aide-de-camp of engineers to the Emperor, a council of war of the allied engineers was held; at that council of war Sir John Burgoyne again represented that the Malakoff was the key to the position, and that it should be attacked. After the council of war had been held, wishing to place on record his opinion he reduced it to writing, and, through Lord Raglan, sent it to the French engineer General Niel. The following day General Niel called a council of French engineers to take under consideration Sir John Burgoyne's memoir—they prepared a procès verbal of what there took place, and sent a copy of it to Lord Raglan for Sir John Burgoyne's information. The first paragraph of that procès verbal stated that the Malakoff should be attacked in compliance with the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne. The words used were these—

"II résulte des dispositions adoptées en conseil, et suivant le vœu exprimé par le Lieutenant Général Sir John Burgoyne, que des travaux d'approche devront être exécutés devant la tour Malakoff, afin de pouvoir attaquer, par ce point dominant, le faubourg de Karabelnaia, en même temps qu'on donnera l'assaut à la partie ouest de la ville."

I think, therefore, Sir, I have a right to say that I have made out my third point, and that I am justified in claiming the discovery of the key to the front attacked for the British Engineers. Now, Sir, that I have established the claim of the British Engineers to the merit of deciding on the three turning points of this war—they forming a part, and an important one, of the British army—what becomes of the case of those who would seek to depreciate the services of the British army in the Crimea?

Sir, an appeal has been made to me not to put a question of which I have given notice, and which has reference to a charge made a week ago in this House against one of the Judges of the land, a very esteemed Friend of mine. With that request I unfortunately cannot comply. I heard my friend charged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, with disregard of the obligation of his oath as a Privy Councillor. To that charge I listened with the deepest pain; but I did not interpose, because I thought that it would be better to wait until I was in full possession of all the facts of the case. Of these facts I am now completely master, and, being so, I am prepared for any investigation which it may be thought right to institute, yet I am now to be told that inquiry is inexpedient, and that my mouth is to be closed, and that I am not to rebut the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Sir, I must protest against such treatment, and I confidently rely on the sense of honour and justice which distinguishes this House. I stand up not so much to repel the charge of the Attorney General for Ireland—though that also I am prepared to do—as to defend the right of an absent man—a man of as high honour as ever sat in this assembly—a man of unblemished character and unimpeachable integrity, and one of whose friendship I have ever been proud. I rise, Sir, to solicit the privilege of making a short statement, and of putting to the Attorney General for Ireland this simple question—whether he is prepared to abide by the charge which he made in this House a few evenings since against my right hon. and learned Friend the Irish Master of the Rolls? If so, I am prepared to meet him on that point. I will meet him anywhere—in this House or out of this House, and I will fearlessly declare what I honestly believe—that his charge is wanton and unfounded. That charge is, that there has been on the part of the Master of the Rolls, a disregard of the obligation of his oath as a Privy Councillor. I have myself the honour to be a Privy Councillor, and so, too, have the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, and my learned friend Mr. Brewster. We are all Members of the Privy Council, and it is essential to our honour that it should be distinctly understood what are our duties and obligations as such, for it would appear, according to the doctrine laid down by the Attorney General for Ireland, that it is part of our duty to go as informers to the Castle of Dublin, and, if we are Judges, to lay before the Lord Lieutenant the particulars of the cases which may have come under our judicial cognisance, with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings. According to the doctrine of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland the Master of the Rolls, who, by his assiduity, acuteness, and great learning, had unravelled a most notorious fraud, was bound under the obligation of his oath as a Privy Councillor to put the Irish Executive in motion, and to lay before them such information as would have induced them to interfere, in order that the criminal—a Member of this House—might be brought to justice. The case of the Attorney General for Ireland is, that a crime was committed; that the criminal has fled, and is no longer amenable to the law; and that his facilities for flight and the consequent miscarriage of justice are to be attributed to a disregard on the part of the Master of the Rolls of his solemn oath as a Privy Councillor and of his duty towards his Sovereign. Sir, I heard that accusation with profound indignation, but I have now obtained an accurate knowledge of all the facts, and I am prepared to abide by any decision that the House may pronounce on the statement I am about to submit. On the 3rd of March, the affairs of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank came before the Master of the Rolls for Ireland on a Motion under the Winding-up Act. The Master of the Rolls investigated the case with all the patience, diligence, and industry, for which he is remarkable—and that, let me assure you, is saying not a little, for there never sat upon the bench a Judge who was governed by a more intense love of justice. He saw at a glance that there had been fraud of a gross and gigantic character. He investigated it carefully and most minutely, and in the judgment which he delivered on that preliminary motion, he emphatically called attention to the swindling which had occurred, and which affected a large number of persons and a vast amount of property; and he made especial allusion to the fictitious balance-sheet that had been signed by a gentleman who professed to act on behalf of the directors. The observations which fell from the bench on that occasion were canvassed by the public press, and on the 10th of March the leading journal of this country, commenting upon the case, urged the propriety of taking measures to prevent the escape of the parties implicated, and recommended that the attention of the public prosecutor should be called to the subject. Subsequently the matter came under the consideration of a Master in Chancery, on an application relating to certain English shareholders, who had been victimised. The Master heard the case, and certainly he was of opinion—though the facts on which he based that opinion are not known to us—that those shareholders were liable, and in so deciding he also released other parties from the imputation of fraud. But from that decision, there was an appeal to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland. It came on for argument at the latter end of the month of May, and was earnestly debated by some of the most learned and able men at the bar. I have a shorthand note of the proceedings, and I beg the attention of hon. Members to the importance of the dates. On the 3rd of June the arguments ended, and the Attorney General for Ireland asserts, that upon that occasion the Master of the Rolls disregarded his duty as Judge. [Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD: No, no!] I beg your pardon, I heard the charge made, and I have a distinct recollection of the words. I heard it made, and I also heard the words cheered by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. The charge was that, before being prepared to give judgment, the Master of the Rolls prematurely broke out in accusations against the Government—that if the offender had escaped, his escape was attributable to this precipitate expression of opinion—and that that eminent Judge had also violated his duty as a Privy Councillor in not communicating the criminatory facts and documents which came before him to the Lord Lieutenant, who would have handed over the facts and the materials to the Attorney General for Ireland, to enable him to prosecute. On the 3rd of June, the Master of the Rolls, after alluding to the enormous frauds that had been committed, and intimating that from the very great importance of the case, his Honour would defer his judgment to a future day, said—

"That the Irish Government appeared to have taken no notice of the case, and he must say that, if the Government remained quiescent, they would be guilty of the greatest dereliction of their duty to the public, and could not complain if the public should say that they had connived at the matter; and that there might be no mistake about it he would read what the law was from the judgment of Lord Campbell in the case of Burnes v. Pennell (2d House of Lords' Cases, p. 524). His Honour then read from the judgment the quotation about the fictitious dividend of £15 per cent., and that directors giving such were guilty of a, conspiracy, and were liable to be prosecuted and punished, the same as the last quotation afterwards given in his Honour's written judgment. Mr. Fitzgibbon then read from the Banker's Act, that such frauds were punishable by prosecution and imprisonment; and his Honour concluded by saying, 'he would wish to know if such a system of fraud was to be carried on in a civilised country and no notice taken of it.'"

The materials for a criminal prosecution having presented themselves, the Master of the Rolls, finding that in the interval, between the 3rd of March and the 3rd of June, nothing whatever had been done to bring the delinquent to justice, declared there could be no doubt that, speaking on the authority of the opinions expressed by Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, a criminal fraud had been committed in the case which he was investigating. The real party inculpated by these observations was undoubtedly the Member for Tipperary. This occurred on the 3rd of June. In a letter addressed to me the Master of the Rolls says, that every fact and statement referred to in his judgment was supported by some one or other of the affidavits deposited in the Master's Office, or in the hands of the official manager of the bank. Thus, every source of information accessible to the Master of the Rolls was equally as accessisible to the law officers of the Crown. Soon afterwards the remarkable letter from John Sadleir to his brother, directing the latter as to the mode in which the fraud should be committed, was discovered, and having been lodged with the official manager, came to the knowledge of the Attorney General for Ireland on the 14th of June. Now, Sir, I boldly avouch that the Master of the Rolls has done his duty as a Privy Councillor. What are the obligations contained in the oath taken by a Privy Councillor? In Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i., page 230, it is stated—

"The duty of a Privy Councillor appears, from the oath of office, which consists of seven articles—1st, To advise the King according to the best of his cunning and discretion. 2nd. To advise for the King's honour, and the good of the public, without partiality, through affection, love, need, doubt, or dread. 3rd. To keep the King's counsel secret. 4th. To avoid corruption. 5th. To help and strengthen the execution of what shall be there resolved. 6th. To withstand all persons who would attempt the contrary. And lastly, in general, 7thly. To observe, keep, and do all that a good and true councillor ought to do to his sovereign lord."

Therefore, in the face of this House and the public, I challenge the Attorney General for Ireland, as a man of character and honour, to point out what part of this oath has not been faithfully and scrupulously observed by a Judge as fearless as he is faithful. I call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state the grounds upon which he has impeached the conduct of the Judge, who, by dint of great learning, assiduity, and zeal, has succeeded in unravelling a gigantic system of fraud, and in eliciting sufficient materials to enable the Law Officers of the Crown, by the exercise of proper diligence, to detect the criminal and bring him to condign punishment. Well might any man, under the circumstances, have been astounded and indignant at no inquiry being instituted, and no step taken in order to put the delinquent on his trial. The Master of the Rolls, as was to be expected, was surprised at this, and he made the observation imputed to him. Now, Sir, what occurred on the 3rd of June? A telegraphic message came across to know the day on which the Master of the Rolls intended to give his judgment in form—the Master of the Rolls having postponed his formal judgment that he might put it in a final shape. A more elaborate judgment I never read—it brings home to the parties, beyond a doubt, the case against them. That was on the 20th of June. Now, what was done between the 3rd of June and the 20th? After the judgment of the 20th of June, the Attorney General for Ireland, for the first time, applies to the Master of the Rolls on the subject. The Master of the Rolls sees the counsel of the Attorney General in chambers, and he gives the right hon. and learned Gentleman every information in his power, and tells him where to get the documents. After the 3rd of June the letter of Mr. John Sadleir to his brother James appeared. The Attorney General, on the 17th or 18th of June, said that the criminal had escaped; but mind, I do not want to mix up the two questions more than necessary. I came here to defend the Master of the Rolls, and to speak out my mind that he has been injured wrongfully in the face of the public; that a gross fraud having been detected, it has been imputed to him that through him the criminal has escaped justice. Now, I say that up to the time I have indicated, the Master of the Rolls applied his mind to the case, and furnished the means by which the criminal could be secured. It is painful to have to defend a man who has discharged his judicial duties so ably, from the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has held him up to the world as not having discharged his duty as a Judge, and as violating his oath as a Privy Councillor. I have for many years had the satisfaction of labouring with the talented, indefatigable, and honest Master of the Rolls; the friendship and regard which I contracted for him have never since its commencement for a moment diminished, and I trust it never will; and of this I am certain, that a more able and more painstaking, a more impartial Judge, and one more devoted in his duty to his Sovereign, never sat on the bench. I feel it to be most painful to have to defend such a Judge from being held up in this House as having violated his duty as a Judge and a Privy Councillor. I should be sorry if the Attorney General for Ireland were denied the amplest opportunity for offering explanations. This case must be thoroughly sifted, because the honour of this House is involved in it. A Member of this Assembly stands charged with having been concerned in a gigantic fraud, by which many innocent persons in this country would have been victimised but for the intervention of the Master of the Rolls—he has escaped from justice, and it is essential that we should inquire by whose default his escape has arisen. For myself, I can only say that in any such investigation I shall be glad to render my best assistance, with a sincere desire that every man impugned should have a fair opportunity of defending himself. I hope, therefore, that the Government will afford the earliest opportunity for an inquiry to take place. The public demands one, and it must be conceded. But the point which I wish to put to the Attorney General for Ireland is this—he may have unadvisedly and in a moment of inadvertence made this charge against the Master of the Rolls. If so, I call on him unequivocally to retract it, and frankly to acknowledge that it cannot be sustained, and then, for myself, I shall be content that this painful controversy should at once terminate. But, on the other hand, if these unfounded aspersions are not unambiguously and explicitly withdrawn—if the slightest stain is still attempted to be cast upon the spotless honour of this upright and learned Judge, I have no alternative but to pursue this inquiry to the uttermost, until we lave a full investigation into all the circumstances.

