said, be rose to move, as an Amendment, in Clause 9, page 3, line 10, to leave out from the word "by" to "council," and insert, "and in all other places having a known and defined boundary, by a resolution of the owners and ratepayers." It was as difficult to get at the bottom of this Act as for a person who saw a Bradshaw for the first time to know at what time a train started. By the clause the Act was to be adopted by resolution of the town council, by the improvement commissioners, or by the ratepayers and owners. The object of the Amendment was to give the owners and ratepayers the authority of adopting the Act. The town councils were generally elected on political grounds, and he did not think they were the proper parties to decide on the adoption of the Act. The country would never settle down quietly under such a Bill as this.

said, this was an extremely important question. In his opinion, the Bill as it stood was right. In such large boroughs as that which he represented, it would be extremely inconvenient to have questions of this nature referred to the whole body of the population. The power was one which might be safely entrusted to a town council which was elected by a popular constituency; for their connection with their constituents was so intimate and so frequently recurring, that there could be little danger of their acting in direct opposition to the popular will. They had twenty-four years of experience of town councils, an institution which worked admirably, and such a question as this was quite within their jurisdiction. On principle and expediency, then, he wished to leave the clause as it stood.

said, he thought the hon. Baronet had overlooked the question, if a town council was able to exercise the powers which it now had, it was able to exercise the powers under this Bill. The power about to be conferred was analogous to the provisions of existing Acts. The council must have a majority of two-thirds, with long notice, and with powers of appeal. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment to a division.

said, he thought that the objection of centralization which had been taken to the public health Bills of former years was also applicable to this Bill.

said, that the Bills referred to had not been rejected on the ground of centralization, but from want of time to consider them properly. The principle of centralization had been often alluded to, but had never been fairly discussed. With regard to the Amendment, he considered it erroneous in principle and inexpedient.

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not persevere with his Amendment, which would, if adopted, only end in defeat and delay,

observed, he had wished this Bill had been referred to a Select Committee. He believed all these public boards were a nuisance to the country—especially the Poor Law Board. The Bill would work well for lawyers.

said, he had no inordinate desire for Boards, but he thought his hon. and gallant Friend should not object to a thing merely on account of the name. Neither the Board of Health nor the Poor Law Board, to which his hon. and gallant Friend objected, were Boards in the sense to which his hon. and gallant Friend objected, for both had responsible Ministers in that House.

said, that the clause provided that notice should be given of the meeting referred to in it. He thought that notice should be given, not only of the meeting, but of the purpose for which it was called. He therefore moved the insertion of the words "and of the purpose thereof."

said, that he did not object to the Amendment.

said, that he would move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the words, "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," and insert the words, "the Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Public Health," with the object of giving the latter authority the power to appoint persons to summon meetings of ratepayers in places where neither churchwardens, overseers, nor other local officers named in the Bill, were to be found. The attention of the Secretaries of State was in his opinion already sufficiently occupied with matters of primary importance, and the object should be to diminish rather than to increase their duties.

said, he thought that the right hon. Member must have had in his mind, in making the proposition, the continuance of the General Board of Health. The object of the Bill was to abolish that Board, but it could not be abolished unless some Bill like the present was passed. There ought to be a distinction maintained between sanitary questions and questions of police. The present was a measure of police. Though sorry to do anything likely to impede the progress of the Bill, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, that his constituents had a great horror of having to apply to the Privy Council, and would very much prefer to deal with the Secretary of State.

remarked, that the best way to expedite the passing of the Bill was for hon. Members to make short speeches.

suggested that due notice should be given of the meetings of the town council and of the purpose thereof.

said, that the Bill did not in any way alter the mode of voting provided for in the Bill of 1848.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was to restrict the tenure of office of members of the Board to one year. He should, therefore, move as an Amendment, in page 10, clause 20, to leave out from line 5 to "election," in line 8, inclusive, and insert "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Public Health Act, 1848, no person elected shall in any case continuously remain in office for more than one year; and on the days appointed for going out of office, a number of persons shall be elected equal to the number of those going out, and so many others as may be necessary to complete the full number of the local Board of Health in respect of which the election is to be made."

said, he must oppose the Amendment. In proposing that a third of the number elected should go out annually, he had followed the precedent established by the Municipal Reform Act.

said, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Representations have been recently received from the Legislatures of New South Wales or Victoria with reference to the irregularities in the performance of the Steam Postal Service between this Country and Australia, and whether the Legislature of Victoria has not by a formal Resolution recommended that the existing Contract should be annulled?

Sir, in answer to the hon. Member, I beg leave to state that the Australian Colonies have made repeated complaints of the irregularity in the performance of the steam postal service between England and Australia. In the month of December last, Sir William Denison sent home a recommendation upon the subject from the Legislature of New South Wales; and at a later period he forwarded a Resolution in reference to the same matter from the Chamber of Commerce in that colony. With regard, however, to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that we have received no representation upon this subject from the Legislature of Victoria, and neither has any recommendation been made to us by them that the existing contract should be annulled. But so great a grievance has not escaped the earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially of the Colonial Office. We have been in constant communication with the Treasury upon the subject, and I have now the satisfaction of stating that the contract will be immediately dissolved. I beg further to say that the Lords of the Treasury inform us that tenders for a new service will be invited without delay, modifying the terms in such particulars as experience may have shown to be necessary, and that they state that they have now every hope that they will be able to place the service in all respects on a satisfactory footing. It may be desirable it should also be known, that with a view to obviate the inconvenience which would follow from a sudden removal of the present line of steamers, it is the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to take immediate steps for entering into a temporary arrangement with the Royal Mail Steam Company, or some other Company, for the performance of the service during the period which must intervene between the termination of the present con- tract and the commencement of a new one. I have only to add that on the 16th instant we informed the Governors of the different Australian Colonies of the dissolution of the contract with the European and Australian Royal Mail Company; and we also made known to them the temporary arrangements we proposed to make until a new contract upon the subject should be completed.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government proposes to take any steps for obtaining such portion of the Kensington Gore Estate as would suffice for the erection of Barracks for the Guards in lieu of the present quarters in Portman Street? He had giver, notice of his question before the discussion on the subject last evening, and now put it on account of the great anxiety which prevailed on the matter.

; Sir, Her Majesty's Government have made inquiry into the subject to which the question of the hon. Gentleman relates. But we have found that the Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 could not, without a violation of faith, enter into any arrangement of this kind. The land in question was purchased not from one, but from several proprietors; all those proprietors had other property which they still retain in the same district and immediately contiguous to it, and they made it a condition, when they sold portions of their land, that on those portions no building of a character which could deteriorate the value of the remainder should be erected. They required from the Commissioners very stringent regulations and conditions to that effect; but it was found impossible, or at least very difficult, to draw up such conditions; and the result was, that the proprietors of the land, taking into consideration the high character of the Commissioners and their connection with the Government, had offered to accept from them, instead of a formal document, a personal engament that no building should be erected upon that site except a building connected with the promotion of art and science. It was with this honourable engagement that the purchase was completed, and the hon. Gentleman will therefore see that it is not in the power of the Commissioners to en- tertain any overture of the kind he has mentioned from Her Majesty's Government.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to bring in the Bill for continuing the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act?

said, it was difficult, in the present state of public business, to say when he could bring in the Bill. His intention was to do so on Monday, if possible; but he trusted to get an early day to proceed with it.

said, that the great unwillingness which he, at all times, felt to do anything having the appearance of a desire on his part, to put himself unnecessarily, or ostentatiously forward, could only, in this instance, have been overcome by a permanent sense of duty, from the pressure of which he had found it impossible to escape. He was well aware that the task he had undertaken was anything rather than an agreeable one, but the circumstance of its being so made him feel that it would be the less justifiable to shrink from it. He had, at least, the consolation of knowing that he came to the consideration of this question in a state of the most complete and entire freedom from personal feeling or prejudice of any kind. He had no private wrong to complain of—no private injury to avenge—no private object to effect—no private ambition to gratify. It was on public grounds, and on public grounds alone, that he was induced to call the attention of the House to a subject deeply affecting its reputation. He was warranted by precedents in submitting to the House the Resolution which he intended to move. The House of Commons had from the earliest period shown a determination to maintain its purity, and had at different times passed Resolutions restraining its Members from the commission of acts tending to undermine its independence and lower its character in the eyes of the country. The House might recollect that in April last the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) submitted a Motion arising out of the inquiries of a Committee not long before appointed in consequence of a peti- tion presented by a person named Coffey. He (Lord Hotham) took part in the debate upon that Motion, and it was supposed by some hon. and learned Members that he intended to reflect, injuriously, upon their profession. But that impression he had hoped was speedily removed. It was not then, nor was it now, his intention to do anything of the kind. He was one of those who desired to see the Members of the learned profession stand high in the public estimation, inasmuch as he considered that in the integrity and independence of the Bar was to be found one of the best safeguards of the liberty of the subject. He had alarge acquaintance with lawyers, and be was proud to number many, standing in the front rank of their profession, among his personal friends. Neither could he forget that he was himself directly descended from one who for more than thirty years occupied a seat on the judicial bench in Westminster Hall, and who, however much he might have been excelled in learning by his contemporaries, was surpassed by none in a feeling of high honour which characterized every act of his public and private life. His (Lord Hotham's) feelings, therefore, for the legal profession could be none other than that of respect. But passing to a matter of a less personal character he found that the First Resolution on this subject on the Journals of the House directly interfered with the free action of hon. Members of the legal profession. It provided that Members of the House who were lawyers should not take part as counsel on Bills before the House of Lords prior to their coming before the House of Commons. He also found that various Members had been expelled from the House for the acceptance of bribes in consideration of the performance of their duty. Mr. Ashburnham was expelled in 1667 for receiving a fee of £500 from a merchant, and a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair was expelled, in 1694, for receiving l,000 guineas from the City of London for passing the Orphans Bill. Subsequently Mr. Hungerford was expelled for receiving what would now be considered a moderate sum—namely, twenty guineas, for having, in his capacity of Chairman of Committees, helped to pass that Bill. In 1695 the House, feeling that if there were no offerers there would be no receivers of money, passed a resolution making it a high clinic and misdemeanour, for any one to presume to offer money to any Mem- ber of the House to stimulate him in the discharge of his duties. Things went on without any interruption for a very great length of time. The next occasion which Parliament interfered to protect its own character and independence was in the year 1830, when in consequence of an hon. Member having entered into partnership with another gentleman to carry on the business of a Parliamentary agent, a Resolution was passed, without a dissentient voice, by the House, condemnatory of that practice, and on the following day that partnership was dissolved. Since the commencement of the present Session, circumstances had occurred which called for further interference on the part of the House-Hon. Gentlemen were aware that of late years the sending of appeals from India to this country had become a matter of more and more frequent occurrence; and in consequence of that system a practice had sprung up, against which he thought it behoved the House carefully to guard, and upon which it was time that they should pronounce some definite decision. They had been informed by no less an authority than the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), who had lately filled the office of Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, that it was publicly stated and believed in India that the services of Members of that House could be purchased with money. That was the general impression which prevailed among the Natives of India. In discussing that subject he would not go into the evidence adduced before the Committee which had inquired into the allegations contained in the petition of Coffey against a Member of that House. That Committee had acquitted the hon. and learned Member in question of the charges set forth in the petition, and he had no doubt but that in doing so they had been influenced solely by their sense of duty. But no one, he thought, would be prepared to deny that a belief very extensively prevailed in India that the services of legal gentlemen occupying seats in that House might be secured by an offer of fees or pecuniary rewards, and he would refer to the Report of that Committee to confirm the statement which he had made. This matter had largely attracted the attention of the public. The public narrowly watched their proceedings, and naturally inquired whether they were as careful with regard to what took place in the House as they professed to be with regard to what took place out of it. What were the terms employed by a public journal of large circulation? Alluding to the system with regard to Indian appeals that journal said:—

