said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the law relating to Charitable Bequests in Ireland; and whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill during the present Session for the purpose of altering the present constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests?

The subject has been under the notice of the Government, and communications with the Board have passed; but, at present, I am not aware that the Government have any intention of introducing a Bill.

said, he rose to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether it was the intention of the Government to make any proposal to Parliament, in accordance with the suggestion of the Secretary for Ireland, respecting the erection of a College in Dublin in connection with the Queen's University?

No question of the sort has yet been brought under the consideration of the Government.

said, he rose to move the following resolution:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, her Majesty's Government ought to adopt measures to carry into effect the recommendations of the select committee of this House appointed in 1860 to inquire into the transport service, or at least such portions of the report of 1861 as were unanimously adopted by the said Committee."

As no part of the session was to be devoted to Parliamentary Reform, there was no subject to which the attention of the House could be with more advantage directed than to questions of administrative and executive improvement. The mode of providing for the transport service at present in operation had prevailed for the last thirty years, with the exception of two years, to which he would presently refer. It was conducted by several departments of the Government. In the first place, there was the victualling and transport department of the Admiralty, which conveyed all the Admiralty stores, engaged all the tonnage required by the Admiralty and the greater part of that required by the War Office and Ordnance. The Commissariat now and then hired vessels to convey their own stores; and the India Office had a transport service altogether independent of the Admiralty. The Colonial Office, through the Emigration Board, engaged vessels for the conveyance of emigrants to Australia, and coolies to the Mauritius and the West Indian colonies. The Stationery Office and other departments at times despatched abroad their own stores without communication with either of the transport offices. Hence much confusion arose, which ought to be avoided, especially when it was remembered that the service involved a large amount of money. For example, in 1854, '55, and '56, the sum expended in the hire of transports by the Admiralty alone amounted in round numbers to £16,000,000; but notwithstanding that immense outlay, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the way in which the business was done. During the Crimean war enormous quantities of stores were sent out, but somehow they never seemed to reach their destination when they were wanted. The effect of organizing the Transport Board had tended materially to reduce the hire of sailing vessels from 27s. 6d. to 16s. &d. per ton, and that of steam vessels from 60s. to 30s.; in fact, it had caused a saving of nearly a million per annum. The evils of the existing system were clearly demonstrated by the evidence taken before the Committee that sat upon the subject in 1860, and made its report in 1861. That Committee, of which he had the honour to be chairman, was composed of hon. Gentlemen who took great interest in the subject, and the witnesses called before it included the most experienced individuals from all departments of the Government as well as merchants and shipowners of great experience. After a very full investigation the Committee unanimously agreed to three recommendations, namely—

"1. That the victualling and the transport department should be separated; 2. That the transport of stores should be removed from the charge of the India Board; and, 3. That the Emigration Office should be abolished and its duties transferred to the Transport Board.