Sir, the House will doubtless recollect the challenge thrown down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and I can assure it that I am not one who will allow him to recede from the position that he has taken up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he was about to impeach the character of a Member of this House, should, I think, have acted with more delicacy—more generosity—to have yielded to the suggestion of postponement, being informed that within the last hour a telegraphic message had been received, announcing that a Court of Justice has this day been desecrated, and a scene enacted in it of such a character as I confess I am unwilling to credit. Until that intelligence has been confirmed it will not do to assume that it is unquestionably authentic, and therefore I think that this question ought not to be taken piecemeal, but should be brought on when an opportunity shall have been afforded for those full and clear explanations to be given, in which I hope to be able satisfactorily to defend my own character from the attack which has been made upon it; and also to vindicate the Government, of which I am a member. If the learned Judge who has been referred to has been guilty of misconduct—and from the information I have obtained I should think there has been gross misconduct—the matter is one which demands the fullest explanation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, who exhibits a plausible generosity in dealing with his political adversaries, declines to postpone his question for a single day, and calls upon me for an explanation, when he knows that I cannot have in my hands at this moment the requisite information or the full particulars of the charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman commenced his observations by referring to the proceedings which took place on the 3rd of March, at least six weeks before I held the office of Attorney General. I was not sworn in as Attorney General for Ireland until the 14th of April. I vacated my seat in this House upon accepting office. I was subsequently charged with the performance of an important public duty—that of conducting the prosecution at Cavan against the murderers of Miss Hinds; and it was not until the 14th of April that I actually filled the office of Attorney General for Ireland, yet I am called upon by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer for proceedings which took place on the 3rd of March. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—and he says he heard it—that in this House I accused the Master of the Rolls of disregarding his oath as a Privy Councillor, and of dereliction of his judicial duties. Now, I did neither the one nor the other. I ask the attention of the House to what did take place on this occasion, and to put a fair construction upon the language used. I have not been in communication with any parties upon this subject, but I have derived my information solely from the public newspapers. I shall first, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a newspaper, the authority of which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be disposed to impugn. Nay, I am prepared to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my information leads me to believe, that the statement in the Dublin Evening Mail is taken from a manuscript judgment of the Master of the Rolls, delivered on the 3rd of June last. I wish to call attention to the statements contained in that judgment, which led me to address some observations to this House on a subsequent occasion. The case was argued before the Master of the Rolls; and the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy), one of the counsel in the case, who appeared for the official manager of the Tipperary Bank, having referred to some observations on the part of the English shareholders that there was fraud in the case in respect of which they ought to be discharged, proceeded to say:—

"That the evidence offered on this appeal had gone beyond the case made in the Master's office, and therefore that much of it was not admissible. The appellant had made his case without charging Mr. James Sadleir with fraud. He had never applied to amend his affidavits or alter his case. He called upon his Lordship to confine the evidence to the facts pleaded; and as there was no case of fraud by Mr. James Sadleir made on the appellant's affidavits in the Master's office, he submitted his Honour ought not to permit it to be now made."

Now, I must inform the House that, from the 4th of March, this case had been under investigation in the office of Master Murphy, that James Sadleir had been examined as a witness, that he had made affidavits in the case, and that five days previously Master Murphy pronounced his judgment, in which he acquitted the parties before him, including James Sadleir, of the charge of frand. [Mr. NAPIER: The letter of John Sadleir.] That interruption on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unnecessary. The letter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was not discovered until the 13th of June, ten days after the Master of the Rolls made the observations I am about to read. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in calling attention to that important letter, because I am prepared to state, that if there is a sustainable charge against James Sadleir it is based upon that remarkable letter, which did not see the public light until the 13th of June. Master Murphy, who is known to many Members of this House as a lawyer of great experience and a most industrious Judge, and of whom I may say, without meaning to disparage the Master of the Rolls, that his character stands as high as the character of that learned individual—Master Murphy, having delivered a written judgment, acquitting all parties before him of fraud, the case came on appeal five days afterwards before the Master of the Rolls, who, in the course of his observations, said:—

"Although, as I have stated, I intend to consider this matter attentively before giving my judgment, still there is one question which I consider it to be a duty due by me to the public to pass my opinion on at present. I wish to express my unbounded astonishment that the Irish Government have not thought fit to take any notice of this case. It is of the last importance to the interests of both parties that they should do so; and, if they choose to remain quiescent, and shrink from the duty that devolves upon them of placing this case before the prosecutors for the Crown, I think that they will be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

"When giving judgment I purpose to enter into the facts at considerable length, and I undertake to prove that, if Government determine upon continuing to be quiescent, they can have no right to complain if the public charge them with connivance at conspiracy. I repeat that the Government must interfere. They may, perhaps, pretend ignorance of the law that is applicable to this case, but I will now lay it down for them distinctly."

At a subsequent stage of the proceedings the Master of the Rolls said:—

"It was objected that no case of fraud on the part of James Sadleir had been made before the Master. If the appellants believed that there bad been combination and conspiracy between the two brothers, and if, to avoid any question on the point raised, they desired to hand in affidavits of these matters, he would permit them to be received—the official manager to be at liberty to answer them if any new question of fact were raised by them."

No one, Sir, can read that statement of the Master of the Rolls without regarding it as a distinct charge made by him from the seat of justice against the Irish Executive of dereliction of duty and connivance at crime. When I speak of the Irish Executive I speak of myself, for if there has been dereliction of duty on the part of the Irish Government it is upon me that the responsibility rests, and I am the last man to attempt to shrink from that responsibility. I saw the statements I have read accidentally on the 6th of June. It happened that a copy of the Freeman's Journal, which contained a petition agreed to by the corporation of Dublin against a Bill before the House, was sent to me, and the judgment of the Master of the Rolls being in the same paper I thus became accidentally aware of the observations he had made. Shortly afterwards a question was put to me on the subject by the hon. and learned Member for Dunkald (Mr. Bowyer), which I immediately answered. Subsequently I was interrogated by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), and finally a question was put to me by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), which led to the observations that are now the subject of controversy. The hon. Member for Mayo did not affect to disguise, what was apparent from the terms of his question, that its object was to impute to the Government connivance in the transactions which were the subject of judicial investigation. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: Hear!]—In answer to that question, observations fell from me in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier) asserts that I impeached the character of the Master of the Rolls, either judicially or in his capacity of a Privy Councillor. Sir, I wish most distinctly to deny both those assertions. I answered as fully as I could the question of the hon. Member for Mayo. I explained in detail what had taken place, and the hon. Gentleman having asked whether Mr. James Sadleir had escaped from this country, and if so, whether I could account for his escape, I replied that, from the moment the attention of the Irish Government had been called to the subject there had been no want of vigilance or activity in setting the law in force, and in rendering any persons who had been guilty of crime amenable to justice. I further stated, that if James Sadleir had left the country—a fact of which I was not aware—he had done so in consequence of the alarm created by the observations of the learned Master of the Rolls. I also said, what I state again, that I considered those observations irregular—"irregular" being the strongest observation I used. I will read from The Times the exact language that I used:—

"The proper course for him to pursue would have been to make an order that the evidence should be laid before the Irish law officers; or, in his capacity of a Privy Councillor, to inform the Lord Lieutenant that a crime had been committed, and point out the necessity for investigation."

I do not profess to quote from memory—I quote from the columns of The Times, whose reports I find to be generally accurate, and according to my recollection they are the very words I used upon the occasion. I did not say that the Master of the Rolls had violated his oath as a Privy Councillor, but I called the attention of the House to this—that if it had come before him judicially that a crime had been committed calling for the intervention of the public prosecutor there were two courses open to him. I was in this country, but my colleague the Solicitor General was in Dublin, and no one would for a moment impute to him the slightest intention in any case to connive at the commission of crime. He could have made application to my colleague or, as a Privy Councillor, he might have exercised his privilege of addressing the Lord Lieutenant, and saying to him, "A crime has been committed, something has occurred which I consider to be matter for investigation, and I give you information in order that the law may be put in motion." But, instead of doing this, the learned Judge thinks fit, from the bench of justice, to make observations so much tinged with matter of a political character as to attract the attention not only of the individual most concerned, but of the public at large; and I will say, that if James Sadleir had not left the country before that, no means more successful could be devised for driving him out of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) says this is a matter that ought to be investigated, and that he will be prepared, on some future occasion, to bring it forward. Now, Sir, permit me to say that, when I spoke before on this subject, I had only a vague suspicion that what fell from the Master of the Rolls had had the effect of driving James Sadleir from the country. I have now, however, to state, from private information, received only two hours since, that without doubt it was a short time after this remarkable language on the part of the Master of the Rolls that James Sadleir did leave the country, and that he has not since returned to it. Therefore, the statement which I made on inferences drawn from the facts turns out to be true. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, bring forward his charge in a tangible shape—let him frame a Resolution on the subject and bring it before the House, and I will be prepared to meet it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) complained the other night of my observations with regard to the Master of the Rolls, and paid a high compliment to the character, and honour, and legal attainments of the learned Judge. I thought it right to state that I concurred in those observations as to the high and honourable character and legal attainments of the Master of the Rolls, but I added that I thought the observations made by him on the bench, on this subject, were irregular. Now, Sir, what has taken place since? I find that the Master of the Rolls has, in his place on the bench, made the following observations from a written paper—

"He had observed from the public journals that the Attorney General for Ireland had thought fit to renew the attacks which he had previously made upon him. That the Attorney General was much mistaken if he supposed that he (the Master of the Rolls) was about to rest quietly under such imputations. He would not do any such thing; but, on the contrary, would send forward by this night's post documents which would tend to impeach the course that had been adopted by the Attorney General in this case."

I presume the documents here referred to were sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) on Thursday. The Master of the Rolls then goes on to say—

"He would also be prepared on Friday to bring forward a charge against that officer which was of a most serious nature, and strongly calculated to affect his character and his office as Attorney General—a charge which he (the Master of the Rolls) was prepared to substantiate before a Committee of the House of Commons, or any other tribunal—a charge the effects of which neither the sophistry nor mystification of the Attorney General would avail him in escaping from."