"What can be worse than such a proceeding as this? A barrister in Parliament is retained by a fee of most exaggerated magnitude (colourably a fee, but really a bribe) to advise upon business professedly intended to be brought before the ordinary court of law. Consultations are gravely held, and suggestions gravely made to the effect that the matter is one in which resort to a legal tribunal is hopeless; the only remedy is by an appeal to Parliament. The legal member to whom the retaining fee has been paid is requested to undertake the case. He does so, ostensibly as a legislator, really as a lawyer; ostensibly as a representative of the people giving his unbiassed opinion on a matter of national concern, really as a hired advocate uttering purchased sentences at so much a period on behalf of a cause in which his interest is only of the pounds, shillings, and pence kind. Such is the imputation. Everybody who has mixed at all in life must have heard of it over and over again in private. Corruption is the rule in India—bribery, the recognized procedure of all its courts. How are these people to draw the distinction (sufficiently subtle at the best) between the fee to the barrister and the bribe to the Member, in those cases where one and the same person advocates in the House, as Member, the very same cause that he was retained to advise on as a barrister? A fee of 500 guineas is left with papers in a dingy set of chambers in the Temple; that is the first act; a consultation is the second; a speech in the House the third. Can you hope to make the Indian Prince believe that the speech of the Member has not really been bought by the fee to the barrister? Nay, can you make any one else believe it? Do you, reader, believe it? Does Mr. Bull believe it, or Mrs. Bull, or any of the family who have come to years of discretion? Can we wonder that our wealthy subjects in Asia are filled with a profound conviction that our boasted purity of Parliament is but a farce? Can we wonder that it should be publicly stated in India, as Mr. Mangles assured us it is, 'That the services of Members of Parliament are obtainable for money? Can the House tolerate such imputations as these? Ought it to hesitate a moment in stringently enforcing the plain rule, that no legal Member shall advocate or promote in Parliament any cause or matter in respect of which he has been professionally consulted as a fee'd advocate."

Well, then, the next question which arose was whether the Resolutions to which he had referred were sufficient to meet the case where there was no direct offer or acceptance of money in consideration of Parliamentary services? For his own part he thought that they were not, and the question with which he wished to deal was that of legal Members of that House being retained in a regular manner for the discharge of duties in a court of law, and then, instead of taking the cases in which they have been thus retained into court, bringing them forward in the House of Commons. Such conduct was quite possible without any infringement of the Resolutions to which the House had already agreed; but at the same time it was calculated grievously to impair the purity of that House. He was not going to embarrass the discussion with the question as to a Member's voting or not voting on a question in which he was personally interested; every vote given under such circumstances was liable to be struck off on appeal to the House, and further Mr. Speaker Abbott had ruled, that the interest which would preclude a Member from advocating a measure in that House must be a personal pecuniary interest. It should be remembered, that the legal profession was the only one in which its Members received their remuneration before their work was done, and that the first step in the engagement of a barrister was to tender him his honorary fee. The transaction in the case of a legal Member was therefore complete as soon as he had received his fee; and, therefore, to meet the case under consideration he had no alternative but that of proposing the Resolution which he had placed on the paper. Let him glance for a moment at the objections which might be urged against the Resolution. In the first place, it might be said that what he proposed involved an undue interference with the free action of members of the legal profession in the House of Commons. Now, to that he would reply, that the first duty of every Member of that House was to the House itself, and that he was bound to comply with the rules laid down by the House for the guidance of its Members. The effect of one of the Resolutions to which he had referred was to prevent legal Members of that House, who had been concerned on measures before Committees of the House of Lords, from advocating them in that House; and surely it was not very unreasonable to prevent hon. Gentlemen stepping at once from the position of advocates before Committees of the other House to that of judges in the House of Commons. It appeared to him that the same principle which made it improper for those who had been engaged before a Committee of the House of Lords to advocate the same case in the House of Commons. made it equally improper for those who had advised upon a case or advocated it in court to again act as advocates in the House of Commons. It might be said that constituencies would complain of the free action of their representatives being fettered, but that was not a question for the House, it was one to be settled between the Member and his con-constituents, to whom he ought to state fairly all the disabilities to which the House might subject its Members. He could not help remarking that that House was accustomed to extend great advantages to members of the legal profession. Such Members performed but a very small portion of the duties of Committees, and when the circuits came they were always allowed leave of absence. It was said that the best security against improper proceedings was publicity; but in the case of transactions such as his Resolutions contemplated, the safeguard of publicity was wholly wanting. The apprehension entertained by some that the adoption of his Motion would deprive the House of the services of many honest, able, and learned men was, he thought, chimerical. It was well known that it had been the practice of the present Lord Chancellor while at the bar never to take part in any proceedings in that House in which he was professionally concerned out of it, and on the other hand, never to act as an advocate out of the House in any case in which he had been previously concerned within its walls. The noble and learned Lord would be regarded as a high authority on any question of professional honour or propriety; and it could not be supposed that the adoption of a rule which had been followed by such a distinguished ornament of the legal profession would prevent able and learned men from sitting in that House. Fears had been expressed by hon. and learned men who were sensible of the necessity of some step being taken on this subject, lest his Resolution were not too stringent; and they had suggested whether it might not be possible to provide that the action of the advocate should cease from the moment that the matter in which he was engaged was introduced into that House. That, however, would, he thought, entirely fail to reach the evil against which they ought to guard. He was happy to say that since his notice was put on the paper he had received from a large number of Members of the legal profession—persons of the highest as well as persons of comparatively low station—expressions of entire approbation of the course which he was pursuing. Among those gentlemen were members of the Irish as well as of the English bar, and the late Attorney Ge- neral for Ireland, whose unavoidable absence he regretted, had told him, and had authorized him, if he desired it, to say that he entirely concurred in his object. Some hon. Members, though admitting that the practice to which he had alluded was scandalous, and ought to be put an end to, might be of opinion that the existing law was sufficient, and that a Resolution like this would rather weaken than strengthen that law. He could not think that this was a valid objection to the Resolution. The Committee over which the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) presided, in dealing with the case lately submitted to it, contented itself with giving a verdict that was tantamount to an acquittal of the hon. and learned Gentleman concerned, without saying a word about the practice of the existence of which there was no doubt. In 1830, when the question of Parliamentary agency was raised, the House did not refrain from expressing its opinion on the subject on account of the supposed sufficiency of the existing law. Sir J. Scarlett, Sir E. Sugden, Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. W. Wynn, all high authorities on such a question, did not then object to the adoption of a Resolution on any such ground. Another eminent individual, a great stickler for the privileges of that House, Mr. Secretary Peel, stated on the same occasion that he would vote for the Resolution because it was consistent with the uniform practice of the House that lawyers should not take part as Members of Parliament in any proceeding in which they were professionally engaged, and because any Member taking a pecuniary reward for his services did that which was incompatible with the discharge of any Parliamentary duty, and because the introduction of such a practice would necessarily tend to give members of the bar who were fortunate enough to have seats in Parliament an undue advantage over the rest of the profession. Unless hon. Gentlemen were ingenious enough to believe that a legal Member who received a fee of great magnitude in consideration of a duty which he was afterwards told it was not necessary for him to do, and who subsequently brought the matter before that House, would not be biassed by the fee which he had received, they could not do otherwise than give effect to his Resolution. He had already quoted from one public journal, he begged now to quote the following from another:—

"Is the House prepared for such an incorporation of professional and legislative duty on the part of its legal members as that gentleman who have been retained by private individuals in the one capacity should take advantage of the other to further their client's claims. …. It remains for Parliament and the country to say whether this confusion of their two capacities shall be permitted to professional Members of the House. If such proceedings are permitted, there is an end to all confidence in the disinterestedness of Members. At this time especially our relations with India should be above suspicion. The country cannot tolerate any pretended Burke or Wilberforce, with one hand raised in philanthropic declamation and the other thrust behind him to take the rupees. A stringent resolution will be expected from the House if it desires to maintain its fame and dignity."—The Times, March 8.

It was on these grounds that he ventured to propose a Resolution which, whatever its other demerits might be, was without ambiguity, and could not be charged with saying one thing and meaning another. In considering this Resolution he asked hon. Members in the words they heard read to them every day, to lay aside all "private interests, prejudices, and partial affections." In dealing with it he called upon them, not as men of politics, and still less as men of party, but as men of honour and integrity, as men of conscience, of common honesty, and of common sense, and asked them what would the country think if, after professing so much virtuous indignation at corrupt practices out of doors, the House became so squeamish when the question was the removal of a blot from its own escutcheon. If after disfranchising St. Albans and Sudbury, and holding in suspended animation the freemen of Galway,—it was to be struck dumb when there arose a question of its own purity. He hoped that the House would rise above all minor considerations, and would proclaim to England, to India, and to the world, that while it would punish to the utmost every species of corruption without its walls, it would not tolerate even the suspicion of corruption within them. With these feelings, and having no personal interest in the matter, except a regard for the credit of an assembly in which he had had the honour of sitting for thirty-eight years, he hoped that the House would agree to his Resolution.

seconded the Motion. Although he did not anticipate much practical good from such a Resolution as this so far as it would affect Members of the House, yet he thought the effect of the discussion would be to enlighten the constituencies as to their duties, and thus pro- duce the good effect of restraining them from sending to Parliament men who would be likely to abuse their position. He would not refer to what had taken place during the present Session, more than to state that he agreed in the decision at which the Committee had arrived in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal; but during his Parliamentary experience he had known many cases of the grossest corruption; and if he were asked why he did not bring them forward, his reply would be that if he had the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and but a small portion of his pugnacity, he should probably have done so. He, however, had no hesitation in saying that such practices as those complained of deserved all possible censure. They frequently saw brief-less barristers go down to constituencies, sometimes amusing them with ultra-radical notions, and sometimes with antediluvian conservatism, for no other purpose than to promote their own private interests by obtaining a seat in the House of Commons; for when elected they received briefs, which they were unable otherwise to do, for the sake of their votes in Parliament. He had often mentioned these cases in private, and had been told that the practice was strictly professional. He had been unable to define the term "professional," unless it meant getting the greatest amount of money for the least possible amount of work. It was "professional" in a mining agent or captain to send up glaring reports of the state of their mines, in order to deceive the public; it was "professional" for architects to receive their commission and a per centage from the tradesmen to pass their accounts. There were a great number of these professional practices which it would be as well if the House could put down. From the conviction, then, that such a Resolution would have a good effect upon constituents he gladly seconded the Motion.