Unfortunately, by the existing system, each department had its own forms of charter parties, its own scale of provisions, and its own system of ventilation; so that every plan differed from the rest. The Committee were unanimously agreed upon the resolutions and the necessity of comprehensive changes; and, upon referring them to the Government, it was found that the Admiralty and the War Office were disposed to adopt the recommendations of the Committee as a whole. But he was given to understand that the India Office did not approve of the proposition so far as that office was affected. The Secretary to the Marine Department for India was asked whether he was in favour of the amalgamation, and his reply was—"Yes, I am very much in favour of it, except in the case of India." That reminded him of the merchant who was in favour of Sir Robert Peel's scheme for taking the customs duty off every article except "red herring" in which he traded. He (Mr. Lindsay) maintained that the proposed change need not interfere with the independent working of the Indian Department. All that would be requisite to do was to send an order to the Transport Board whenever any stores or troops had to be shipped, and the Transport Board would be responsible for carrying that order into effect. They would have to provide for the safety and comfort of the troops, and for the proper delivery of the stores to the place whither they were shipped. As an illustration of the complication, if not the absurdities, into which the Government were led by the existing system, he would relate to the House what he had been that day told by a gentleman who had just been settling an account with the Government for transport services. A ship belonging to this gentleman arrived in the port of London from Calcutta, in January last. It brought from India 123 time-expired soldiers, 85 invalids, 12 convicts, 2 naval-brigade men, and 1 stowed-away soldier. As for the time-expired soldiers, in order to settle the accounts for them, he had been obliged to go to the "War Office and the India Office; for the invalids, to the War Office and the Medical Department of the army; as for the 12 convicts, nobody would own them; the shipowner went to the India Office, the War Office, to the Millbank Penitentiary, and to the Board of Trade; but neither would admit that the responsibility lay with them. He (Mr. Lindsay) supposed there would have been equal difficulty in finding the right office to apply to in respect of the stowed-away soldier. By the plan which the Committee proposed all these offices would be consolidated; and, for instance, about three gentlemen would be enabled to do work which was now discharged by fifteen. An objection, he believed, had also been raised to the scheme by the Colonial Office. It was thought that the Emigration Office should not be amalgamated with the new Transport Department. The Duke of Newcastle had expressed himself strongly in favour of consolidating in one office the transport business of all the departments including the India Office, but he doubted whether it would be advisable to embrace the Emigration Office in the proposed amalgamation. The Duke of Somerset entertained the same doubt. It was a mistake to suppose, however, that the Select Committee proposed to do away "with the functions of the Emigration Office. The business of that department had to a large extent already ceased to exist. Of late years the number of emigrants had been greatly reduced, and he believed it was now very small compared with what it was only a short time ago. A man of ordinary business habits, with the assistance of a few clerks, could easily perform all the proper duties of the Emigration Office, having to make arrangements for only 5,000 emigrants in the course of the year. But the office had other duties to discharge, connected with leases of land, minerals, and orders in Council connected with the transfer of land, which originally belonged to the Colonial Department, and which should be transferred back to it; the engaging of ships for the conveyance of emigrants, &c, being handed over to the new Transport Board. That Board should be, as it were, the carriers of the country; so that if the Admiralty had stores to send out, or the War or India Office troops to any colony, they should separately communicate with that Office, whose duty it would be to classify all these requirements, advertise for the necessary shipping, and be responsible for the conveyance of all troops and stores from the time of embarkation till they were landed at their destination. If anything went wrong, they would know exactly where to fix the blame. The Transport Board would also be responsible for the proper fitting up, provisioning, and ventilation of the ships. The colonies would, as they now do, communicate with the Colonial Office, which would continue to collect the emigrants, as at present. He merely proposed to transfer to the new department the conveyance of the emigrants. He did not see why the Emigration Board should not be thrown into the new department. There was another subject on which the Committee had touched—he referred to the question whether it would be better to engage private transports or for the Government to own transports of their own. There was a great deal of conflicting evidence, but the Committee unanimously agreed to the following recommendation:—

"That, as a general rule, Government transports are much more costly than hired troop-ships; and, considering the vast extent of the mercantile marine of this country, and the magnificent steamships and vessels of every description which can at all times be obtained, your Committee are of opinion that Government should in future rely still more on the mercantile marine for the transport of troops."

That conclusion was arrived at after hearing the evidence of Admiral Sir A. Milne, who for thirteen years had filled the office at the Admiralty now held by Captain Eden. Admiral Milne entered minutely into the whole question, and in the appendix to the report gave the actual cost of Government and hired transports. According to his account, one of Her Majesty's ships engaged in the transport service cost, exclusive of insurance and depreciation, £27,800, whereas exactly the same work was performed by a hired steamship for £13,200—just about one-half. It was desirable that the Government should have sufficient transport of their own for the ordinary reliefs, but in great emergencies they might well depend upon the assistance of the merchant service. He trusted that the House would support the unanimous recommendations of its own Committee on the subject, and not allow aninvestigation which had extended over two years to remain barren of results. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution.