I did venture to say in this House that the observations of the Master of the Rolls on the occasion referred to were irregular, but beyond that I made no charge against the learned Judge. But the result of the irregular observations is that a criminal—if James Sadleir is a criminal—has left the country. I have now, Sir, called the attention of the House to the statements made on Wednesday last, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can now say that the Master of the Rolls has not turned his Court into a political arena? But the proof does not rest here. A telegraphic message has been brought to me within the last hour, and if the statements contained in that message are well founded as to what occurred this morning in the Rolls' Court, at Dublin, a grosser outrage in a Court of Justice has seldom been perpetrated, while, according to the message, the political observations made by the Master of the Rolls were responded to by loud cheers in a crowded Court. The House knows well that statements communicated by the electric telegraph are not always to be depended upon for accuracy, and therefore it would be unjustifiable in me to read the message I have received to the House; but it was in consequence of the statement I had received that I communicated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and that he, with my entire concurrence, and with the view of avoiding a premature discussion of the case, appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be better to have the question brought forward in such a shape that, instead of a partial, we might have a full discussion on it. I think this would have been a proper course. I may be considered a political rival of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hold the office which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself once held. He knows the difficulties that attach to the duties of that office, and how much firmness and fearlessness it requires, and I think, acting on high and honourable feeling he ought not to have brought forward this case till there would be an opportunity of discussing it in a regular form, and when the House could come to a decision regarding it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not ventured to state that there has been on my part, or on the part of the Government, any dereliction of duty. When he chooses to bring the case forward in a formal and regular shape, I shall be prepared to meet any charge he may please to prefer against me. If the Master of the Rolls has sent to him a statement in writing of what I understand he read this morning in the Rolls' Court, Dublin, I ask him—and I wish to call the attention of the House to this point—whether there are not in that paper personal charges against myself? I do not mean charges involving my personal character, for I have no fear on that point, but charges against me as a public officer, of gross dereliction of duty, of connivance at the escape of a criminal, and with the knowledge that he was about to escape. If that paper is a transcript of such statements as those made by the Master of the Rolls this morning, then I say let the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward those charges in such a shape that this House can form and give a judgment regarding them. Let him do so at this moment, or on Monday, and I shall be prepared to meet them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he will never let this matter drop, if there is a charge brought against the Master of the Rolls. I tell him there is a charge against him, if the statement I have received of what he said this morning be true, and it was to see whether or not it was true that I wished this discussion not to take place to-night. If that statement is true, the Master of the Rolls has been guilty of the great offence of turning a court of justice into a political arena, and employing gross and unmeasured language, not only against me, but against the Government to which I have the honour to belong. It would not be fair, either to the Master of the Rolls or to myself, to go into this question now, as the House can form no judgment upon it; but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman brings forward his charge against me of having employed language towards the Master of the Rolls, which I certainly never intended to use, and which I believe I did not use, I shall, as I have already said, be prepared to meet it. At present the House could give no decision upon the question, and it could only lead to empty discussion. I challenge investigation. I tell him that if he shrinks from that investigation—if he fails to bring it forward—he will be pursuing a course that is not worthy of him. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shrinks from a duty which he owes to himself, to this House, and the public; if, after the statement he has made, he fails to bring forward in a tangible shape the imputations he has ventured to make, I have to tell him that I will not let the matter rest. I shall advert now to only one other statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, that all the evidence before the Master of the Rolls was available for my purposes. That evidence consisted of a great number, I believe, no less than 150 affidavits, which were the documents in possession of the Master of the Rolls till the 20th of June, when he delivered the judgment adverted to. I am sure the House will excuse me for having trespassed so long on its attention. I have confined myself exclusively to the personal charges, but let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the greatest mistake, with reference to this particular case of fraud on the part of James Sadleir, to suppose that he could be subjected to prosecution for the fraud only. The director of a public company may publish false accounts, may misrepresent its balances, and there is no law, unfortunately, to make him amenable. The charge against James Sadleir is, not that he defrauded the public, but that he and his deceased brother had conspired to cheat the public by certain frauds. It is the conspiracy that forms the charge against him, and the letter discovered, for the first time, on the 13th of June, would be the real foundation of the prosecution. With these observations I leave the matter in the hands of the House, perfectly prepared, either now or at any other time, to meet any charge the right hon. and learned Gentleman may put forward.

Sir, it has been my privilege, ever since the distinguished Judge, who has been referred to in this discussion, has been on the bench, to live on terms of intimacy with him, and I feel it impossible to remain silent when his conduct is called in question before the House. To that point exclusively I shall confine the observations I now desire to make. With respect to any charge, if there be any, against the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I shall say no more about it than this—that he is most perfectly entitled to expect that the Master of the Rolls in Ireland will not shrink from anything he has said, but will be prepared to stand by it and substantiate it. It is the undoubted right of the Attorney General for Ireland to expect that. I will now pass entirely away from that portion of the subject. I am extremely happy to learn from the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland, that no imputation was intended to be cast by him upon the Master of the Rolls with respect to the solemn oath which, as Privy Councillor, he had taken. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly to disclaim having made any such charge, and the disclaimer so made must of course be unreservedly accepted. The Attorney General for Ireland says that he has confined his observations to a personal charge against himself. With great respect, however, I must say, I do not think so. I noted down, while the Attorney General for Ireland was speaking, some charges which he has brought against the Master of the Rolls. Some of those charges are absolute, turning on information which is undoubtedly in his possession, and others are contingent on the accuracy of the telegraphic despatch received by him this morning from Dublin. Thus, speaking partly on certain information, and partly on contingent information, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tonight in his place, and in presence of this House, charged the Master of the Rolls in Ireland with desecrating a Court of Justice, with being guilty of gross default, with making irregular observations, with tinging with a political colour his judicial proceedings, and with being the cause of the failure of justice by occasioning the escape of James Sadleir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman further said that the Master of the Rolls had been guilty of the great offence of converting a Court of Justice into a political arena; that he had been guilty, also, of a gross outrage on justice in making use of his position on the bench to accuse the Attorney General for Ireland in the manner which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to describe. [Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD: Hear, hear!] I observe from the cheer of the Attorney General for Ireland that I have correctly represented his statement. Then we have issue joined in the presence of the House of Commons. The Attorney General for Ireland very naturally says that, if any charge of a failure of his public duty has been brought against him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier) he should have indignantly demanded immediate, public, and full inquiry. Well, by the Attorney General for Ireland there have been made, against one of the most distinguished Judges of these kingdoms, grave charges of breach of public duty. The Attorney General for Ireland has truly said, that it is not for us to enter into a detailed discussion of this subject now, because, whatever particular Members may know, the House is really in possession of no information, or only of imperfect information. I am one of those who possess only imperfect information, and therefore I shall observe the caution given by the Attorney General for Ireland with respect to making observations in this stage of the proceeding; but I rise, under the obligations of intimate friendship to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, to say that this case cannot rest here. In my opinion it is the bounden duty of the Government to take every means to bring this case, thus stated, to an immediate, full, and searching investigation; and, as an intimate friend of the distinguished Judge in question, I tender my entreaty to the Attorney General for Ireland to take some means of bringing the charges he has made under the consideration of the House. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Genman the Member for the University of Dublin means to make a Motion or not. If he does, it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the Government to afford him facilities for making it as early as possible; but if I were in the position of the Attorney General for Ireland, having made these serious and grave charges against a distinguished Judge, I would, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite made a Motion on the subject or not, myself take an opportunity of bringing these charges to an immediate and searching investigation.

I understand, Sir, from the tone of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), that something like a compromise has been offered between the two parties, but this is a matter in which the public can allow of no compromise whatever. It involves something larger and wider than even the characters of the two Gentlemen concerned, because either the Master of the Rolls in Ireland has been guilty of a gross calumny on the Irish Government, or the Irish Executive, including, I presume, the Attorney General for Ireland, have been guilty of the grossest dereliction of duty which ever a Government were guilty of. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said, on a late occasion, that, from his experience of me, he had learned to believe that by my observations I meant to imply that the Irish Executive had connived at the escape of James Sadleir; and certainly from his experience of me he is likely to know that what I think and believe I would state frankly. Sir, I did mean just that. The Attorney General for Ireland must know, too, from his present experience, at least, that the Master of the Rolls has since stated what I said or meant to say at the time referred to. The Master of the Rolls said on a late occasion, to which the Attorney General for Ireland has alluded, that he did not obtrude, advise, or give information privately, because it was no part of his duty to do so, and because he believed then, as now, that it would have received no attention from the Government, for reasons publicly well known. There is no mistake whatever as to what that means. It means that the Irish Executive did not interfere to prevent the escape of James Sadleir, because they did not and could not dare to meet the issue which would necessarily have been raised by the disclosures if that individual had been put on his trial. That is what the public believe in Ireland, and that is what I believe the Master of the Rolls adverted to on the occasion in question. Now, Sir, what is the defence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland? He says that the Master of the Rolls, by his first charge, gave James Sadleir warning to escape, and that that charge was calculated to induce him to escape; and yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, believing this, made no sign and took no step to prevent the escape of James Sadleir for a fortnight afterwards. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me that he had ascertained that, if James Sadleir escaped, it was before he issued the information. But what was the converse of that? That the Government took care not to issue the information until they knew that James Sadleir had escaped. Which of these propositions would turn out true it is not for me to say, for that must depend on the investigation which must take place, and after which the statement of the Master of the Rolls and the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland would be finally judged by the House and the country.

I am afraid, Sir, that I misunderstood, in some points, the reply of the Attorney General for Ireland to a question put to him a few evenings ago. I was under the distinct impression that, in answer to that question, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made three statements. First, I understood him to charge the Master of the Rolls, in his judicial capacity, that he was the cause of the escape of Mr. Sadleir; secondly, that he had been guilty of misconduct as a Judge; and, thirdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made what I thought to be an unwise and unnecessary allusion to the duty of the Master of the Rolls, and his oath as a Privy Councillor. Now, Sir, I should like to know what business the right hon. Gentleman had to allude to the duty and the obligation of the learned Judge as a Privy Councillor? However, I distinctly understood him to make that allusion; every Gentleman who sits on these benches, I believe, Understood him in the same sense, and I almost felt it to be my duty at the time to remonstrate with him on, what I considered, an unwise and intemperate speech, but it was deemed better to address the Master of the Rolls on the subject, and endeavour to get a statement of what were the facts of this unpleasant matter. Well, Sir, what are the facts? A case of gross, of scandalous fraud came before the Master of the Rolls. He spoke plainly and distinctly; he had a right to do so, and the Attorney General for Ireland had no right to criticise him on that account. In declaring that gross fraud had been committed the Master of the Rolls only discharged his duty; in declaring that it ought to be followed up and punished by the law officers of the Crown he said what every Judge ought to say in such a case. Well, then, he declared that a gross fraud had been committed, and in my opinion—I say it with sorrow, but I believe the public opinion of Ireland will support me—not only has fraud been committed, but there has not been displayed that zeal, that activity in bringing the offenders to justice that would have been exhibited if those persons had not possessed a certain political influence. I quite agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has a right to say that there is no case whatever against him; I think he has, and I say so advisedly; but I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to suppose that they are not responsible like other men. [Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland must not think to stop our mouths on a question of this kind. I say it is true that Mr. Sadleir, on the 3rd of June, walked about the hall to the surprise of everybody; that he was privately examined by Master Murphy; that there came to light a letter, the most infamous piece of evidence as proof of conspiracy that ever existed in any case of the kind. I do not know that the Attorney General for Ireland knew of it. But how was Sir John Bean Paul dealt with in this country? He was rigorously punished, though not guilty of half such crimes, I believe, as those committed by Mr. Sadleir. I agree in thinking it will be matter for inquiry as to whether, until the 24th of June, any document was sought for or obtained on the part of the Crown; and this point shall be inquired into. But I repeat that I understood the Attorney General for Ireland to impute to the Master of the Rolls that he was guilty of a dereliction of duty in saying what he did in reference to the fraud committed in this case; that he was likewise guilty of impropriety in suffering Mr. Sadleir to escape; and that, as a Privy Councillor, it was his duty to go to the Lord Lieutenant and put him in possession of the materials which had come into his possession as Master of the Rolls. Now, it is true that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has a high character in his profession, and I wish to say nothing to detract from that character; but I think he will make a fatal mistake if he supposes that he will raise his reputation in this Honse by speaking, as he has done more than once, so severely of those whom it is our duty to respect; of those who are placed on the judicial bench, and are sworn to do their duty, and conscientiously wish to do their duty, in that responsible position.