said, he could not admit that there was no ambiguity in the Resolution; but his chief objection to it was that it was a vague censure upon all the Members of the legal profession in that House. [Cries of "No!"] He maintained that that was the case, and that the speeches of the mover and seconder also implied that there was impropriety of conduct in reference to this subject in Members of that House belonging to the legal profession. He hoped that before the debate terminated the noble Lord would state who were the persons to whom he alluded, and what causes of complaint he had against them. If he did not do that, his Resolution would remain as a mere abstract proposition, throwing a stigma on a very important portion of that assembly. Though not himself engaged in practice, he felt it his duty, as a member of that profession, to repel the insinuation that the legal Members took fees ostensibly for professional purposes, but in reality for services rendered in that House. If the Resolution were passed, and a barrister had been concerned in a case many years before, and that case came before the House, he would not be able to speak upon it without incurring the imputation of corrupt motives. If the noble Lord wished to carry out his principle, he must go a great deal further than he proposed. Some Members of the House were railway directors, and in that capacity received salaries and emoluments from their respective companies; yet when measures affecting the interests of their companies were introduced into Parliament, they were allowed to take part in the discussions upon them. So with respect to the Chairman of the East India Company. He was deeply interested in maintaining the power and authority of the great corporation of which he was the head, and he was in the habit of advising the House for that purpose; but if the principle of the noble Lord were carried out, he would be precluded from joining in the debates on the India Bill. The same observation applied to the Governor of the Bank, and to other gentlemen concerned in different commercial undertakings. They ought, according to the principle of the noble Lord, to be prevented from supporting any measure which related to matters for which they received emoluments. Nay, even the law officers of the Crown would have their mouths closed when questions were discussed in which they might be officially engaged, and yet they were the persons to whom the House looked for information in such cases. It was only the other day that the Attorney General for Ireland was allowed to defend his own conduct and that of the Crown with regard to a prosecution in Ireland; but, according to the principle of the noble Lord, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to speak on the subject. It was obvious that the proposition of the noble Lord, if followed out to its legitimate conclusion, would deprive the House of much valuable information. On the other hand, if it were to be applied to the legal profession alone, its effect would be, in his opinion, to affix a most unjust stigma on its members, and therefore he should record his vote against the Resolution. In conclusion, he would repeat that the noble Lord ought to name the persons against whom he had brought charges.

said, that the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) were highly creditable to him, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done justice to the Resolution, which might well be affirmed by the House without in the slightest degree trenching on the honour of the legal profession. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member might be easily answered. When the Chairman of the Court of Directors spoke on behalf of the Company the House understood exactly the position in which he stood, and gave to his statements and arguments all the weight they deserved, and no more. There was no analogy between such a case and that put by the noble Lord. What the noble Lord justly complained of was, that any man should attempt to advocate a particular measure in that House from a professed belief in its truth and justice, and nothing else, when, at the same time, his services had been purchased by a fee. The two things were quite distinct. So with respect to the Law Officers of the Crown. They had sat in the House of Commons for centuries, during which time they had been excluded from only one Parliament, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knew by what name that Parliament was known—the "Lack-learning Parliament." Assuredly a person holding an efficient situation under the Crown, and discharging the duty so imposed upon him, stood in a very different position from a private barrister acting on behalf of an Indian Prince, and, while professing to advocate measures in the interests of truth and justice alone, allowing himself to be influenced by pecuniary considerations. Moreover, nothing should be done indirectly that ought not to be done directly. Not much weight would be attached to the statements of a man who frankly told the House that the particular measure he was advocating had been brought forward in consequence of a professional opinion he had given to an Indian Rajah; and what the noble Lord proposed was than an hon. Member so circumstanced should not be allowed to interfere directly or indirectly in Parliament, whatever he might do in courts of law, in matters in which he had received fees as a barrister. Hon. Members were prohibited from practising before Parliamentary Committees for the reasons set forth in the Resolution of the noble Lord, and they ought not to be permitted to do in another way the same business which they were interdicted from doing "upstairs." The resolution appeared to him to be just and reasonable, and, so far from casting any reflection upon the profession to which he had the honour to belong, it deserved, and he hoped would receive, the support of every hon. and learned Member of that House.

said, that the Resolution did not apply to the particular grievance which the noble Lord had brought before the House. The case submitted by the noble Lord was that of certain gentlemen of the long robe who had taken fees, ostensibly for business out of the House, but really for business in the House. As a remedy for that simple case the noble Lord proposed a Resolution which did not refer particularly to Members of the legal profession, but declared in general terms that corrupt practices had crept in among Members against which it was necessary for the House to protest. Now, the fact was, there was nothing of the kind to be alleged against the conduct of business in the House. The noble Lord did not recite that it had been proved that certain particular gentlemen had been guilty of malpractices. His proof had been of the vaguest description, merely quoting from newspapers. Was it true, or not, that the great bulk of the Members of the legal profession were guilty of practices of this kind? He (Mr. Bouverie) believed nothing of the kind. He had, indeed, heard of two or three cases of the kind talked of, but they were alluded to in the strongest terms, as being contrary to proper practice. But even supposing the charge was true as regarded the Members of the legal profession—which, however, he denied—why were Members generally to be exposed to a grave censure such as that contained in the Resolution of the noble Lord? Again, how would the Resolution meet the cases aimed at which from being dishonourable were necessarily secret. In short, what the House really wanted was, not an abstract Resolution against corrupt practices, but the means of detection. He questioned the legality of that House laying down any new rule upon this subject, though they might properly expound the old practice. But apart from that he thought the proposition of the noble Lord was both too wide and too narrow, and therefore he should vote against it. It was too wide, for it would include the law officers of the Crown and the Ministers of State—who brought forward measures, in respect of which they might be said to have received fee and reward. He also said that the Resolution was too narrow, for it did not meet the case it was wished to meet. A man astute and crafty enough to evade the rules of the House would laugh at the Resolution, and say that he did not bring forward a Motion for which he had received a pecuniary fee or reward, but a totally distinct Motion. Therefore he maintained that the Resolution was both too wide and too narrow. There was nobody more fitting than the noble Lord, from his position and character, to vindicate the honour of the House of Commons; but the noble Lord's feeling was a sort of vague and indiscriminate suspicion that there was something wrong in the House of Commons. The simple and real truth, however, was, with respect to the Members of the House of Commons generally, that there had been an extraordinary improvement within the last two or three generations. Anybody acquainted with the history of Parliament was aware that about 200 years ago the grossest personal corruption prevailed among the Members. What was the state of things in the reign of Charles II.? It was stated in the Parliamentary History that—

"Then was the time when we beheld a band of abject pensioners in Parliament, a list whereof is still extant. Then was the time we saw our senators wearing the badge of slavery and doing a tyrant's drudgery for clothes and sustenance. Then was the time when no less a sum than £252,467 was squandered among those mercenary wretches in less than three years. Then was the time when a hungry Member was sure of a dinner at one or other of the public tables kept about Westminster. The practice was that besides a dinner, when they had done any eminent piece of service every one found under his plate such a parcel of guineas as it was thought his day's work had merited."

That was a grievous state of things, and corruption showed itself afterwards even in the Chair of the House, and the Speaker was turned out of that assembly for taking bribes; and it was commonly understood that in 1763 the Peace of Paris was agreed to by the House of Commons in consequence of the personal corruption of the Members, a large sum of money being expended for that purpose. Another authority—Hallam—stated—

"But while this acknowledged influence of lucrative office might be presumed to operate on many staunch adherents of the actual Administration, there was always a strong suspicion, or rather a general certainty of absolute corruption. The proofs in single instances could never, perhaps, be established—which, of course, is not surprising; but no one seriously called in question the reality of a systematic distribution of money by the Crown to the representatives of the people; nor did the corrupters themselves, in whom the crime seems always to be deemed less heinous, disguise it in private. This practice of direct bribery continued, beyond doubt, long afterwards, and is generally supposed to have ceased about the termination of the American war."

Well, he said that since then a great change had taken place, and they were generally better than their ancestors in those respects; and this was attributable not only to the general improvement of public morality, but also to the great security afforded by the press, which was ever vigilant and ready to lay its hands on any person guilty of dishonourable practices. That was the real security, and not a vague Resolution such as had been proposed. He was satisfied that, laudable as the noble Lord's object was, the remedy proposed would go wide of the mark, and the plaster would not fit the sore. The real remedy was one of a totally different kind, and he deprecated placing on the Journals of the House, as a record for all time, that in 1858 the House of Commons thought it necessary to pass a Resolution against corruption on the part of its Members. On these grounds he objected most strongly to the Resolution, and should move "the Previous Question."

Sir, I am induced to offer a very few words upon the proposition of my noble Friend; because, not having the honour to be a member of the legal profession, I may, perhaps, be considered free from the suspicion of bias in any suggestion I may venture to submit to the House. It appears to me that the first and most important question to be considered before we decide upon either the Motion or the Amendment is this—whether there is such a state of public feeling in regard to the existence, or the probable existence, of any corruption, or tendency to corruption, amongst the Members of this House as to make it desirable to pass such a Resolution as that now submitted to us by the noble Lord? If it be the pleasure of the House to agree with my noble Friend in this Resolution, I cannot help suggesting that the words of it should be more general. They should be such as to Cover every person in this House, and not be made to apply to a particular section of the House only. Nor should the Resolution contain expressions which, whatever difference of opinion may exist in this House as to their application to the legal profession, will be construed by the public at large as applying to that profession. I certainly deprecate the idea of the learned profession of the law being open to any accusation of this kind. I would therefore suggest to my noble Friend whether or not the adoption of such words as these, condemnatory of the conduct of any Member advocating or promoting in this House any measure "in which he may have acted or been concerned," will not, in fact, be adopting a Resolution pointing to the members of the legal profession—whether these words will not establish a kind of trap for the consciences of members of the Bar; and whether in some possible cases they will not operate as a serious difficulty in the discharge of their ordinary business? I allude particularly to Crown prosecutions. There are cases in which law officers of the Crown are engaged professionally in the discharge of their duties, in which they receive the proper professional remuneration, and in relation to which they may feel themselves bound to come down to the House and take a part in the discussions arising out of such cases. Now, I think that the probability of such cases occurring must prove fatal to the adoption of those particular words in the proposed Resolution. I would suggest, if the Resolution is to pass, that these words to which I have referred should be altogether omitted, and that the Resolution should be passed in this form:—

"That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote, or advocate in this House any proceeding or measure for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward."

I think it would not only be unadvisable, but it would be unfair, to introduce those which I think refer to the learned profession only. I would further suggest to my noble Friend that, if these words are retained, that the real scope and object of his Resolution will be materially affected, and that the worst class of cases will be left wholly untouched. The worst class of corruption is not, in my opinion, that in which professional men advocate in this House those views for which they have been previously engaged outside the House; but the worst class is that in which a Member, from a desire of pecuniary or other reward, undertakes to originate a certain proceeding in this House. Now this latter class would be wholly untouched by the Resolution. If, then, we are to proceed with the proposition, I think we ought to proceed in the manner I suggest. I think I am right in saying that the Standing Orders are silent on the crime of corruption in Members of that House, though there is a distinct Standing Order against offering a bribe or reward to Members. There is no Standing Order, however, against Members receiving bribes or rewards, and I believe the feeling has been not to conceive the possibility of any such offence on the part of Members. Consequently I own I am rather disposed to avoid, if possible, any proceeding on our part which would imply that there is a tendency to corruption in this House. Sir, I believe that the House was never more free from the imputation of such a charge than it is at the present time. On the other hand, if the House should think it necessary to adopt some measure of the kind, I trust that it will not refuse to frame their Resolution in the manner I have suggested.

said, he hoped the House would not follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet, for to do so would be to affirm a kind of truism. He should, therefore, deprecate any such proposition as the right hon. Baronet had suggested as vague and unmeaning. He quite agreed that personal corruption was not a charge that could be made against the Members of that House, and he was firmly of opinion that never had any popular assembly, dealing with such large interests, in which pecuniary considerations were greatly involved, given its votes more free from personal bias or corruption. Comparing the House with other great popular bodies, he believed that its Members were distinguished most honourably and most creditably for their purity of conduct; and contrasting the present moment with past times, he believed that they had grown better instead of worse, and that they had purged themselves from the stains which in former days might have attached to them. He thought, however, that the House and the public were greatly indebted to the noble Lord for having brought forward this subject, for it was impossible to listen to what had been said out of doors without feeling that they would have shown themselves insensible to their own honour and to the honour of the legal profession—whose character was no small part of the public possessions of the country—if they had not endeavoured to guard more effectually than they had hitherto done against such cases as the noble Lord had alluded to. It was no use disguising the fact. It was notorious that the reference of pecuniary claims from India to this country was becoming more and more frequent, and that they were promoted by great Indian rajahs and wealthy zemindars who were accustomed in their own country to apply their immense resources in the most unscrupulous way to the perversion of justice. There was no doubt but that there was a growing belief that legal Members of the House might with propriety, after having been more or less concerned professionally in cases, bring them forward in that House. He thought that that ought to be put a complete stop to. Even if there were mere suspicions, it was worth their while to put a stop to them. He had heard with great pleasure the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represented the Bar of Ireland, and he should have been much better pleased if the matter had been taken up by the Bar themselves, for he thought it due to that noble profession that there should be no ground of suspicion against its members. He hoped they would have a declaration from the law officers of the Crown for England similar to that of the Attorney General for Ireland. If that were so, he thought that there would be security against the course which had been deprecated being followed in future—a better security than they could obtain by any Resolution. These things must have a serious effect in India, where no doubt they were much exaggerated; and he thought the circumstances so grave, that it became them to show that they were in earnest on this occasion. Therefore, although he thought that reasonable objection might be made to the terms of the Motion, he felt that the country was indebted to the noble Lord for the course which he had pursued.

said, he was reluctant to allow the discussion to terminate without saying a word on behalf of the profession to which he had the honour to belong. With a great deal that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) he cordially concurred. He had, however, no difficulty in saying, on behalf of the Bar, that if any member of that profession had come down to the House and advocated a question with which he had been previously professionally concerned, and had received his usual fee, such a person would be held by the Bar itself as deserving of the reprobation of the House, as well as the reprobation of the public. He (the Solicitor General) would go further, and say, that any member of the profession who entertained that feeling of honour which he believed was common to the whole body, would at once declare that he could not advocate, or even vote for any question in that House, in which he had been professionally engaged, lest he might, unconsciously, perhaps, be biassed by the opinion which he had, as an advocate, expressed outside of the House. But having said that much, he must express his regret, not at his noble Friend bringing forward the proposition before the House, because he was sure that the noble Lord was actuated by nothing but the purest sense of honour—but he regretted that both the noble Lord who proposed the Motion, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, in their several addresses seemed to insinuate that some cases had taken place, and could be named, which rendered a proposal of the kind absolutely necessary. Now, the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was somewhat different. That right hon. Gentleman, while stating his belief that these rumours were quite unfounded, said, that inasmuch as such suspicions were entertained, it was due to the House to adopt a Resolution on the subject. If they had only suspicions to go upon, he should certainly be disposed to offer objections to entertaining the proposition at all. But as the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution appeared to give their countenance to these suspicions, and by the tone of their speeches led the House to believe that there were grounds for those suspicions, he (the Solicitor General) must, on behalf of the Bar, ask his noble Friend and the hon. Gentleman, in Scotch phrase, to "condescend to particulars," and tell the House who were those members of the legal profession that were charged with having so misconducted themselves. He believed that a more honourable body of men than the Bar of England never existed. And he further believed that the Members of that House, who were also members of the Bar, were not the least honourable section of the Bar. When a Member of the House, addressing himself to a section of Members, gave currency to suspicions which were said to exist out of doors, it was due to that section to enter upon some particularization. If there were such cases as had been referred to they should be specifically mentioned to the House, in order that there might be a foundation for a Resolution of this description. Speaking for the members of the Bar who had seats in that House, he must say that he could not give credence to the charge. On the contrary, he could name instances of members of his profession, also Members of that House, who had been placed in positions in which they could have come down to the House and given the most valuable assistance in support of certain questions; but, to their honour, they unequivocally declined to take any part in relation to those questions in the House, because they had previously been professionally engaged upon them outside. Those facts he knew to his own personal knowledge. He agreed with the right bon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that the Resolution was at once both too wide and too narrow in its scope. Taken in its wide sense there could be no doubt that it included the Ministers of the Crown, the law officers and gentlemen holding such public positions as the Chairman of the East India Company, the Governor of the Bank, and others; and he asked whether it was advisable gravely to affirm a Resolution which might produce out of doors a worse doubt and a worse suspicion than it was intended to provide against? If it was to affirm that a course of conduct should be pursued which he declared was inherent to the honour of the Bar, then the wording of the Resolution should be somewhat different. It would ill become him, having spoken of the wording of the Resolution, to say more upon the part of the Bar, except to claim for them that if there was any charge imputed to any member of that body in that House, there should be a distinct statement, and some proof of it given. He disowned all alleged charges against the members of the Bar in that House. He did not believe in them. He was sure there was no foundation for them. Having said so much, he would leave the Resolution in the hands of the House to adopt any wording it might think fit to convey the meaning it intended; but at present he believed the resolution either conveyed much more than those who proposed it, or those who supported it intended it to convey, or it failed to express the charges which were meant to be expressed, and which had been insinuated in some of the speeches delivered that evening.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Solicitor General in thinking that conduct such as had been imputed to the Bar in the course of this debate would be a violation of their duty, both as Members of Parliament and members of the legal profession. As a member of the Irish Bar, he would say that the whole of that profession would unanimously condemn any Member who could allow himself to be influenced by the motives imputed, and that, on the contrary, members of the Bar often refused fees in cases, lest at some future day they might have to decide on the same cases as Members of Parliament. He repudiated the vague imputations which had been cast on the Bar, and firmly believed that its members were incapable of the conduct which had been insinuated rather than charged in the course of the debate.

said, that holding the office which he did, he felt bound not to allow the debate to terminate without saying a few words upon the subject of the Resolution before the House. If the noble Lord who moved the Resolution, or any one who supported it, believed that there had been on the part of any member of the Bar of England, Scotland, or Ireland, any such conduct as afforded the slightest ground for the Resolution, the charge, as a matter of justice to the whole profession, ought at once to be plainly and openly made. He had listened with astonishment and regret to the observations of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), for it was impossible to avoid perceiving that that right hon. Gentleman had in his mind some impression that there had been conduct on the part of members of the Bar in that House which called for the Resolution. Mention had been made of rumours out of doors, but he (the Attorney General) had never heard of them. He believed that the Bar of England merited the encomiums that had been pronounced upon it by his hon. and learned Friend, and that it enjoyed and deserved the confidence of the public. Now, as far as the Resolution went, except as to the words pointed out by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, it was entirely unobjectionable, though at the same time he considered it quite unnecessary and uncalled for. The Resolution was an abstract Resolution, expressing what was now the law of Parliament. There was an Order of the House, passed as long ago as 1695, in which it was laid down that—

"That the offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for promoting any matter whatsoever impending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and subversive of the English constitution."

That order was directed against offers, but of course it implied that the acceptance of such offers by a Member of Parliament would be equally reprehensible. But then there were the words which had been proposed to be omitted from the Resolution, "in which he may have acted or been concerned," and upon these he would ask the House to consider what was the natural, the necessary meaning of those words—that members of the Bar having seats in that House should not be permitted to interfere in matters upon which they had been consulted as barristers. He, as one of the law officers of the Crown, was consulted upon a matter in which the House and the country felt a deep interest—the affair of the Cagliari. He gave an opinion, and within three days after giving it the matter was brought under discussion in that House. In what position would the law officers of the Crown have been placed if the proposed Resolution had then been in force? They would have been forbidden to take any part in that discussion. If it were intended that the Resolution should not apply to cases where opinions only had been given, then that should be expressed in the Resolution, otherwise every member of the Bar having a seat in that House would be placed in a very difficult position. He would refer to class of cases with which he had been associated more frequently perhaps than any other hon. and learned Member in the House—he alluded to the cases of Indian Princes having grievances, real or supposed, to urge against the British Government, who came over to this country and consulted some member of the Bar who might happen also to be a Member of the House. The case was read by that Gentleman, and he wrote his opinion upon it, and there his connection with it ceased. If the counsel, upon reading the case and hearing the facts, should come to the conclusion that the Indian Prince had no remedy at law, but had a wrong which Parliament could and ought to redress, he would give that opinion to his client. He conceived that it was the duty of members of the Bar in that House—and that duty he had always endeavoured scrupulously to perform—when a case was laid before them which there was the least ground for supposing might come before Parliament to state that they could not be consulted upon it. If it were a case for a court of law, of course they might deliver their opinion upon it, and advocate it in a court of law; but his objection to the Resolution was, that it would restrain a Member of Parliament from giving an opinion in that House upon any question on which he might have been consulted, not as an advocate, but for the purpose of obtaining his unbiassed opinion upon the law and the justice of the matter. He wanted to know what wrong there could be in such advocacy. If there were wrong, as a member of the Bar he wished it to be pointed out to him by the House. It might be that the only redress which could be obtained by the party who had consulted a learned Member of that House on a case was by bringing it before Parliament, and he wished to know upon what conceivable principle that Member's independence in that House was to be assailed, and his mouth to be closed on such a case. If the Resolution bore only on the many Indian cases that came before the House, there would be little difficulty in tracing out a line of conduct that he doubted not every Member of the House would be ready to adopt. But when they considered it as applicable to the many cases for which Members of the House might be consulted, and which might afterwards come before Parliament, he must say that he could conceive nothing more likely than such a Resolution to drive from the House the most eminent and high-minded members of the Bar. With regard to the question of Indian Princes, he would say that it was impossible not to agree with an hon. Member who had observed that every Member of that House ought to be above even the shadow of a suspicion of advocating in his place in Parliament the cause of any of those Indian Princes, except from his inherent love of justice, and looking for no reward beyond the approbation of his own conscience. But when the words of the Resolution came to be applied to the case not of private Members, but that of the law officers of the Crown, he thought it would well become those who supported it in its present form to ascertain what was the mode in which the duties of members of the Bar were performed, and what was the mode in which they were consulted on the part of the Crown in regard to questions which might, and in some cases inevitably must, come before Parliament. Every member of the Bar of England, and more especially his learned Friends who had succeeded for the good of the country in obtaining seats in the House, would scorn to be influenced by any hope of reward for the performance of their duties in the House.