So far, Sir, from wishing to "stop the mouth" of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, I was only sincerely desirous that he would address himself to the one point alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell). I now ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) if he intends to bring to a distinct issue the charges he has in his hand, and which he has received by post to-day from the Master of the Rolls for Ireland? The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) said, that one of two things has been distinctly proved—either that the Master of the Rolls has been guilty of gross calumny against the Government, or that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has been guilty of a culpable dereliction of duty. Sir, we accept that issue. We admit that that is the case now fairly before the House. That issue has been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), though he had in his possession the statement of the Master of the Rolls, that on this day he would state in detail, from the judgment seat, the serious charges he had to bring against my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. Instead, however, of waiting for those charges, it was more convenient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the present imperfect information before the House, to raise a discussion, rousing suspicions, creating doubts, and giving rise to misrepresentations, rather than allow us to come to a distinct decision upon the points on which he knows in a few hours we should be fully informed. It has been said, that the Attorney General for Ireland is responsible for the whole of these proceedings, and that if there has been any defeat of justice, the blame rests on his shoulders. Now, the fact is that, throughout the whole of this affair, from the very first moment when the intelligence of these frauds obtained publicity, my right hon. and learned Friend has made the entire Government aware of every step he has taken. I, myself, have been made acquainted with all that has been done, and there is not one of the steps taken by my right hon. and learned Friend for which I am not as fully responsible as he is. My chief object, however, in rising, was to say that I do not think it would be worthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) who has in his possession what the House has not—namely, these distinct charges under the handwriting of the Master of the Rolls against the Government, and who, possessed of those charges, made the speech which he has thought it right to deliver this evening—I say I think it would not be worthy of him, and the House would not excuse him, if he does not now raise that issue by submitting a distinct Motion to the House, allowing us to know what these charges are, whether he endorses them himself, and whether he will call upon the House to endorse them also.

Sir, the statement furnished to me I will hand to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. If I had received it sooner, I should have given it to him before, but it only reached me by the late post this day. Allow me to say, that that statement merely consists of facts, and not of charges. I asked for facts and dates, and those were furnished to me, and I confined my remarks this evening simply to a defence of the Master of the Rolls. I repeat that I will hand this statement to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and if he and the Government do not afford me an opportunity of going fully into this matter, I answer the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman) by saying, that I do undertake to see it inquired into.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown (including the Queen's Advocate, whose especial duty it was, when called upon to advise the Crown upon the construction of treaties), as to the true meaning and effect of the treaty of 1800 between the hon. East India Company and the then Nawab of Surat; and, in the event of such law officers advising that, under the said treaty the East India Company were bound to pay to the heirs of the said Nawab the annuity therein mentioned, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government or the Board of Control, to order or direct such payment to be made by the said hon. East India Company accordingly? It was well known that, when the territory of Surat was annexed, the East India Company agreed to pay the Nawab an annuity of £15,000. The son of the Nawab died in 1840; and his son-in-law, the husband of the late Nawab's only daughter, and the father of two infant children, his only surviving descendants, demanded the annuity; but the East India Company had refused to recognise his claim. Now, he contended that the decisions hitherto given by the Indian Board on this claim had been entirely ex parte, the representatives of the deceased Nawab never having been heard at all. The annuity was charged by the treaty, not upon the general revenues of India, but upon those of the state of Surat itself, of which the East India Company had possessed themselves; and so long as those revenues were able to bear the burden, so long he maintained was the Company bound to pay it. The treaty bound the East India Company to pay this annuity to the Nawab and his heirs; and the simple question was, as to the meaning of the term "heirs." Meer Jaffier Ali, who now claimed to be the heir, had come to this country, and, being a British subject, had petitioned the House of Commons in favour of his claim; and a Bill founded upon that petition had been brought in, but had been rejected by the other House. The East India Company, wielding all the powers of the British Government, had solemnly entered into this treaty, by which a native prince was degraded to the rank of a subject; an annuity was secured to himself and his family; the payment was now disputed; and the British Government denied to those aggrieved parties the right of appealing to a Court of Law. They had been advised by the most eminent lawyers in this country that they were entitled to the annuity; but owing to the mode in which the treaty was framed, under the authority of the Crown, the claimants had no power to enforce their right in a Court of Law. It was said that Meer Jaffier Ali had done wrong in canvassing Members. Now, he would ask hon. Members what other course was open to him? He admitted that he had canvassed him (Sir F. Kelly), and no doubt many other Members. Being advised that he had a well-grounded claim, and finding that the door of every Court in the kingdom was closed against him, what could he do unless he appealed to that House? The Bill had been introduced in that House as a Private Bill, tinder the authority of Mr. Speaker, and had passed by an immense majority; in the other House it had been rejected because it was a Private Bill. The treaty had been submitted to a Select Committee of five learned Gentlemen who had unanimously determined that, according to its true effect and meaning, the present claimant was entitled to the annuity. It appeared that, while the treaty was in negotiation, discussion arose as to the meaning of the terms "and his heirs;" and the prince was assured by the Government of Bombay, that he might rely on the honour and good faith of the East India Company, and that those terms in the treaty would secure the annuity to his representatives and descendants for ever. It was only upon that representation that he had signed the treaty and given up possession of his dominion. The Company paid him the annuity as long as he lived, and continued it to his son after him; but when there ceased to be a direct successor to the Nawab, the East India Company refused payment to his heirs and representatives, alleging that the annuity was only payable to the Nawab for the time being, and that the Company had the power of determining that office whenever they pleased: thus constituting themselves the judges of their own case, and the interpreters of their own treaty. When the case came before the House, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg) had strenuously defended the East India Company; but the Bill was, as he had previously mentioned, carried by a large majority, thus affirming the decision of the Committee. Upon that taking place, overtures were made to the East India Company, and the Vice President of the Board agreed to them; but they were rejected by a majority of the Directors, and the claimant was obliged to proceed with his Bill in the other House, and the result was what he had stated. Either the money was due or not; if it was, could any Minister of the Crown refuse to take further steps? There was but one course open to them, and that was to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and to act in accordance with it. By the Statute of 3 & 4 Will. IV., cap. 85, the Government had power to order the annuity to be paid by the East India Company, if they were of opinion that it was due. If they thought otherwise, at least let them take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, or refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He appealed most earnestly to the Government to do this. In the course of a long experience he had never felt more strongly than on this case. It was incompatible with honour, justice, or any motive that ought to regulate men's actions, that the matter should be allowed to rest where it was.

said, he must complain of the hon. and learned Gentleman bringing forward this case on the Motion for the adjournment of the House. He had heard a great many desultory debates on the question of adjournment; but he had never heard so enormous an abuse of the privilege of debate as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the present occasion. He had gone over the whole of a case that had been three times debated, submitted to the Legislature as a Bill, sanctioned by that House, and rejected by the other. He must protest against such a proceeding. It was likewise extremely unfair to those who were not prepared to enter into such a discussion. The question was a very simple one, namely, whether the Government would follow the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. As to the claim of the Nawab, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made many erroneous statements and many dogmatic assertions. He had evidently given considerable study to the question, and there was no necessity for him to ask the opinion of any legal adviser. He had also referred to Members being canvassed in support of the Bill. He (Mr. Smith) was not aware that he ever made that charge; if he did, he certainly never alluded to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he had been canvassed, nobody could object to that, on account of the interest which he took in the question. Canvassing, in reference to a Private Bill, meant the solicitation of Gentlemen who knew nothing about the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated his own decided view on this matter; but it was clear, from his own showing, that there were doubts on the construction of the treaty. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the authorities were all on one side on this question. Did he mean to say that Lord Ellenborough and the other Governors General of India, who had decided the question over and over again, were no authorities? With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, his hearty hope was that the advisers of Meer Jaffier Ali would recommend him to go again to the Court of Directors and lay before them the whole of his case as he thought it should be stated. If he took that course he trusted the Executive Government of India would be prepared, setting aside all the irritation which might have arisen from the contest in that House, to come to such an agreement as would be satisfactory to all parties. If they could not come to a settlement, it would then be the duty of the Government to see that the question did not remain where it was. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to lay the case before the law officers of the Crown. But with all due respect to the law officers of the Crown, he did not think they were the best persons to consult on questions of Mahomedan law and the modes of descent in India. The other alternative was to refer the question to the Privy Council. He was of opinion that it would be useful to adopt that course, because the Judges of that tribunal were conversant with subjects of this kind. But the law officers of the Crown were not in favour of a reference to the Privy Council, as they doubted whether it could be done under the 4th section of the Privy Council Act. There certainly was a want of some tribunal to decide questions of this kind. The present was a question of the interpretation of a treaty made by the Executive Government of India and a Foreign State, and the question was to what tribunal that interpretation was to be referred. With regard to the power of the Board of Control to order the Court of Directors to make payment from the revenues of India in cases of this kind, he was by no means clear. There was a just jealousy on the part of the Indian Government of any interference by the Board of Control with the revenues of India. The power of checking expense was absolute and clear, but not the power of expenditure. However, if he found any injustice done, he should not confine himself to the issuing of a doubtful order, but should call on Parliament for a special Act to give him the power of performing justice.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the deduction of pay from officers serving on the staff when they were temporarily absent from their staff duties. In reply to a question put by him on a former occasion, the hon. Under Secretary for War stated that the general rule of the service disentitled that class of officers to receive staff pay while not actually performing staff duty. On that point he took issue with the hon. Under Secretary, and maintained that the practice had not been such as he had represented it. He conceived that the rule adopted on the subject in 1848 was intended to meet the cases of officers holding two staff appointments, or of officers upon full pay holding staff appointments, and that it was not meant that the staff pay of half-pay officers holding staff appointments should be deducted when they were temporarily absent from their duties. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the War Department to deduct the staff pay of officers who were absent for a short time on leave?

said, that in the case of staff officers employed abroad the staff pay was not issuable when the officers were absent from the particular sphere of their duties. But with regard to officers at home, the practice, he believed, was to allow the staff pay to those who were only away for a short period, and whose duties could be discharged in their absence without any additional expense to the public; and by that practice the authorities at the War Office proposed to abide.

said, he wished to inquire of the hon. Under Secretary for War whether he would lay upon the table of the House the Report and names of the Medical Board who last examined into the state of the health and the fitness for duty of Captain Cassan, the adjutant of the 1st Regiment of Warwickshire Militia, who had applied for permission to retire upon the allowance provided for adjutants of militia, under the Act 9 & 10 Vict. c. 55; also the Report and names of the Medical Board who had previously examined and reported upon the state of health and fitness for duty of the same officer? He had reason to believe that Captain Cassan was at present in a state of health which totally unfitted him for the discharge of the duties of a militia adjutant, and that, he believed, had been the effect of the Report of a Medical Board which had inquired into his case. But another Board had, it would appear, instituted a second inquiry, and in consequence of their Report the authorities at the War Office had refused to Captain Cassan permission to retire upon the allowance provided for adjutants in the militia.