said, that as a member of the Bar, and naturally anxious for the honour of his profession, he must protest against the motives which had been attributed to the members of his profession. He knew not what was the origin of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) had gone somewhat beyond the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) in stating, that there was a growing opinion in the legal profession that those engaged in it might receive large fees as an inducement to come down to that House and advocate particular measures. He (Mr. Malins) should like to know from what quarter the right hon. Gentleman had obtained that information, because nothing could be more diametrically opposed than that opinion to the opinion entertained among those members of the Bar with whom he associated, and who would repudiate with as much indignation as the right hon. Gentleman in the chair any dishonourable proposition that might be made to them. He had a profound respect for the noble Lord, but he regretted that he had not more specifically mentioned what it was that had induced him to submit this Resolution. It had been said that some briefless barristers came into that House with the view of thereby procuring business, which they could not otherwise obtain. Now, the members of the Bar in that House were rather a numerous body, and yet he had looked in vain for cases of the kind alluded to, and he could further say that if any barrister were so foolish as to entertain such a notion, he would meet with bitter disappointment. There was no evidence whatsoever to show that those malpractices against which the Resolution appeared to be directed had any existence; and nothing, he should contend, could be more embarrassing than that the Resolution should be passed in its present shape, because, taken in connection with the debate to which it had given rise, it would be regarded in no other light than as an expression upon the part of that House of an imputation upon the conduct of those among its Members who belonged to the legal profession.

said, he wished to express his cordial approval of the wording of the Resolution, as well as of the sentiments to which his noble Friend, by whom it had been submitted to the notice of the House, had given utterance. After what he had heard from so many distinguished members of the legal profession, it must be quite clear that the sentiments of the profession were completely in accordance with what they ought to be, and what every one hoped and believed that they were. The Resolution, indeed, was one the justice of which it was, in his opinion, impossible to deny; nor could he concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, in thinking that the House could not assent to it without thereby casting an imputation upon the members of the legal profession. His belief, on the contrary, was, that in not assenting to it hon. Members would be casting an imputation on themselves. His chief object, however, in rising to address the House was to express his regret that his noble Friend had not gone a step further. It appeared to him, indeed, that the words of the Resolution would, in fact, bear the more extensive construction which he wished them to bear; but, on the other hand, it seemed to be the opinion of the House that the Resolution was intended to reflect solely upon Members of the legal profession. Now there were two other cases which reflected equally on the character of the House and of its Members to which this Resolution ought to be made unequivocally applicable. One class of cases was that embraced under the head of testimonials. They frequently heard of Members of that House receiving large sums in hard cash for services or reputed services performed, in their capacity of legislators, and still continuing Members of that House. Now, with respect to the propriety of accepting such rewards, he, for one, had no hesitation in expressing a decided opinion. Such practices were more derogatory to the character of the House and of its Members than anything which had been alleged against members of the legal profession. When a Member received money on account of the performance of his duty that was neither more nor less than a bribe, influencing him in the discharge of such duty in that House, and he thought that the House should express its marked disapproval of practices of this kind. Then there was another class of cases to which the same remarks might be very fairly applied. Members had in times past—happily not recently—been the hired and paid agents of colonies, paid and hired to do their duty in that House as Members of Parliament on behalf of certain colonial possessions. Was not that a greater violation of the character of the House and of its Members than anything that could be done by a member of the legal profession in his joint capacity of barrister and Member of Parliament? And unless they expressed clearly by this Resolution their disapproval of such practices, they would bear hardly upon the legal profession; they would be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He should abstain at that time from any condemnation of that which had always been held contrary to the laws of honour in this case; but he thought they were bound to have it understood that they did not confine themselves to criticisms of the conduct of the legal profession, but that they considered it disgraceful to the Members of that House, at any time and under any circumstances, to receive money, bribe, or testimonial for the performance of duties which they ought to perform as free, independent, and unbiassed Members. Of course he did not mean to include in these remarks such testimonials as were often given by constituents to Members who had long and faithfully served them. Such testimonials as these he conceived to be honourable to those who gave and those who received them.

said, that he did not see a word about the legal profession in the Resolution, and as a Member not connected with that profession he was prepared to maintain that the proposition either meant a great deal less than it said, or a great deal more than could be gathered from the speeches of the mover and seconder to be their intention. He thought that whether a testimonial was given by the Crown or the people, the recipient of it was not disqualified for worthily performing his part in that House. He did not dispute the purity of the legal profession. He believed that the legal Members of the House stood on a par, in point of honour and integrity, with other hon. Members, and he did not think that they themselves professed to do anything more. If he believed that the Motion was intended as a slur upon the legal profession, he would be amongst the first to oppose it as being unjust and undeserved; but he did not think that that was the bearing of the Resolution, and he did not, therefore, oppose it on that ground. In his opinion, the Resolution was unnecessary. He believed that there was proof in the Orders of the House, or, at all events, in Hansard, that the House disapproved the conduct alluded to in the Resolution, and that being so, to pass another Resolution in addition to those already sanctioned by the House, would appear to imply a consciousness that there was something wrong, which he did not believe. He had already said that the Resolution might be interpreted as extending much further than was generally understood. It might be read as precluding a railway director from addressing the House in regard to a scheme in which he was interested, although he did not think that any Member had hitherto laid down such a rule of conduct. He (Mr. Gilpin) was a director of a large railway. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) was also a director of a large railway. He (Mr. Gilpin) was not aware if that hon. Member had laid down a rule to himself, that if his line came under the notice of Parliament he would not speak or vote in reference to it; but certainly he (Mr. Gilpin) had laid down no such rule for himself. He had spoken and voted on such questions more than once, but had taken care that it was known by the House that he was a director of the company. He also thought that it would be an outrageous thing to say, that because the Attorney General had been consulted by the Oude family he should be for ever after disqualified from giving an opinion on their case. He believed that the opinion of the House on this subject was well understood; that its power was sufficient, and its will indisputable, to deal in the most stringent manner with any case of the kind referred to, should it arise; and thinking this Motion, therefore, unnecessary, he should vote in favour of the Previous Question.

said, he believed that the members of the law were actuated, in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties, by the most honourable and disinterested motives. He had been a short time ago offered a brief for an Indian firm, but he had refused it, believing that its acceptance might interfere with the discharge of his Parliamentary duties. He believed that that was the principle which actuated the Members of the Bar both in England and Ireland; and he thought, therefore, that a Resolution which bore the aspect of casting a slur upon that profession was unjust to them, while it was unnecessary, as expressing disapprobation of pratices which the House had already sufficiently condemned.

Sir, I believe that the noble Lord who introduced this Resolution has done good service to the character of this House. That noble Lord has introduced the measure in a direct and manly manner, and whatever may be the conclusion of this debate, he has done good service to the character of the House. I confess, however, that I feel very great difficulty in voting for this or any other Resolution that may be drawn up on the subject, because it seems to me that the House, by a general Resolution, said many years ago that no Member should vote on any matter in which lie had a direct pecuniary interest. That Resolution so come to affords, at least, a plain and intelligible—I think when you attempt to go further and define what shall be the conduct of Members of the House in regard to transactions in which they have been concerned, that you then run great danger of framing a Resolution so wide that persons not intended to be included in it will think themselves precluded by its language from voting according to their consciences, lest they may be violating the rule you have laid down. I cannot quite admit the distinction which was drawn by the Attorney General for Ireland as to the conduct of the law officers of the Crown. For instance, some years ago the question was raised in this House whether the law officers of the Crown, in prosecuting a certain company in the City for fraud on the revenue, had not exercised their functions in a most oppressive manner. If such a case as that were brought forward in the House—and I believe that that very case was so mentioned—it would be the right, as it was the duty, of the law officers of the Crown to defend their conduct and promote any measure which would put an end to the practices complained of. No one could blame them for taking such a course, but the right hon. Gentleman said that that would be so because their conduct was open and it would not therefore be condemned by this Resolution. That, however, was just the distinction which the Resolution did not make, and I doubt whether it is possible to frame a Resolution that would adequately convey the meaning of the noble Lord and the House if it were desirable to do so. Then there is the case which was mentioned by the Attorney General for England—a case on which, speaking for myself, I think it very desirable to know what is the opinion of gentlemen of high standing at the Bar. The case supposed by him is one, in which the hon. and learned Member, who is consulted, is of opinion that it will be necessary to seek pecuniary redress from this House, as often happens, the case of some one like a Prince from India or ether person with large claims. Now, the learned Attorney General has told us exactly what the conduct of a member of the Bar ought in that case to be. He supposed that the case came to him through the usual channel; his clerk receives a retainer; and he finds, on coming to the papers, that there is no redress to be got in a court of law, although a wrong has been suffered; he has a right to give his opinion, and he is not afterwards precluded as a Member of Parliament from taking up that case. If I understand the learned Gentleman, his proposition is a right one, and it is this—that a barrister who is a Member of this House, having given his opinion—whether he take a fee or not, for that is of little consequence—should from that time forward take no fee or reward—that if he gave his advice to that person afterwards be should give it gratuitously, and that he may take it up as a public case. I think, Sir, that no blame attaches to him for doing so; nay, I think he would be highly to blame if, having given his opinion as a lawyer, and being afterwards consulted as a Member of Parliament, he should decline to advocate and support the opinion he had given as a barrister. If I understand the learned Gentleman as speaking the sentiments of time Bar—and so I understood him—then I think the rule which he laid down is perfectly satisfactory. Of course every barrister must consider for himself how far he may go in the particular case before him; and then arises the large, though not difficult question, whether the members of the Bar are of such a character that they can be trusted to make a proper distinction between their duties as lawyers and as Members of Parliament. I am glad, Sir, that this discussion has taken place. But still I would rather trust to the honour of members of the Bar of England who are Members of this House than trust to the words of any Resolution. It has already been pointed out by some one that even this Resolution, if it were passed, would be open to evasion; and indeed you can hardly frame words which may not be evaded by those who wish to do so. I, therefore, think that the aim of the House will be better gained by trusting, upon a question of honour and feeling, to the conscience and high character of the members of the Bar than by the words of any Resolution. I shall, therefore, rather vote for the Previous Question, but in so doing I render my tribute to the noble Lord who has brought forward this question, as having done good service on a question upon which much difficulty has been felt.