said, the first Medical Board before which Captain Cassan had appeared had reported that he was unfit for service in the field. But the militia regiments were about to be disembodied, and a second Medical Board had given it as their opinion that Captain Cassan was not disqualified by infirmity of health from performing the comparatively light duties which would devolve upon an adjutant under that change of circumstances. The authorities at the War Office felt that they could not, after that second Report, allow the officer in question to retire upon the allowance provided for adjutants of militia. He had further to state that he did not think it would be right to produce the Report of the Board, which might be fairly regarded as a confidential document.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course was intended to be pursued by Her Majesty's Government in the course of the present Session respecting the Wills and Administrations Bill and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill; or, in the next Session, for abolishing the Ecclesiastical Courts, and conducting in future the business now transacted by such Courts, and especially for the purpose of making one probate or administration in England and Ireland, and one confirmation in Scotland, operative on all the property of a deceased person in the United Kingdom; and what Bills brought into the House were intended to be proceeded in or withdrawn this Session; and whether any new Bills were intended to be brought in? He did not think it right that the whole expense consequent upon any change to be made in the Courts and upon the grant of compensation to officers should be thrown on the estates of deceased persons; but he would rather submit to that burden than lose the benefits of a new measure. He believed that it had been proposed to create three or four new Courts, but as the Court of Common Pleas was not half worked he conceived that the whole of the business might easily be transacted there. He therefore called upon the Government to explain their intentions upon the subject of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: It is abandoned for this Session.] But he wanted to know what were the intentions of the Government as to next Session. At all events he hoped the Government would state generally their intentions as to the Bills now before the House.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to one point connected with the Testamentary Bills. One of the great objections to the late Bill had been the amount of compensation. The matter had now been under discussion for twenty-five years, and notices ought to have been given to all parties entering on situations, that they took them subject to any changes Parliament might make. [An hon. MEMBER: There are two Acts of Parliament containing provisions to that effect.] He would suggest that in all future appointments notice should be given that the party would have no claim to compensation in the event of any change. As regarded the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, when the Order of the Day was read, he would call attention to the important principles it involved, and the danger of adopting it without due consideration. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not determine on pressing the Bill at that late period of the Session.

said, he believed that notice had been given to persons receiving appointments in those Courts that they would have no claim to compensation in the event of their offices being abolished. In reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), he had to state that the Wills and Administrations Bill was withdrawn last night in consequence of the impossibility of its receiving due attention during the present Session. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill had only come within a few days from the House of Lords. He willingly admitted its importance, and the Government hoped to be able to proceed with it during the present Session. He would rather not, however, give any distinct assurance to that effect or otherwise, at present, but on an early day next week he would state what course would be taken with respect to it. In regard to the third part of the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he could only say that due notice would be given of any measures which the Government might think it expedient to propose in the course of the next Session. He was not aware of any new Bill which it was intended to bring in during the present Session, and, with reference to the Bills now on the paper, the course which the Government proposed to take would be stated as those measures successively came before the House.

said, he hoped the Government would proceed with the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, which would remove from the Statute Book a scandal that had long been a disgrace to the country.

said, he would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that the abolition of the procters, to whom the chief compensation was proposed under the Bill of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, was not recommended by more than one Commission which had inquired into the subject, and that the Government had proposed to give some £50,000 a year as compensation to those whose existence was reported by one of these Commissions to be essential to the public safety. The evils arising out of the present system with respect to wills and administrations had been greatly exaggerated, though he would admit that there were some which could hardly be exaggerated. For example, there was the bona notabilia system, which rendered it necessary to prove a will in several districts; and he thought it was also highly desirable that the Ecclesiastical Courts should be turned into Queen's Courts. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government would only take the trouble during the recess to look over the Report of the Chancery Commission of 1854—it was very short—the noble Lord might read it through in an hour and a half—he would find it founded on facts of such importance, and backed up by the authority of such eminent men, that he would hesitate long before allowing a Bill intended for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts to bring their business in any way under the control of the County Courts. Any Bill which contained such a proposition would meet with his (Mr. Malins's) strenuous opposition; but he would cordially support a Bill founded generally on the Report of the Commission to which he had referred.

said, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words on, a subject which concerned the peace and good order of a large portion of the empire. The House had heard within the last few days that one regiment in Her Majesty's service had been in conflict with three others in the open field; they had seen that a town of some importance in Ireland had been in the possession of mutinous troops; they had been informed that four of those soldiers had been shot in action, while twelve or thirteen on each side were said to be wounded, yet no notice whatever had been taken of the subject in that House. An Irishman might perhaps be pardoned, then, for calling attention to so fearful a state of things. He had taken the liberty several times of calling the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War—who was not now in his place, though he (Colonel Dunne) had given him notice that he should bring the question forward—to the mode of disembodying the militia. He had been in communication with the colonels of Irish militia on the subject, and they had together pressed upon the Minister for War the hardship suffered by men who were discharged from their regiments without money and with no clothes, except a light undress uniform. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, than whom no man in the country better understood military details, took the subject into consideration, and stated in that House that the men should have a gratuity of 14s. on being disbanded. That was a most satisfactory answer. All those who had made representations on the subject were averse from granting the men, on leaving their regiments, more money than was absolutely necessary, so that they might not be led into dissipation; but they also knew very well that they had recruited from a class of men whose ordinary clothes were destroyed, and who would go from their regiments without a halfpenny in their pockets. That had actually been the result. In England there had been a great deal of bungling about the militia regiments, and almost all the colonels of those regiments had received different orders on the subject of the gratuities. Instead of giving the men the promised 14s., orders were sent round to give them a portion of the bounty, which was issued at the rate of 5s. a quarter, and in some regiments the men got 4s., with a part of the bounty. Now, the payment of the bounty was spread over that period, in order, no doubt, to induce the men to return to their standards, while the gratuity was to be given, because without it the men would have starved. That, as he had stated, was the course pursued in England, and he knew that in many instances the colonels of militia had given the men money out of their own pockets to carry them home and support them. Orders were sent to disembody the Irish militia, and he would beg to read an extract from a letter he had received from the officer left in command of his own regiment, which would show how the men were treated:—

"We are only authorised to give the men the proportion of bounty up to the day they leave, which is very hard, as many of them have left with only a few pence in their pockets, and unless they get immediate employment they must go without food."

The Tipperary Militia were treated in the same way; they were ordered to give in their clothing, and, though he knew too well what military discipline required to defend such a breach of it as had been committed in this instance, he thought it was very natural on the part of men, who had very little other clothing, to object to such an order. The regiment then became so mutinous that General Chatterton, an experienced and humane officer, had to bring up other regiments against it, and the House knew what had followed. Now he looked upon the War Department as responsible for all that had taken place. Had they sent over the proper order that the men should purchase clothes, and should be fed until they got into work, or if the declaration of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had been carried out, this lamentable affair would not have occurred. There were many other regiments to be disbanded, and the peace of the country would be disturbed in many other parts of Ireland if the Government did not do justice to the soldiers. He admitted that in this case severe punishment must be inflicted on the offenders, but would it not be much better to exercise a little more common sense and humanity before such scenes were allowed to take place?

said, there was a general feeling in Ireland that the men had not been fairly treated. They bad been given to understand at the outset that the £6 bounty would be paid at once, instead of which it had only been paid by instalments of £1 a year or 5s. a quarter, and then the payment of the miserable instalment of the bounty was substituted for the promised gratuity. There was a rumour that the War Minister intended altogether to override the assurance given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but he hoped that the noble Lord would not allow it, for the conduct of the men had been most admirable.

said, it was his intention to move a resolution condemnatory of the principle of throwing a largely increased charge on the Consolidated Fund on account of the County Courts. He apprehended that its adoption by the House would not interfere with the progress of the present Bill, but would simply delay the carrying out of the proposed alterations in reference to the fees until another Session. It would be perfectly competent to the House, after adopting the Resolution of which he had given notice, to resolve themselves into a Committee on the Bill. He might as well, however, state to the House the reasons which had induced him to adopt this form of Resolution. The financial changes contemplated by the Bill were dispersed through its various clauses, and as it would have been impossible, by any question to be raised in Committee, to submit the subject fairly to the House, he had endeavoured to gather together the various results of the proposed changes into one general Motion. The additional charge intended to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund by this Bill was £170,000 a year. At present the fees paid by the suitors discharged the entire expenses of those Courts with the exception of £25,000 and a further sum of about £13,000, which by Act of Parliament was charged on the Consolidated Fund. Besides the additional charge of £170,000 contemplated by the Bill as it now stood, there were further additions contemplated by various Amendments, of which notice had been placed on the papers, giving salaries to Judges and their clerks amounting to somewhere about £45,000, which must be taken into account. If these were not adopted the whole charge of the County Courts when the Bill was passed would amount to £208,000, of which £170,000 would be imposed by the Bill, and if these were adopted the total charge would be about £253,000. Now that, it must be borne in mind, would not be merely a permanent charge, but, in all probability, would be a growing one. An annual charge of £170,000 was equivalent to voting away £5,000,000 of the public money; an annual charge of £208,000 was equal to £6,500,000, and an annual charge of £253,000 to about £8,000,000, so that in a financial point of view it was no light question which the House was called upon to decide. It was no excuse for passing over the financial considerations, to plead that this was a measure of law reform. So far the financial part of the question had not been adequately considered. The measure had been sent down from the other House, framed by certain eminent Peers connected with the legal profession, whose susceptibilities with regard to the liability of the Consolidated Fund were of course not so great as those of the House of Commons ought to be. The financial changes contemplated by the Bill had been treated quite as a secondary matter, but they ought not so to be viewed in that House. As yet there had been no distinct understanding arrived at as to the mode in which they were to proceed in dividing the charges of litigation between the public and the suitors. He was not prepared to deny that there was much to be said in favour of a revision of the present arrangement, but it ought to be done deliberately, and it should be after a careful review of the relations between this subject and other subjects connected with our judicial system. All he asked of the House was the right of reconsidering the subject. There was a doctrine which was greatly in fashion with some classes of the community, to the effect that inasmuch as litigation was a misfortune, its evils and annoyances ought to be borne, as far as possible, by the public. To that doctrine he most distinctly demurred. It was one which would greatly tend to foster litigation. Although some persons were involved in litigation perfectly reasonably and for the defence of their right, in many suits both parties were, and in most one was, unreasonable. Even if it were not so, why were the costs of misfortune to be borne by the community? why should not the evils and anxieties of life appertain to those upon whom they fell? By placing them upon the public you removed the stimulus to the exercise of individual prudence, and discouraged the self-command and self-denial which led men to take calm and dispassionate views of their own position and interests. With regard to the particular case of County Courts there were many circumstances which might be urged in support of the argument that the present state of things called for some modification of their arrangement. It was said that the State paid the salaries of the fifteen Judges who sat in the Superior Courts in Westminster Hall. That was true, but it was also true that suitors were made to contribute largely towards the expenses of those Courts. Besides, those Judges did not stand in a position with respect to the public similar to that of County Court Judges. Their services were required for carrying on the whole of the superior criminal jurisdiction of the country; and they had also to discharge the constitutional duty of rendering advice and assistance to the ultimate Courts of Appeal. It might also be urged as a reason why the Judges of County Courts should be paid out of the public funds that in Scotland the salaries of the sheriffs who presided in the small debts' courts of that kingdom were so paid. But it must be remembered that those sheriffs, like the fifteen Judges, were concerned in the administration of criminal justice. What he ventured to submit to the House, and at the same time to impress upon it, was, that this subject ought to be deliberately examined and considered by the House in connection with the state of the judicial establishments in Westminster Hall, and with the manner in which the charges of those establishments were divided between the public and the persons engaged in litigation. There was at present a strong impression on the public mind that these establishments were considerably larger than was necessary. The Judges were provided with most liberal salaries, backed by most liberal pensions. That, he considered, was perfectly proper. It appertained to the independence and the dignity of the Bench, and he did not believe that there were five men in that House who would wish to alter it; but that was no reason why the dignified occupants of those offices should not be fully worked, or why there should be a greater number of such officers than the nature and extent of the public business justified. The labours of the Judges had been greatly relieved by the creation of a body of not less than sixty County Court Judges, and the tendency of legislation was further to reduce their labours; and it was therefore but just to the people of England that, before imposing upon them a charge so heavy as was contemplated by the Bill under consideration, the House should examine into the state of those establishments, and should place them on such a footing as the interests of the public required. They were there to vote the money of the people of England, which was collected from the earnings of the mechanic, the artisan, the peasant, and the factory worker, and they had no duty more sacred than that of not voting sums which were disproportioned to the purposes to which they were to be applied, and of seeing that they did not impose upon the Consolidated Fund new charges without examining whether the expenses for kindred establishments could not be reduced. The only ground upon which his Motion could be opposed was, that this was a matter of extreme urgency; but such an objection would not be well founded, because all the necessary reforms in the procedure of the County Courts and in the costs of processes might be agreed to without the decision of the question of who should be the parties to bear the charge. That question was certainly not an urgent one. The course which he would suggest for the adoption of the Government was, that they should, during the recess, consider this very important subject, especially in connection with the position of the fifteen Judges; should fix a proper scale of salaries for the Judges of County Courts; should ascertain the lowest cost at which the business could be done; and should then, upon their responsibility, submit to the House a proposal as to the manner in which the charge should be shared between the public and the suitors. The Bill amounted to no such, proposal.

said, that the Bill now before the House was founded upon the Report of a Commission specially appointed to inquire as to what changes might be made in the County Courts. The Commissioners were directed to inquire whether any reduction could be made in the fees paid by suitors in those Courts, and into the general cost of the proceedings. The Commissioners stated—

"We now proceed to consider a question which is preliminary, but essential, to this branch of the inquiry—that is, whether the County Courts should be self-supporting. We are of opinion that they should not. To compel the suitors to pay fees sufficient to support the establishment appears to us unjust in principle, as that which is for the benefit of the public should be supported by the public; but we fear that at present financial reasons will render it impracticable to reduce the fees in strict conformity with the principle we have enunciated. We think, therefore, that the suitors should pay an amount of contribution sufficient to remunerate the clerks and high bailiffs of the Court, and that all other expenses of the establishment—such as Judges' salaries, buildings, stationery, and other matters, should be borne by the public revenue."

They then gave a scale of fees, and recommended a reduction in the sum heretofore paid by suitors of £124,000. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had not stated any special reasons, applicable at this particular time, why the principles laid down by the Commissioners for the County Courts, and already recognised in the Superior Courts at Westminster, should not be now acted upon, and he did not see that any reason had been shown for further inquiry into the principle whether suitors who were least able to pay the costs should pay expenses from which the richer suitors in the Superior Courts were exempt. His right hon. Friend said this was a heavy charge, but he did not see how the House would be more competent to deal with the question in a future Session, since they had now the advantage of the assistance of the Report of the Commission. His right hon. Friend said there were special reasons why the Superior Courts of law at Westminster should be maintained at the public expense which were not applicable to the County Courts, because the Judges transacted all the criminal business of the country. But the Equity Judges received their salaries from the same source, and they transacted no criminal business. Their attention was exclusively devoted to suits in which property was concerned, and in which the suitors were persons of wealth, or, at all events, of some means. The Judges of those Courts were maintained exclusively at the public expense, and he did not see any distinction between the Equity Judges, who transacted exclusively civil business, and the Judges of the County Courts. His right hon. Friend said that there were now more Judges in Westminster Hall than were required for the business that devolved upon them. He was not aware of the grounds upon which his right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the number of Judges could be at all diminished, nor could he conceive why, upon that account, the House should not do justice to the class of suitors interested in the County Courts. If the House were to cut off two, or three, or four of the Judges of Westminster Hall, that would not affect the business of the County Courts or the duties performed by the Judges of those Courts, nor did he see why the House should postpone an act of justice to the suitors in the County Courts until they had instituted an inquiry into a matter of a totally different nature. He conceived that the proper course was to go into Committee on the Bill. There might be reasons for making changes in the table of fees, but he hoped the House would not be induced to make those Courts self-supporting, and to throw the whole burden upon the suitors.

said, he hoped the Government would not give way upon the Bill. Of all the means to give relief to the oppressed, none was done at so little expense as by the County Courts Act. The last thing they ought to do would be to refuse a little money towards the relief of the oppressed. The business of the Courts was not only great, but increasing. Since 1851 it had increased a hundred fold. When, with the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford the Government had voted so many millions, they surely should not refuse a sum of £100,000 for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had told them to wait; he was a theologian, and therefore knew that procrastination was the root of all evil. No persons concerned with justice were so much wronged as the clerks of the County Court Judges, for they were less remunerated than any other portion of the same class. The Bill was intended for the middle classes, and he trusted that it would not be rejected.

said, that the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was founded upon the totally mistaken principle that the Judges of those Courts ought to be paid in part by fees from the suitors. The only sound principle was, that that expenditure should be looked upon as part of the public service. Remembering the reckless manner in which money was not unfrequently voted away by that House, it was shocking that there should be so much reluctance in granting the necessary supplies for that most important of all services—the administration of justice. He would certainly vote against the Amendment.

said, he should support the Resolution. He approved of the reasonings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and thought that by acting upon the Report of the Commissioners the House would place itself in a false position. It was, he believed, dangerous to make justice too cheap.

said, that a proposal to throw upon the suitors the entire charge of those Courts looked not unlike an attempt to make men forego their rights and submit to imposition rather than incur a serious expenditure. Such a proceeding was not to be tolerated. The doctrine, that the charge of maintaining the Courts of law should be thrown on the litigant parties was open to grave objection, for the community at large, and not merely the person who succeeded in a case, derived benefit from the administration of justice. It might be that the expenditure on account of salaries and superannuations in the Courts at Westminster Hall was excessive; and, if so, it would be well to inquire into it; but the question had no manner of connection with that now under consideration, and should not be mixed up with it. It was not to be denied that the fees at present exacted from suitors in the County Courts were too large, and altogether out of proportion with the amounts involved in litigation. That evil the Bill would correct, so the House, in his opinion, would do well to go at once into Committee on it.

said, he fully approved of the Resolution. They were culled upon to pay £170,000 a year, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) divided the House upon the propriety of considering the County Courts without pledging themselves to pay the sum, he would go with him. After so much money had been voted, it was more than ever important to consider such a sum as £170,000. He objected to it as a guardian of the public purse.

said, that from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, it would be supposed that the £170,000 was to be taken from the pockets of the people. That certainly was not the proposition. The proposition was to limit the power of granting money to the County Courts to £170,000. They should consider that in those courts was transacted the greater part of the litigation of the country. The amount in each case was small, but the aggregate was enormous. The courts were courts of litigation for the poor. The Resolution made a difference between courts for the rich and courts for the poor, and gave the favour to the court for the rich. [Cries of "No, no!"] That, however, he repeated, was the effect of the Resolution.

said, he must deny that the Amendment was fairly susceptible of any such interpretation as that sought to be put upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. If any distinction were made between the rich and the poor as regarded their courts, the House would desire to make it in favour of the latter. But what said the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proposal to saddle the Consolidated Fund with this enormous charge? It was, above all things, important to know how it was regarded by the financial Minister. For his own part, he (Sir H. Willoughby) had serious misgivings that if they went on throwing such heavy burdens on that fund, it would break down and become bankrupt at last. The expense of our judicial constitution was enormous. We paid more for allowance and compensation than other countries paid for their entire judicature. That arose from the mixture of payment by money and payment by fees.

said, that all persons were gainers by a cheap administration of justice, and that to maintain cheap justice was one of the reasons for which that House existed. If the Judges in Westminster Hall were too numerous and too well paid, by all means reduce them; but let not the poor of the country be called upon to pay larger sums than they ought to pay in judicial fees.

said, the question was not one of cheap justice, but of what proportion of the expense of the County Courts should be borne by the suitors and by the country respectively. It was not the poor alone who were benefitted by these tribunals—the rich often availed themselves of their advantages; and if the fees now unnecessarily proposed to be reduced were still retained, it was his belief that nobody, from one end of the country to the other, would lose a night's sleep in consequence.

said, that 999 out of 1,000 debtors were induced to pay their debts from a knowledge of the facilities offered by those courts for enforcing just claims; and it was not fair that the unfortunate creditor, who was put to the trouble and expense of substantiating his claim in one of those tribunals, should be subjected to an additional charge for their maintenance. The burden ought to fall upon the public at large, to whose rights the existence of those courts operated as an effectual protection, It would, moreover, be a flagrant injustice while the cost of the Superior Courts—resorted to exclusively by the rich—was defrayed by the public, to insist on the tribunals frequented by the poor being supported by the suitors.

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, at the commencement of the clause to insert the words "any special pleader of ten years' standing may be appointed a Judge of a County Court, and." Some of our ablest lawyers had been taken from special pleaders, who were especially versed in the law of evidence.

said, he must object to the Amendment. Special pleaders, he apprehended, would introduce technicalities, and not act on the principles of the Bill. There was a provision in the former Act that they should be qualified for the office after they had been called to the bar for a limited period.

said, he would add to the Amendment a proviso that they should be first called to the bar.

said, he had no objection to fix a particular time after their call to the bar.

said, he did not think it was desirable to introduce special pleaders in any way. They were only persons who undersold the barristers, their very existence was of recent date, and they did not choose to observe the regulations of the bar.

said, that on referring to the existing Act, he found that special pleaders were eligible after they had been called to the bar for seven years. He hoped that would satisfy the hon. Member for Sheffield.

said, he would beg to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to another principle, which was not to exclude attorneys and solicitors. Those parties were admitted in Scotland; and one of the ablest Judges in that country, Mr. Sheriff Barclay, of Perth, was only a solicitor. He should move that a solicitor or attorney of ten years' standing might be qualified to be a Judge of a County Court.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. The attorneys had quite power enough in the profession as it was. A single instance did not make a general rule, and he thought the line between the bar and the attorneys should be maintained definite and distinct.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would adopt the Motion. He knew of no power attorneys possessed except that of selection in delivering briefs to counsel. There was no comparison on the part of barristers with a class of attorneys with whom he (Mr. Hadfield) was acquainted for a knowledge, not only of evidence, but of the law in all its departments.

said, he would not discuss the fusion of the two branches of the profession proposed. So long, however, as the judicial bench in Westminster Hall was recruited from one branch of the profession, he thought it was best to keep up the distinction, more especially in the County Courts. On those short grounds he opposed the Amendment.

said, many of those gentlemen who were now Judges of the County Courts had been originally attorneys. It was but natural, however, that barristers should oppose attorneys.

said, he objected to the power the clause gave to the Judges, in case of absence, to allow another Judge to act for them.

said, that the clause did not increase the power already existing in that respect. It only prescribed the mode of appointment.

said, that it would seem to sanction the notion that these Judges had so much of their time unoccupied that they could supply the convenience of other Judges, and do their work.

said, he wished to ask on what ground actions for crim. con. were excluded from the jurisdiction of the County Courts? He also wished to know why, in the case of causes beyond the jurisdiction of County Courts, the consent of both parties was required for their trial in those Courts?

replied, that County Courts were established in order to afford a cheap and speedy means for the recovery of debts, and for the administration of justice in certain cases; but if jurisdiction was given to those Courts over all causes which were now cognisable by the Superior Courts of Common Law, he apprehended that it would be necessary to establish a subordinate set of Courts to determine the class of cases which were at present within the jurisdiction of the County Courts.

said, he always understood that County Courts were established with the avowed object of bringing justice home to every man's door. If, then, there was in any case a right of action for criminal conversation, why should not the means of redress be open to the poor man as well as to the rich? The poor man felt the injury he sustained in such a case quite as keenly as the rich man, but, under present circumstances, his poverty prevented him from obtaining justice.