said, he thought that, of all persons, Members of the Bar in this House ought to be most indebted to the noble Lord for bringing on this discussion. He, however, dissented entirely from the grounds on which the noble Lord had based his Resolution. Probably nothing could be further from his mind than a wish to cast imputations on the members of the Bar; but the vague charges he had made, and certain expressions in his speech wounding to the feelings of many hon. and learned Members of the House, certainly had that effect. Now, if any impression prevailed in the public mind that barristers were bribed for their services in Parliament, it was quite time to dissipate such an impression, for it was neither the principle nor the practice of the English Bar to act in any such corrupt and dishonest manner; and it was impossible, indeed, to suppose that any man of honourable feeling would barter his independence for the miserable fee he might receive in such a case. Should the Resolution be adopted, its language would be such as to render it almost impossible properly to discuss this House legal questions which required the assistance of the Bar. For example, in the recent discussion on the subject of church rates, the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor) must have had some hesitation in taking part, as he had been professionally concerned in the question. Another instance of this might be found in the Bill with respect to crossed cheques. Both himself and the Attorney General had happened to be engaged in the very case which elicited a discussion upon a recent Act of Parliament, and for that reason the two persons, perhaps, who know most of the subject would be precluded by this Resolution from taking any part in the discussion. Then again, if the object was to prevent members of the legal profession taking part in any question upon which they had in their capacity of barristers pronounced an opinion or taken any part, the Resolution did not go far enough, for while it declared that they should be incapable of promoting such measures, it did not say they should not be allowed to oppose them. In truth, all these questions might be safely left to the honour and discretion of members of the legal profession; and on this ground, as well as because the Resolution was in itself imperfect for the objects it sought to attain, he should vote for the Previous Question.

said, that when they were about to pass a Bill in order really to bring under the dominion of this House the whole of India, it was of some importance to determine the circumstances under which hon. Members ought to undertake the advocacy in Parliament of questions of a particular nature. He had had some experience in this matter, and the statement of the Attorney General, he thought, exactly met the case. He would mention a circumstance which had occurred to him. It so happened that he was the governor of a bank, the manager of which came to him one day and said, "One of our customers is below; he wishes to see you; will you go down and speak to him?" Thinking the applicant had come upon matters connected with the business of the Bank, he (Mr. Roebuck) replied, "Certainly," and down he went. He found a gentleman, who said he came on the part of the Queen of Oude. Well, he (Mr. Roebuck) was not quite sure that Her Majesty was not going to open an account with the Bank, and he replied, "Very well, Sir, what have you to say?" The gentleman said, "The Queen certainly has not spoken to me; lam obliged to speak to her through women; but she has conveyed to me her desire that you would see the Prince of Oude." He (Mr. Roebuck) replied, "Certainly, I will see the Prince of Oude, though I am not aware I can do any good by it; but if Her Majesty desires that I should see him, I shall only be too happy to obey her wishes." The gentleman then observed, "Sir, Her Majesty bade me say she was very sorry she only approached you in this manner." He (Mr. Roebuck) said, "Sir, what the Devil do you mean?" The gentleman replied, "Sir, she is very poor." He (Mr. Roebuck) replied, "Oh, Sir, now I know what you mean; but you come to me as a Member of Parliament, and I am ashamed that any Englishman should dare to approach me in such a manner." "Oh, Sir," replied the gentleman, "you are very much more particular than a certain gentleman," whom he named, "who, being a Member of Parliament, has received £500." That brought him to the second part of the case. Now, he took the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General of the rule which ought to guide Members of that House who were also members of the Bar, in such cases to be, that if it should happen that any such Member had given advice before he knew all the circumstances, and afterwards he found that there was nothing for it but going to Parliament—he, being a Member of Parliament, should withdraw from the case, and not permit his name to appear on the books of the House, or in any way in connection with it in the House, while he was receiving a fee from the client. If that were the effect of the hon. and learned Attorney General's statement, then the rule was clear and definite, and could not be mistaken—namely, that when they came to Parliament, all fees as to the barrister were to cease at once. There could be no doubt or hesitation in the matter henceforward, and he thought the learned profession, of which he was a very humble member, were deeply indebted to the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) for bringing forward his Motion. He wondered that the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) should have said that he had never heard of imputations of this kind. Never heard of such imputations! Had the hon. and learned Gentleman walked through Westminster Hall without hearing Members of that House charged, by name too, with having accepted fees for the advocacy in Parliament of a particular line of conduct? [Mr. MALINS: Yes.] He (Mr. Roebuck) could only envy the ignorance of his hon. and learned Friend who had passed through life without hearing what was within everybody's knowledge, but there were none so deaf as those who wouldn't hear. The case was plain; but, although he was prepared to vote with the noble Lord, he did not think he would gain much by pressing his Motion to a division, He was quite prepared, with the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), to leave it to the honour of the noble profession, of which he was a member, to pursue a cautious line of conduct; and, as the opinion of the House had been distinctly declared that no man ought, as a lawyer, to advocate any case in that House for fee or reward, he thought there was no danger of an infringement of the rule. In his opinion, the House had done all it need do, and he believed that hereafter no lawyer would dare to infringe the rule they had laid down.

said, it might happen that in particular cases of hardship the law of the country afforded no redress. Members of the legal profession who were also Members of that House might say to their clients under such circumstances, "The law affords you no redress; you must appeal to the Legislature;" and because they had given that advice were their lips to be sealed in the House of Commons, although they might be the most competent persons to render assistance to the House in dealing with such questions? He thought that could not be the intention of the House, and the etiquette of the legal profession would prevent any barrister whose character was worth anything from taking fee or reward under the circumstances contemplated by the Resolution. On the other hand, if the Resolution were adopted with the exception of the words which the First Lord of the Admiralty proposed to omit, it would amount to nothing more than the declaration of a truism. He felt great difficulty in voting with the noble Lord, but still greater in voting against him, and therefore he trusted that the noble Lord would consider that he had gained all he could expect to obtain from the discussion which had taken place, and would not press his Motion to a division.

, in reply said, that it was not a bad test of the value of a Motion when hon. Gentlemen found fault with it, by saying that it did at once too much and too little. He must in the first place express his extreme regret that anything he had said should have wounded the feelings of any Member of the legal profession. He had started by saying that there were rumours of such practices as he had alluded to, and a belief in the public mind that the services of hon. and learned Members could be procured by retaining them first professionally, and then inducing them to go on with cases in that House. He had said that this ought not to be permitted, and that the House ought to lay down a rule that such proceedings should terminate. It was impossible not to allude to some person or other, but when he was asked by the hon. Members for Dundalk and Wallingford to name those persons, even if he knew he would not mention their names, and the more, because the offence in question was prohibited by no law, however immoral it might be. It was a fact, in the case of the Queen of Oude, that an hon. and learned Gentleman, a Member of that House, was retained professionally and received a large fee with a view to legal proceedings, and a consultation took place, at which it was stated that the case could not be worked in the courts of law, and the learned Gentleman was appealed to, as he knew the case best, to bring it before the House of Commons. That appeared to him (Lord Hotham) an improper practice, and he thought that the House ought to declare it to be so. The noble Lord the Member for London had spoken in very handsome terms of the motives by which he was actuated, but the noble Lord added that the case was already provided for by the Resolution of the House levelled against hon. Members acting in cases in which they had a direct pecuniary interest.

I said all that could be effected by a Resolution was thus provided for.

In such cases as he had alluded to, how could direct pecuniary interest be proved? The money was given beforehand as a fee, and then the individual was asked to undertake the conduct of the case in that House. Whatever might be the motives of a person so situated, he could never be free from suspicion. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield said that the matter was now thoroughly understood, and that a professional Member of that House must cease to act in a case the moment it came before the House of Commons. But that left things as they were. No fee was given for acting in the House of Commons, but it was given in the first instance, and covered all subsequent proceedings. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated very fairly his opinion as to the mode of dealing with these cases. He said that Members of the legal profession were at liberty to act in Indian cases out of the House, in the first instance, and then come and act on them in the House. From that opinion he (Lord Hotham) entirely dissented, and he felt it his duty to ask the House to pronounce an opinion, on a division, whether such a doctrine was correct.

, who had given notice of his intention to move a Resolution—

"That in the opinion of this House the assessors and collectors of taxes, both assessed and income, should be appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,"

said, that the subject which be desired to bring under the attention of the House was of very considerable importance, and those whom he represented, along with others, had been very severe sufferers from the present mode of collecting the taxes. Instead, however, of putting the Motion of which he had given notice, he proposed to substitute the following:—

"That in the opinion of this House the present mode of collecting the taxes, both assessed and income, is attended with great disadvantage and loss, and requires immediate attention."

From the Return which had been ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ricardo), it appeared that there were seventy-one different parishes which had been reassessed under the Income-tax Act—that is to say, those parishes having paid their income tax, and having defaulting collectors, had been called upon to pay their income tax a second time. In some instances, the amount thus claimed was considerable—amounting, in one instance, to £2,500, and his (Mr. Lindsay's) constituents had been reassessed to the amount of £1,796 15s. 4d. In 1854–55 two collectors were appointed for the parish of Tynemouth. The warrant under which those collectors were appointed was undersigned by the Commissioners, who thereby nominated and appointed two persons named Briggs and Phillipson to collect the income tax, &c., and the Commissioners thereby enjoined them to collect such tax, &c., and upon payment thereof to give acquittance, &c. To the parties holding that warrant, his (Mr. Lindsay's) constituents paid their taxes and received a receipt. Afterwards Briggs became insolvent. At first it was, though unsuccessfully, attempted to make his co-collector Phillipson liable. The effects of Briggs were taken possession of and converted; but before applying the proceeds in reduction of the debt due to the Commissioners, the Board were of opinion that his creditors had a prior claim, and the sum available, after paying such claim, was £1,459, which sum was paid over, leaving £1,765 4s. 4d. to be paid, and that amount was reassessed on the parish, as it was provided by the Acts. His constituents presented their receipts, and attempted to resist the second payment, after consulting eminent counsel. The matter went on for some time, when the Board of Inland Revenue insisted that the amount should be paid, and they called upon the local Commissioners to distrain upon the parties if necessary. Two persons were appointed for that purpose; but after some delay they declined to do so, stating that they had done sufficient dirty work already; and because they so declined they were fined £50 for neglect of duty; but the amount was subsequently abated. Not being able to find a local collector, the Board of Inland Revenue sent a person down specially to make a reassessment. After resisting, but in vain, his constituents were obliged to pay the tax a second time. The law, as it stood, was extremely difficult to understand; there were a number of Acts bearing on the subject. The 43 Geo. III. gave directions for the appointment of assessors and collectors, and by 5 & 6 Vict. parishes were liable to be reassessed for defalcations; but the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 85, seemed the most important, By that Act the collectors were required to give security to the Board of Inland Revenue, if that Board thought fit to demand it; and he thought a remedy for the evil complained of would be obtained by a slight alteration of the law, making it imperative on the parties collecting the assessed and income taxes to give security. As his Motion originally stood, he proposed that the collectors of these taxes should be appointed by the Government, and that, consequently, the Government should be responsible for their defaults. That would make it necessary for the Government to call on them for security; but, as there were difficulties in the way of that arrangement, he would now suggest, not to place the appointments in the hands of the Treasury, as the local Boards might thereby be weakened, but that the whole country should be divided into districts, and that the local Commissioners should appoint competent and responsible parties as collectors for those districts, but that the appointments should be subject to the approval of the Treasury or Board of Inland Revenue, by whom the collectors should be required to give security. The collectors in large districts might appoint sub-collectors if necessary, but with them the Government would have nothing to do. The Government would look to the collector, who had given security, and who was appointed by the local Commissioners, and to him alone. Should a collector become insolvent, then the parties who had paid their taxes, or the Government, could come upon their securities for the money. He hoped he had shown the House the necessity of a change. He did not wish to pledge the House to the precise form of that change; all he wished to establish was, that the taxpayer, once he had paid his taxes, should not be called upon to pay them again, and with this view he would again read the Motion.