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that the damages laid in cases of criminal conversation were frequently of enormous amount, and that great delicacy of judgment was required on the part of the Judges by whom such cases were tried. He thought, therefore, that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should not be extended to cases of that class.

said, a man could bring an action for libel in a County Court, and on what ground was he precluded from proceeding for criminal conversation in such a Court?

said, he did not see why, if cases of libel and seduction could be tried by consent in County Courts, the jurisdiction of such Courts should not be extended, with the consent of the parties to actions for criminal conversation.

said, he thought it would be most dangerous to give County Courts jurisdiction in cases of crim. con. Under such a system facilities for collusion would be afforded, and plots of that kind might easily be carried out to fruition in County Courts.

said, he was of opinion that cases of collusion would be more likely to occur in the inferior than in the superior Courts, and he thought, therefore, that it was desirable to reserve the jurisdiction in actions for criminal conversation to the Superior Courts.

said, that the clause would give jurisdiction to County Courts, by consent, with respect to all actions in Courts of Common Law; he should, therefore, move an Amendment giving County Courts similar jurisdiction with respect to suits in equity.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, which was negatived without a division.

proposed an Amendment, to extend the jurisdiction of the Courts beyond £50, without consent of parties, which was also negatived.

said, he should oppose the clause, and hoped the Committee would strike it out, as in the event of its being agreed to it would clash with the clauses which he intended to move at a future stage.

said, he hoped the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood. The Commissioners were unanimous in their opinion that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should not be extended to any other causes than those mentioned in the clause without the consent of the parties to the suit.

said, he should move to strike out the words "provided the amount of the claim exceeds the sum of £200." He did not see why, if the actual sum in litigation was only £10, whether the set off was £200 or £2,000, the County Court should not deal with such cases. If the clause were agreed to in in its present shape, it would exclude all running accounts from the jurisdiction of those Courts.

said, he would accept the Amendment.

said, he considered the present would be the proper time to move the Amendment of which he had given notice for equalising the salaries of the County Court Judges at £1,500, instead of at £1,200 per annum, as proposed in the Bill. Those Courts occupied now a most important position, and he thought that the public interests required that every precaution should be taken to insure that the Judges should be highly qualified. The task he now had to perform was simplified by the admission contained in the Bill—that hereafter the salaries of the Judges ought to be uniformly of one amount, therefore he need not dwell on that point. A recent Act gave power to the Treasury to assign to them a salary not exceeding £1,500 a year, and not below £1,200. That discretionary power on the part of the Treasury had been condemned by the Lord Chancellor and by the country at large, and was wisely surrendered by the present Bill. The question now was, whether the salaries should be equalised at the amount of £1,500 a year, or, as the Bill proposed, at £1,200. When the first County Courts Act was passed in 1846, jurisdiction was given to the Judges of those Courts only in cases not exceeding £20 in value. A salary of £1,200 was assigned to them, but they were left free to add to their income by following their profession as barristers. In 1850 the jurisdiction was extended to cases of £50 in amount, and of course the business of the Courts was greatly increased. The next Act, in 1852, regulated the salary of the Judges, so that it should not exceed £1,500, or fall below £1,200, but by the same Act the Judges were restricted from following their profession as barristers. In the exercise of the discretion given by the Act the Treasury decided, in 1854, that a very considerable number of the Judges—he believed one-third—should receive the maximum salary of £1,500 a year, on the ground of the rapidly increasing duties of their office. Since then not less than six or seven Bills had been passed adding to the labours of the County Court Judges, and he now appealed to the House to decide whether it was not important to the interests of the country that the income of the Judges should be fixed at such an amount as would secure the services of men qualified to discharge the increased duties with efficiency. He would now give the House some idea of the amount of business done in these Courts by stating that, in 1851, not less than 441,000 plaints were entered for sums amounting in the whole to £1,624,916, of which £618,000 were received during the year to the credit of the suitors, and £615,000 were actually paid over. He might safely say that since then the amount had greatly increased. Considering that the Judges were obliged to abandon their profession as barristers, to take residences in the country, and to support properly their social position—considering also that the business of the Courts had greatly increased, he thought that the higher salary of £1,500 would not be more than a reasonable remuneration for the duties they had to discharge. Let the House compare the salary he now proposed to give with the remuneration given to some other legal functionaries. The senior Commissioner of Bankruptcy received £2,000 a year, and the other Commissioners £1,800 each. The first Insolvency Commissioner received £2,000 a year, and the subordinate Commissioners £1,500 each. The duties discharged by the County Court Judges were fully as important to the public as the duties discharged by those officers, and required an equal degree of capacity, professional knowledge, and experience. The Chairman of the Quarter Sessions Courts in Ireland received from £800 to £1,000 a year each, and were allowed to practise at the bar besides. Now, should not gentlemen qualified to fill the office of a County Court Judge, and having the dignity and station of that office to maintain, be put upon, at least, as good a position as the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions Courts in Ireland? Now, let the Committee consider for a moment the objections that were raised to the proposed increase of the salaries of the County Court Judges. It was in the first place contended that their labours were not so great, and their time not filled up to such a degree in the discharge of the duties of their offices as to entitle them to a higher amount of remuneration than that which they at present received. His answer to that objection was that such a rearrangement of the districts in which those Judges presided might be effected as to occupy their time to any extent which might be deemed to be desirable. The next objection which was urged to any increase of salary was, that those Judges held other situations from which they derived considerable emolument, and a case had, he believed, lately occurred in which a learned gentleman who presided in one of the County Courts held at the same time no less than three recorderships—namely, those of Plymouth, Devonport, and Wells. [Sir G. GREY: There is no salary attached to the last-mentioned recordership.] He was glad to be corrected by the right hon. Baronet; but he must say that he regarded the combination of different situations in the person of a County Court Judge as in principle most objectionable; and, being of that opinion, he saw no reason why such combination should be permitted to stand in the way of the change which he proposed. It was also urged in opposition to that change that it was totally unnecessary, inasmuch as no difficulty was ever experienced in finding in Westminster Hall barristers who were ready to accept the office of County Court Judge at a salary of £1,200 a year. That was a proposition which he was not prepared to dispute; but he must at the same time maintain that, in order to uphold the public interests, the real question in connection with the subject to be considered was, not whether barristers ready to accept the office at that salary could be found, but whether the services of men of high professional qualifications could for that amount be secured. He considered that such would not be the case, and, therefore, he felt justified in pressing his Amendment.

said, that before deciding whether the salaries of the County Court Judges should be raised to the amount proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, there was a preliminary question to be decided—namely, whether the salaries, if increased, should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund or provided for out of the fees included in Schedule C? In proposing the sum of £1,200 per annum, the Government had been under the impression that it was an adequate salary for the County Court Judges. The only means of determining the correctness of that impression was by seeing whether persons competent for the discharge of the duties could be obtained for that sum. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who of course had better means of knowing whether that was so or not than any Member of that House, was of opinion that the salary of £1,200 a year was a remuneration sufficient to insure the public the services of barristers fit for the duties of the office. There was an allowance, too, for travelling expenses, which was a considerable addition to the receipts of many of the Judges, and which probably more than covered the exact expenses to which they were subjected. Her Majesty's Ministers had acknowledged the principle that the amount of the salaries of the County Court Judges should not be left to the discretion of the Treasury, by proposing that a uniform rate of £1,200 a year should, in their regard, be adopted; and, therefore, the only question which the Committee had to determine was, whether that sum should be increased to £1,500 per annum. He could not help observing that on many occasions lately the functions of the House of Commons and of the Government seemed to be somewhat inverted. The House of Commons used to be a check on the prodigality of the Government in proposing votes of money for the discharge of public duties; but lately, without going so far as to say that the Government had acted as a check on the prodigality of the House of Commons, it certainly had been frequently their function to resist the pressure put upon them by the House for the imposition on the Exchequer of allowances for pensions, salaries, and the like. The whole charge for the County Courts imposed on the Consolidated Fund, if this Amendment and the Amendment for raising the salaries of the clerks were carried, would be actually greater than the charges of all the Superior Courts of Law and Equity put together. If the proposition were adopted, it would be very desirable that there should be a clear understanding that, in case there should be any redistribution of districts and a diminution of the number of Judges, those Judges whose duties might be thereby increased would have no right to complain of a breach of contract. It should also be understood that if, in consequence of future legislation, any additional duties beyond those involved in the increase of districts, should be thrown upon the County Court Judges, they would have no claim for any further increase of salary on that account. He further thought they ought to give their whole time to the public, and not to be permitted to hold any other office concurrently with that of a County Court Judge. There was another point connected with the subject which he thought deserved the attention of the Committee. At present County Court Judges were not within the General Superannuation Act. The police magistrates of London were engaged in the performance of extremely onerous duties, for the discharge of which they received only £1,200 a year, subject to an abatement of 5 per cent per annum under the operation of that Act; and they, moreover, upon their retirement, were entitled only to the superannuation allowance which the Act afforded; whereas the County Court Judges received their salaries free from all annual deduction, and were entitled to a retiring pension equal in amount to two-thirds of their salary, even though the Treasury should think proper to sanction their retirement after the lapse of a single year. In a clause about to be considered an addition would be proposed to the salaries of the clerks or registrars equal to about £30,000 a year, and if that increase as well as the present proposed increase of the right hon. Member for Droitwich were agreed to, an additional charge of £45,000 a year would be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. The Committee would have to consider, in the event of their agreeing to those two augmentations, whether, instead of throwing them on the Consolidated Fund, it would not be desirable to raise them by means of fees. If the Committee thought they ought to be charged upon fees, he would point out that about a sufficient sum would be obtained by raising the first item in Schedule C (for every plaint) from 6d. to 1s. in the pound. The Committee ought to consider the effect of the numerous additional charges from time to time thrown upon the general taxation of the country. A Bill had already passed by which an additional charge of least £100,000 a year had been imposed on the public Exchequer, and by the Bill now before the Committee, about £170,000 more would be thrown on it, making £270,000, or in round numbers £300,000. If the proposed Amendments should be carried a further sum of about £50,000 would be added, making an annual charge thrown upon the public purse in the course of the present Session of £350,000. He would remind them that the fees of which he had suggested the increase were paid by persons who engaged in litigation in order to obtain their rights, and who would not probably complain of a little additional taxation, but would acquiesce in it without much difficulty. On the other hand, if the sum he had named were raised from the general taxation of the country, they must have recourse to taxes which had a very limited area of incidence, for although many taxes were doubtless paid by the general consumer, yet many, such as the income tax and the assessed taxes, were paid by a comparatively small portion of the community. He wished the Committee therefore to bear in mind the nature of the taxes from which the Consolidated Fund was fed, and not to do that which, instead of affording relief to the general public, would be certain to give rise to a feeling of discontent.