seconded the Motion. Many losses had occurred in the borough which he represented, and he could speak to the loss and inconvenience inflicted thereby upon individuals. In his opinion the appointments ought to be made by the Government, who should be responsible for defalcations. In the borough of Lambeth hundreds of persons had been disfranchised through the defalcations of the collectors.

said, he thought there would be great difficulty in carrying out the views of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay), and therefore, if it were pressed to a division, he must vote against it. Every person who became security would be registered as a debtor to the Crown, and this would be a charge on the whole of their estates, while, on the other hand, in a large number of districts the remuneration was so small that no man would for it subject himself to the inconvenience of giving security to the Government. He had been a local commissioner for many years, and never knew a case of defalcation in any officer appointed by him. The officers who were defaulters were the officers appointed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman spoke of seventy cases, but did not say over how many years they were spread, or the amount of the defalcations. He would suggest to the hon. Member that the best course would be to propose the repeal of the statute of George III., which enacted, that in case of any defalcation the amount should be re-assessed on the parish; that was a hardship. With taxes, as with anything else, if a person paid his money to the duly qualified officer, the receipt ought to be a discharge under all circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman pressed the subject to a division he must oppose it, although he admitted the law required amendment.

contended the matter complained of was a great grievance. There could not be a greater hardship than that a man having once paid a tax to the proper officer should be compelled to pay it over again. He understood the matter had lately been under the consideration of the Board of Inland Revenue, and he trusted the Government would be able to provide a remedy. If something was not done, the effect on the revenue might be very serious.

considered the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) a very good one, and if adopted, it would go far to remedy the grievance complained of; but if the Inland Revenue Commissioners were responsible for the collection of the revenue, they ought to have the appointment of their own officers, If that were done, a much smaller number of collectors would do the work.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Tynemouth was quite justified in bringing this question before the House, for it was, no doubt, one of great grievance. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hardly knew any thing more severe than to pay taxes at all, but to pay taxes twice because a man whom you had never seen had run away, undoubtedly seemed a combination of grievances, which no one could be expected to bear patiently. He trusted, however, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, because the matter was now under the considera- tion of the Government. He did not use that phrase as one merely to meet a Motion coming from the other side of the House. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in their Report on land and assessed taxes, which was laid upon the table a few days ago, referred to this subject in a paragraph which he would read to the House. They said,—

"The system of assessing and collecting these taxes by means of officers appointed by the parishes must before long be taken into your Lordships' consideration. It is very unsatisfactory, and constantly tasks our ingenuity to provide against its inherent dangers. Yet, besides the insensible loss to the revenue occasioned by carelessness and ignorance, a year seldom elapses without some flagrant instance of default or fraud among the collectors. Improvements might no doubt be effected in the present system by the local Commissioners, but, admirably suited as they are for acting as judges of the propriety of the assessments which are laid before them, it is not to be expected that they should devote themselves to the superintendence of the details of the process of assessment and collection in the same way as an officer of the Government would. No such officer, for instance, would have allowed the violation of an essential rule in the collection of taxes by the union of the offices of assessor and collector in the same person, as is now generally the case both in assessed taxes and income tax. The facility for fraud afforded by such a practice—adopted for the sake of the poundage, and quite in opposition to the spirit of the law—has been lately exemplified in the Bassishaw ward of the City of London, where the collector, who absconded, had received and appropriated to his own use large sums in discharge of returns which he had suppressed or destroyed, the returns being made to him in his capacity of assessor. There was thus no charge raised against him for these payments."

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Trollope) had made a suggestion worthy the attention of the Commissioners, but the whole subject was one which could not be immediately settled. It demanded, on the contrary, great consideration, thought, and contrivance. A machinery was wanted for raising a large revenue at a slight cost, but it was natural that local jealousy should exist in regard to appointments by the Government, and this jealousy ought not to be discouraged, since it was not desirable to increase the patronage and power of the Crown beyond what the interests of the public required. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would feel that it was unnecessary to ask for a more formal expression of opinion on the part of the House.

said, that after the distinct statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, he would not press his Motion to a division. The matter, however, was one that required the speedy attention of the Government.

, in moving for a Select Committee on this subject, said the matter was so foreign to his usual pursuits, that he would not have moved in it, but that a case of very great hardship having recently been laid before him, he felt compelled by a sense of duty to bring the matter before the House. He regretted to hear that his Motion was to be opposed—he should have thought that the feelings of every hon. Member would lead him to support it. It appeared from recent returns that there were now 29,000 lunatics in England, the increase last year having been 1,000. There were 15,054 in the county asylums, and 7,000 pauper lunatics in the workhouses. The number of county asylums was thirty-eight, and it was gratifying to learn that last year the cures in them were fourteen per cent. There were 551 lunatics under the control of the Court of Chancery, possessing property to the amount of £240,000 a year. The amount allowed for their support was £160,000, or an average of about £300 a year each. It might be supposed that having such large funds for their support, those lunatics would be in a much better state than any other, but in point of fact it was amongst this class that the greater number of complaints of hardship were found to exist. The proportion of cures did not exceed two per cent. The Act of 1853, though drawn with much legal acumen, did not work. In the first place, only two medical visitors were appointed to look after these 530 persons, and they were only paid £500 a year each, an amount of remuneration for which it was impossible to expect gentlemen of their eminence to devote the whole of their time. These medical visitors were only bound to visit each patient once in the year, so that the patient might, in reality, be two years without medical attendance; for, if a medical visit was paid in the January of one year it need not be repeated till December of the year following. The result was that the visitation was not efficient, and without constant supervision the lunatic was sure to be neglected. He found, too, that one of the medical in- specters took his degree as M.D., in Edinburgh in 1806, and he should like to know what physical energy that gentleman was able, for £500 per annum, to bestow upon the inspection of 551 Chancery lunatics each year? Lunacy was tiresome and harassing; and without constant vigilance humanity itself would cease to be humane with regard to this unfortunate class. The sums paid for the maintenance of some of the lunatics was monstrously extravagant. In a recent return to the House of Lords he saw a case mentioned in which no less than £1,100 a year was allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic—a sum that must make the fortune of the asylum in which he happened to be placed; and that, evidently rendered it the interest of the keeper of that institution to prevent the inspectors obtaining a correct idea of that gentleman's mental condition, should it become improved. In another case, a clergyman, subject to partial hallucinations, and fit to move in society, was placed, with an allowance of £400 a year, in the care of an ex-sergeant of police, whose other income only amounted to 30s. He did not mean to say that the lunatics in these cases were unkindly treated, but he maintained that they were not treated quite fairly. With regard to other patients, the Reports of the Commissioners were regularly laid on the table; so that if there was any complaint it could easily be investigated; but the Reports relating to the class to which he was calling the attention of the House were kept secret. He was willing to admit that every possible attention was paid by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices to those cases of lunacy that were brought before them; but cases which ought to be brought under their notice did not come before them. It was the system that was at fault, and it was the system that he wanted to have changed. It was almost impossible to get an account of how the money paid for the maintenance of lunatics was expended. It was suggested that this was very late in the Session to move for a Committee of this kind, but that was not his fault. He would not detain the House while he quoted to them the cases of hardship which had come within his knowledge, but he hoped the Government would take into consideration the great importance of the subject, and grant him the Committee for which he moved.

seconded the Motion.

said, the hon. Gentleman need make no apology for drawing the attention of the House to the subject, for it was one of such painful interest that it could not fail to excite all their sympathies; but, before they agreed to enter upon such an investigation as the hon. Member proposed, they must first of all consider whether there was time and opportunity for carrying it to a satisfactory termination. If there was to be an investigation, it should not be confined to three or four cases under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, but should extend to the whole lunatics of the country. The Act which now regulated the care and treatment of lunatics was passed in 1853. It was desirable that every means should be taken to watch the operation of a new law, and he admitted that upon such a subject as the care and treatment of lunatics whenever anybody could say with plausibility that there were cases which required investigation no time should be lost in instituting the necessary inquiries, because lunatics were a class of persons who could not protect themselves. Were there time and opportunity, the Government would not interpose any impediment in the way of such an investigation; but the hon. Gentleman himself must see that at this late period of the Session it would be impossible to procure the services of hon. Members who had directed their attention to the subject, and vain to hope that any Committee could arrive at a satisfactory result. He therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division. If the matter were renewed in proper time next Session, neither the Government nor the Lord Chancellor would throw any obstacles in the way of a full and complete investigation into the working of the Act of 1853, both as regarded the lunatics under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery and the general subject of the care and treatment of lunatics throughout the country. Meanwhile, however, it was satisfactory to know that any person who had a complaint to make with respect to the treatment of a lunatic was entitled to apply to the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, or the Commissioners in Lunacy, whether he was connected with the lunatic or not; and without any expense to the party complaining an inquiry was instantly ordered and immediate redress obtained. The hon. Gentleman had referred to what he called the striking fact that, whereas the percentage of recoveries in the case of lunatics generally was very large, few, if any, of the lunatics under the care of the Lord Chancellor ever recovered at all. It should be recollected, however, that it was only when persons became confirmed lunatics that applications were made to the Court of Chancery—a fact which sufficiently accounted for the disparity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, Thus, on referring to the list for a single year (1852), he found that the shortest period during which the lunatic was found to have been suffering from mental infirmity previous to the proceedings being taken was two years. In one case it was forty years; and some of the lunatics were returned as having been idiots from their infancy, so that in point of fact these persons might be considered as having been all but incurable before any steps were taken. Nor was it correct to say that the Act of 1853 had proved radically defective. Like all Acts of Parliament, it might be capable of amendment, but it had reduced the expense of proceedings in lunacy from £200 to between £50 and £60, and had led to the adoption of a system by which everything connected with the care of the persons or property of lunatics was directed by the Masters in chambers, without the smallest trouble or cost to the parties concerned. The hon. Gentleman had also objected to the present mode of visitation as insufficient. Now, private asylums were subjected not merely to the visitation of the two visitors appointed by the Lord Chancellor, but to the constant and careful inspection of the Commission presided over by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery had the advantage of the same double system of visitation. It would be desirable, however, if it could be done, that the visitors appointed by the Lord Chancellor should visit the patients more frequently during the year, but in that case it would be necessary to increase their salaries. At present, in consequence of orders recently laid down by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices, the annual visitation was one of the most effective character, and resulted in a categorical Report as to the manner in which the lunatics were treated. The hon. Member had complained that the Reports de- tailing the circumstances found on official visits to those asylums were kept secret. But did the hon. Member not know the reason for that secrecy? Did he suppose that would be agreeable to the friends of those unfortunate persons to have laid before that House circumstances which must necessarily be so painful to them? If, therefore, those Reports were made public at all it would have to be without names, and in that case they would lie useless. The hon. Member had said that one of the visitors—meaning, no doubt, Dr. Southey—was far advanced in life. That was so; but any one who was acquainted with the energy, skill, experience, and activity of Dr. Southey would be of opinion that there could be no man whose services would be more valuable than his in the department in which he laboured. The hon. Member admitted that the great care bestowed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices in cases of lunacy was worthy of all praise. He (the Solicitor General) thought he might say the country owed a considerable debt of gratitude to the Lords Justices in particular for the manner in which the lunacy business was transacted by them. In the transaction of that business they devoted much of their valuable time in private when the public did not see them; and the real interest they took in the cases of the unhappy persons afflicted with lunacy, which were brought under their cognizance from time to time, was deserving of all praise. The hon. Member had also adverted to the custody to which these unfortunate persons were confided by the Lord Chancellor, and complained that extravagant sums for maintenance were allowed to committees of the persons of lunatics, and that they were allowed to spend the money without rendering any account. Now, upon this point he would remark that for many years past it had, in every case where it was practicable, been considered most desirable to induce the nearest relative to take charge of them. Where a relative did not take charge of them some other person was appointed, and an allowance made for their maintenance, and in such a case a detailed account of the money so expended was called for. This, of course, could not be insisted upon where they were in the care of a relative, inasmuch as no relative would consent to their custody if it involved the necessity of making separate returns of the sums expended for their allowance apart from the general expenses of the household. But even in these cases the production of accounts was demanded, if there existed any suspicion that the lunatic did not receive those comforts and that attention to which his allowance would entitle him. With regard to the particular case to which the hon. Member had referred, but the name of which he had not mentioned, he might inform him that he knew the instance to which his remarks were directed, and inquiries by a special visitor had been instituted. The Report which resulted from those inquiries went to show that nothing whatever had been neglected which might be conducive to the welfare of the lunatic, and the petitioner was dismissed with costs. He would conclude his remarks as he had begun, by saying that he was most anxious for the welfare of the unfortunate class of persons in question, and that in every case where a complaint was made the fullest investigation should take place; in his opinion, it was most desirable that the House of Commons should know how legislation in regard to lunatics was carried out; he thought, however, that to attempt an inquiry such as the hon. Member contemplated would be impossible during the present year, and he trusted, therefore, that, resting satisfied for the present with the assurances he had given him, and with his readiness in every case of complaint to grant the fullest investigation, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that the hon. Member's Motion, instead of being one to inquire into the laws respecting lunatics, ought to have been directed to an inquiry into the treatment of those unfortunate persons under the Court of Chancery. He did not hesitate, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, to say that the treatment of lunatics under the orders of the Court of Chancery was much worse than in other cases, and that those unhappy persons received much less supervision. Last year the management of lunatics in Scotland underwent considerable discussion in that House, and on that occasion the law which regulated that management was said, as had now been said of the law in this part of the kingdom, to be admirable; but, notwithstanding that, the treatment of the lunatics in Scotland was most infamous. Cases could be brought forward of the treatment of lunatics under the orders of the Court of Chancery nearly as bad as any that were adduced during the discus- sion of last year; and he contended that any law relating to lunatics was useless which did not provide for regular, systematic, and stringent inspection of lunatic asylums. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not let the question rest. The law might be excellent, but it was highly necessary to look after its administration. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked that it was very easy for persons in those establishments who had a complaint to make, to make it. Was it really so? He thought otherwise, and he could only say that whenever he had visited an asylum, and went up to a lunatic who had stated that he had a ground of complaint, some keeper immediately evinced an unusual interest in his personal welfare, and cautioned him saying, "Take care of him, sir, he is a very dangerous man." English Members might depend upon it that there was no difference whatever on this subject as regarded England and Scotland, save that the supervision was more active in this country.

said, after the expression of opinion which they had heard that night on this subject, he should withdraw his Motion; but he should, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, renew it at the earliest possible period next Session.

said, he now rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to Bankrupts and Insolvents, a subject that he need not remind the House had occupied the attention of so many eminent persons and great authorities in questions of bankruptcy jurisdiction and commerce. The matter had originated in a conference of some of the leading commercial men of this country, and at that meeting it was agreed that there should be a committee appointed consisting of delegates from various commercial bodies entirely connected with trade in various parts of the kingdom. This committee of delegates met, and after long deliberation, agreed upon the points which, as traders and commercial men, they wished to have inserted in a Bill upon this subject. They asked him (the noble Lord) to introduce it, and he promised to lay it before the House, that it might have the attention of the law officers of the Crown and the Members of the House who might be best competent to secure the most effective legislation on the subject. The grievance of which these traders complained was one they had for some length of time felt very much. It was that the expense of the Courts of Bankruptcy were so great that about 30 per cent. of the realised assets was consumed in the expenses of these courts. There were three or four propositions on which the Bill was based. One was to put an end entirely to the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency. It was proposed that hereafter there should be no separate Court of Bankruptcy or Court of Insolvency, but that the two courts should be consolidated and united, and that all persons who should be insolvents should be deemed to be bankrupts. In the second place, when persons who were insolvent or bankrupt came before the Court after adjudication, the property was to be placed in the hands of an official assignee; but that would only be until the first meeting of creditors, and immediately the creditors met they would have the power of appointing a creditors' assignee, to whom the estate of the bankrupt might be transferred. If the opinion of the gentlemen he had alluded to on this subject was to be received, it would appear that although an official assignee may very often be a man of very considerable activity and knowledge, yet in other cases, by indolence or carelessness, he might consume a great deal of time and much of the property of the creditors; and it was therefore only fair that they should have an assignee of their own. It was further proposed that the process altogether should be very much simplified, that it should be cheaper than it now was; and in certain cases it was proposed that after an adjudication had been filed creditors might resort to the County Court, as another mode for recovering debts. By another provision, it was proposed to place the retiring allowances on the Consolidated Fund; and there were other provisions affecting the position of bankrupts and insolvents; but the main feature of the Bill was to consolidate the bankruptcy with the insolvency laws, so as to have but one general law, and do away with the necessity of having exclusively an official assignee. As the subject was a complicated and a commercially important one, all that he (the noble Lord) intended to do on the present occasion was to obtain leave to bring in the Bill. He did not intend to proceed further with it this Session, but he laid it before the House in order that the Government and hon. Members might deliberate on the whole question before any alteration was made in the existing law.

said, he thought that the House and the country were much indebted to the noble Lord for calling public attention to so important a subject as the amendment of the Bankruptcy Laws. Her Majesty's Government had already directed their attention to this subject, and a Bill had, he believed, been brought into the other House, which would also deal with the question, and by which it was hoped that many of the defects of the existing system would be remedied. He had observed with some surprise and disappointment that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord did not profess to deal with perhaps one of the most important subjects connected with the Bankruptcy Laws, and which throughout the whole compass of those laws most required amendment—namely, the state of the law with respect to insolvent joint-stock companies. The effect of recent legislation was such at the present moment that, when joint-stock companies became insolvent, it was impossible to do justice to the creditors or to the shareholders without instituting proceedings, not only in the Court of Bankruptcy, but also in the Court of Chancery. The consequence was that there was a concurrent jurisdiction exercised by both these Courts—a conflict of jurisdiction, a conflict of evidence, and a conflict of officers, who under the law were authorised to wind up insolvent companies; and the necessary consequence of this was that an immense expense was incurred. All manner of litigation was introduced, and the law, after all, was so uncertain that it was utterly impossible justice could be done to either the creditors or shareholders. He (the Attorney General) would abstain from adverting to the provisions of the Bill until it was fully before the House. He was glad the noble Lord had proposed in his scheme to abolish the distinctions that existed between bankruptcy and mere insolvency, and he hoped that the suggestion he had made with reference to joint-stock companies would not be lost sight of. No doubt, under the inspiration of the noble Lord and other hon. Members, they would succeed in securing an effective measure.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that some consolidation of the existing Winding-up Acts was requisite, but he did not think it desirable that that subject should be mixed up with the improvement of the Bankruptcy Law in general. The Winding-up Acts had been passed from time to time, and now formed a series of Acts which left the law at present in a state of confusion. It would be very advantageous if the Government would consider the subject during the recess, with a view to introduce some general measure in the ensuing Session.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to consider the state of the law and practice as regards the taking of inquisitions in cases of death; the appointment, duties, and remuneration of the officers employed therein; and whether it is expedient that any and what alteration should be made in such matters. His object was virtually the revival of the Committee appointed in 1851 on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lewes. That Committee sat for a considerable time, took some evidence, and reported hastily just before the dissolution, recommending that the evidence should be printed. The evidence, however, never had been printed. In consequence of the Poor Law Commissioners having, in 1837, thrown the whole of the expenses of coroners' inquests on the county rates, a great feud now existed between the coroner and the justices in no less than fifteen counties, and the question between them was a question of fees. The 25th of Geo. II., c. 29, gave the fee of £1, and an allowance for mileage on all inquests which have been duly held, and which should be paid out of the county rate. This gave the justices a supervision. The 1st Vict., c. 68, enacted that the expenses attending the holding of inquests should no longer be paid out of the poor rate. That act of course threw a greater burden on the county rate with regard to inquests, and from that time to this there had been a growing disposition on the part of the justices to cut down the expenses of inquests. With regard to the expenses under the 1st Vict., the magistrates had no discretion, but with regard to the fee of £1 and the mileage they had, there having been discovered lately an old decision of the Court of King's Bench, by which on the word "duly" it had been held that the justices had jurisdiction. The rule of law was that there should be an inquest in all cases of sudden death, or death from violence, but the rule of the magistrates was that the inquest should not be held except there was some suspicion of criminality. The justices of Yorkshire had given directions to the constables to inform the coroner of cases in which they thought there was suspicion, so that the constables were made the judges of the necessity, instead of the coroner. A Commission having issued, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman thought that a Committee would be useless, but if a hope was not held out that the Commission would go fully into the whole matter, he must press upon the House the necessity of appointing a Committee.

said, considering the number of hours the House had sat, the lateness of the hour, and the fact that there must be a debate upon this matter, he would move that the debate be adjourned. There was a sort of understanding that matters of this sort should not be taken after midnight.