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not offer a more decided opposition to the proposition. It had been stated that upwards of £600,000 was the amount recovered for creditors in the County Courts; and if he divided that amount by the sixty-two Judges, it gave an average of £6,000 for each. He thought that £1,200 a year was an ample salary for the recovery of such a sum.

said, that there were three scales of payment for chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, ranging from £500 to £1,000. He should decidedly object to the payment by fees.

said, that the principle of giving £1,500 a year had been affirmed in the case of sixteen or eighteen County Court Judges. Upon what principle had that been done? On the principle of the number of causes heard. But that was a most fallacious test, because in London the Judges had but to leave their houses in the morning and return to them in the evening. But, in other districts, the County Court Judges had to undergo the exertion of passing through the country. He was, therefore, opposed to the distinction of salaries. If there was any objection to increasing the salary from the Consolidated Fund, he thought it might be done, as had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), by increasing the fee from 6d. to 1s.

said, he was one of those who objected to the increase of the salaries of the County Court Judges, and he regretted that the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been more decidedly opposed to the Motion of his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Pakington). No private Member of that House could move to increase a Vote in Committee of Supply, or a tax to be levied upon the people; and why, because there was a technical defect in the application of the rule, should he be allowed to propose the augmentation of a charge upon the country which the Executive Government declared to be sufficient to secure the proper discharge of the duties for which it was intended to provide? The Bill now before them had been introduced into Parliament with the sanction of the head of the law, who had the best means of information, and necessarily had the strongest sympathies with the learned members of that profession, and he, in the name of the Executive, announced that £1,200 a year was a sufficient salary for a County Court Judge. Her Majesty's Government would have done no more than their duty had they taken their stand upon that declaration of the Lord Chancellor, and had submitted to the House that it would not be wise for it to reverse the relative positions of the two powers. His right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) had somewhat misunderstood the argument of those who opposed the increase. That argument was, not that there were in Westminster Hall many lawyers who would take the office of Judge of the County Court for £1,200 a year, but that there were plenty who wore able and competent to the discharge of that office who would be content with such a salary. That the gentlemen who filled those offices were fully competent to the discharge of their duties was an admitted fact, and was fully proved by the popularity of their Courts; that they were not men who, from patriotic motives, engaged to discharge those duties for inadequate remuneration was equally true. On the contrary, they were in general gentlemen who passed from a precarious income of a much lower amount to a certain and permanent salary of £1,200 a year, with the power of retiring upon two-thirds of that sum in case of well-certified bodily incapacity. It was right in the House of Commons to reduce the demands upon the public purse that might be made by the Government, but he would not believe that the House of Commons were about to take the functions of the Government out of its hands, and insist upon an augmentation of the burdens of the people.

said, that when the question was raised in the early part of the Session by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), he (Sir G. Grey) asked the House to abstain from coming to a hasty decision, and to wait for a Bill which the Government had in preparation, when the question might be properly raised. He now repeated what he then said, that the Government adhered to the principle of fixed as against fluctuating salaries. He then stated that the Government thought a salary of £1,200, and a liberal allowance for travelling expenses, a sufficient remuneration for the duties which the County Court Judges had to perform; but he added that the Government might have made an error in forming an opinion, and it was for the House to decide, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, upon the proper fixed salary for those Judges. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had weighed the various considerations which applied to this question. His right hon. Friend said, that, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the most competent men in Westminster Hall were candidates for these appointments. He (Sir G. Grey) might also state that he received applications for the office of police magistrate, the salary of which was £1,200 a year, from men who were fully competent to discharge those duties, and who would be also qualified, as he believed, to fill the post of Judge of the County Courts. But the Government knew that a strong feeling existed on the part of many Members of the House, and they anticipated that their proposal might not be successful, and that the House might adopt the proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington). He would candidly say that one of the greatest difficulties that pressed upon him was the arrangement made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) when Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which a certain number of these Judges received a salary of £1,500 a year. He believed that that arrangement was a great error—that it was based upon a fallacious calculation, and that it had produced dissatisfaction among those not included in the number. He was not a Member of the Government at that time, but it seemed to him that that arrangement was the strongest argument for the increase now proposed.

said, that his right hon. Friend ought to be aware that the Motion for raising the salaries of the County Court Judges did not originate with the Treasury, but was pressed upon it by the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, who was then Home Secretary. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not consider himself permitted to consider what was a fit salary for County Court Judges, or he should have decided that question without hesitation. His was simply a Ministerial duty. The Act of Parliament had prescribed the path in which he was to walk, since the salaries of the Judges of those Courts were fixed between £1,200 and £1,500. If blame there was, his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson), who was then Secretary to the Treasury, shared the taunt of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) with him. His hon. Friend would remember that, on referring to the Act of Parliament, it was not believed that they had a discretion, since it appeared to be the intention of Parliament that there should be varying salaries. That was simply a question of the construction of an Act of Parliament which was now going to be repealed. As the Judges affected by this decision had only a life interest, he was surprised to hear that that arrangement constituted so serious a difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, it was distinctly stated by the Government that the Lord Chancellor had come to the determination that £1,200 a year was a sufficient salary for these Judges, and that there was no difficulty at that salary in getting plenty of persons fully qualified to fill those offices. When the Judges were first appointed it was uncertain what their duties would be. Fresh duties had since been put upon them, but no one had said they had more than they could do: they must, therefore, have had an easy time of it at first. Seeing that the Government thought that fit men could be found at the salary offered, he should not feel justified in going against the Government, whose duty it was to decide the question. If the Government proposed to give too much, it was the duty of the House of Commons to hold their hands; but it was not the duty of that House to make the Executive Government spend more money than they declared to be necessary. He regretted that the Government had not spoken with greater firmness against the proposition.

said, he would now beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, relative to the payment of Registrars.

said, he thought no justice really cheap that was not well administered. In his opinion, it would be much better to charge a small extra fee on each plaint in order to secure the services of a competent Registrar than, by reducing the fees, to run the risk of having an officer unable or unwilling to discharge his duties.

said, that the rule of the House was, that while the Government were responsible for the fixing of the specific amount of any Vote they proposed, no private Member could move the increase of that amount, although it was competent for him to move that it be diminished. It was true that local fees and local rates did not come within the same category as taxes paid into the public Exchequer, yet both these classes of imposts were equally levied from the Queen's subjects, and also equally entitled to the vigilant guardianship of that House. The proposal for the remuneration of the clerks of County Courts contained in the clause now under consideration was founded on the recommendation of the Commissioners specially appointed to inquire into the subject. Those Commissioners stated their opinion to be that the suitors ought to contribute a sufficient sum to remunerate the clerks and high-bailiffs of the Court, while other charges should be defrayed at the public expense; and they suggested a scale of salaries for the clerks, commencing with £65, and ending with £1,020, thus exhibiting a considerable increase on many of the existing salaries. If the proposition of the hon. Gentleman were adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners must be set aside, and the country would be saddled with a burden of £60,000 a year, instead of one of £30,000—the extent of the fair and reasonable addition to the income of the clerks proposed to be made by the Bill. He therefore hoped the Committee would not accede to the Amendment.

said, he regarded the opinions of many Members of that House, who were fully acquainted with the subject, as deserving of even greater weight than those of the Commissioners referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rule restricting private Members who might wish to propose the increase of taxation was no doubt very excellent when not pushed to extremes; but an exception ought to be made in its application in a case like the present, where the proposition of the Government would render those Courts inefficient.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was under a misconception with respect to the Commissioners; it was his belief that they had not entered into the question of the remuneration of the Registrars at all. That was a totally different question from the last, and certainly the Amendment should meet with his support. The Bill had gone hastily through the House, mainly out of deference to the Commissioners; yet he believed that the Commissioners had never inquired into the duties or the salaries of the officers of the Court.

said, the scale of salaries in the Report of the Commissioners was prepared by some Gentleman connected with the Treasury. He protested against it at the time, but as there was a strong desire on the part of the Commissioners that they should concur in the Report, he did not press his objection, but he still protested against so low a scale.

said, he entertained a strong objection to the unconstitutional proposal of leaving the amount of salaries of a large class of professional men to be fixed and regulated by the Commissioners of the Treasury. Considering the nature and extent of the onerous duties of the County Courts clerks, he thought that the minimum of remuneration proposed in this clause of the Bill was much too small. It should be considered that the clerks, under the existing law, were required to keep open an office daily from ten to four, and to give proper attention personally or by their clerk to all persons calling for information and official aid. He had made himself acquainted with the details of a County Court clerk's office, and he could say that this book-keeping involved considerable labour and attention to detail, for not only were the entries of the proceedings numerous, but when judgment was carried by a plaintiff the payments were often made in very small instalments extending over a lengthened period of time, and required the utmost attention and accuracy. He earnestly hoped the House would concur in doing justice to a body of men so useful to the suitors and the public as the County Court clerks.

said, the objection of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was entirely removed by an Amendment, of which he had given notice, to fix the salaries in strict conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners.

said, in adopting the sense of the Committee as evinced by the division, he would now beg to propose an Amendment to the effect that all Registrars in Courts where the plaints issued exceeded 200 per annum should have an annual salary of not less than £120, with an addition of £5 for every twenty-five plaints up to 1,000, and beyond that number £4 for every additional twenty-five plaints up to 6,000, making in the whole £1,080 per annum, and when the plaints exceeded 6,000 in number then the salary to be fixed by the Commissioners, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin whether he would fix a day for a discussion on the subject which had occupied the attention of the House at an early period of the evening? He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put such a Resolution upon the paper as would enable the House to come to a distinct decision.

replied that he must leave it to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to take such steps on the subject as he might think fit.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a charge against his (Mr. Horsman's) right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Government waited to see whether it was his intention to bring that charge before the House in a definite form. The Government had a right to expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not shrink from supporting the charge he had made, but would submit a substantive Motion to the House, and so give the Government an opportunity of meeting his accusation.

said, he thought the discussion highly irregular, and he considered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) most unjustifiable. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) said he was in possession of a statement with which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland requested to be furnished, and his right hon. and learned Friend promised that that statement should be placed in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland. The statement had been sent to the Attorney General for Ireland, and he (Mr. Whiteside) thought, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman had considered the subject matter of that statement, the onus would lie upon him of taking such course as he might think fit.

said, he had not asked for any statement. The House had been informed that the Master of the Rolls had sent to an hon. Member of that House a statement which he (the Master of the Rolls) intended himself to read from the bench that day. He (the Attorney General) said he supposed that statement had been sent to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier); that he understood it involved charges upon his conduct as Attorney General for Ireland; and he challenged the right hon. and learned Member to produce that statement. He never asked the right hon. and learned Member for the document. The right hon. and learned Gentleman offered him a document which he (the Attorney General) did not accept, and he repeated what he had before said—that he challenged the right hon. and learned Member, if he dared, to bring the subject under discussion. He (the Attorney General) was prepared to meet the charge, and it was the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), as a man of honour, and as a Member of that House, who had been made the vehicle of bringing the charge before the House, to give him (the Attorney General) an opportunity of meeting and refuting it.

said, he conceived that he understood his duty as a man of honour and as a Member of that House. He had defended the conduct of the Master of the Rolls, and he had been furnished with a statement which he had that day received from Ireland. He had offered to place the statement in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland, and, when the right hon, and learned Gentleman answered that statement, he (Mr. Napier) would be prepared to do his duty.

said, that adverting to the clause in the Bill, which prohibits persons who have been guilty of adultery from intermarrying, he thought that as it was likely to give rise to much discussion he would call upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government to state whether it was his intention to proceed with the Bill at that late period of the Session?

said, he would state the intentions of the Government on an early day next week. With respect to the clause referred to, it was, in his opinion, a cruel and immoral one; and, as far as he was concerned, he would not assent to it.