Sir, the time was when Governments were accused of too great a desire to create new departments and new boards, and when the principal function of independent Members of this House was to restrain the appetite of a Government for wasteful expenditure of that description, by which its patronage in new appointments was increased. Now, however, we have lived to see quite a different state of things arise. The creation of new branches of Government is not unfrequently recommended in this House by independent Committees and independent Members; and it not unfrequently falls to the lot of a Minister to decline, at all events for a time, the creation of a new department of the State. Well, I find myself in that; position in the present case. I quite admit that the Report of the Committee of last Session was a well-considered report, that its recommendations are worthy of the attention of the House, and ultimately of adoption by the Government. But I am not at this moment enabled to say that the Government will at once act upon those recommendations. My hon. Friend said the result of his proposal would be that the work which was now done by fifteen persons would be done by three. It is very likely that it would be necessary to create a board consisting of perhaps three Members and a secretary upon whom this duty should be devolved; but I confess that my experience of changes of this sort does not lead me to anticipate with great confidence that the services of the fifteen other gentlemen who are said to be superseded will be dispensed with, and that a reduction to that extent in the different departments will take place. I think the House must expect, that if this new department should be established, there would be some additional number of persons employed in the public service, and some additional expense incurred; although I do not at all dispute the conclusion of my hon. Friend, that increased efficiency would be obtained, and no doubt, as the ultimate result of that, increased economy also. But that there would be some addition to the establishment is, I think, a fact which must be admitted as the foundation of this measure. My own experience of the late transmission of troops to Canada leads me to believe that our present system is capable of improvement, and that there exists some confusion and some conflict of authority, which, although it did not cause any serious inconveniences on the late occasion of the despatch of troops, has still a tendency to produce errors in the shipment of stores and in the performance of the transport service. Therefore, the first part of these recommendations—namely, that the transport service should be separated from the Victualling Department of the Admiralty, under which it is now exclusively placed, is, I think, as a matter of principle a good and sound suggestion, and so far quite concur with my hon. Friend who calls attention to this Report. The two departments—the Admiralty and the War Department, I may say, are agreed generally in the admission of that principle, and they will be prepared, when the due time has arrived, to take steps for carrying it into execution. But then, Sir, there are two other departments which are also concerned in the matter—namely, the India Office and the Colonial Office. With respect to the first of these departments, my right hon. Friend at its head thinks that for the present it would not be advisable to make this change. He does not dispute that ultimately it would be advantageous; but he says that the shipment of troops and stores to and from India has always been regarded as well conducted under the separate management of the India Department; that their arrangements are now, and for some time to come, fixed and settled; and he is therefore not willing to agree to the immediate adoption of this measure. I believe he has stated his reasons for that opinion in a communication addressed to the Board of Admiralty, and there will be no objection on the part of the India Board to the production of that communication. If those reasons should appear to the House to be sufficient, they would, of course, militate against the immediate adoption of the second of these recommendations; namely the removal from the India Office of the transport of all troops and stores to and from our East Indian possessions. The third recommendation is the abolition of the Emigration Office, and, consequently, the transfer to the Colonial Office of all business connected with the various laws passed by the Colonial Legislatures relating to land or emigration. Now, I believe it is the opinion of the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office, that this change could not be effected in such a manner as to give satisfaction to the different Colonial Legislatures— that those Legislatures deem a separate Emigration Board in connection with the Colonial Office to be necessary, that they would not understand a Transport Board which would be principally devoted to the transport of troops and stores under the conduct of the Admiralty and the War Office, and that he is not prepared, on that account, to give his assent to this change. I am not sure whether it would be possible to arrange any plan which would obviate these objections; but, at all events, the Government cannot at this moment carry this measure into effect without reference to the opinions of the heads of the Colonial and Indian Departments. I may say, however, that the Government regard it principally as a question of time and manner; that they admit the principles laid down in this Report; that they think it very desirable that the transport service— that is to say, the conveyance of troops and stores to and from this country, the colonies, India, and other places beyond seas— should be conducted under a separate Transport Department; but that they do not see their way to its adoption at the present moment. The abolition of the Emigration Board is a question on which more difficulty arises. The arrangements for voluntary emigration to the colonies are not necessarily connected with the transport of troops, and everybody, I think, must perceive that although it is possible that this recommendation may be a wise one, still, on further consideration, it may be open to serious objections. Certainly it does not present any very obvious congruity with the other parts of the measure. Under these circumstances I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurances which I have given him, that the Government is on the whole favourable to his views; and I should add, that although they are not ready at this moment to carry them out, they are yet taking steps for giving effect to them. They have appointed a committee of persons belonging to the Admiralty and the War Departments, with instructions for the framing of a plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee; and I believe my noble Friend near me (Lord Clarence Paget) has included in his Estimates a certain sum for laying the foundation of a Board of the description now proposed. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to divide the House on his Motion. The House is aware that this is essentially an executive question, in which details of administration are involved; and if they are satisfied that the Government are prepared to act upon the principle, which they consider to be a sound one, they may, with perfect consistency, leave to the discretion of the Government the elaboration of details which are necessary to carry that principle into effect.

said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Baronet admitted that efficiency and economy would be the result of establishing a Transport Board. As a member of the Committee, he could not but express his regret that the question had been left under consideration for two years. He thought sufficient time had been afforded for the various departments to make any arrangements that might be necessary. He had heard, that had not the American difficulty been settled so soon, a Transport Board would have been immediately established. The blue-book showed the great emergencies that occurred at the commencement of the Crimean war, and as no one could tell when a fresh difficulty might spring up, he thought that now was the time, when affairs were quiet, to make any changes that were necessary.

said, he hoped that after the satisfactory reply of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War the hon. Member for Sunderland would not press his Motion to a division. He thought the recommendations were being carried out with extraordinary rapidity, as the principle was admitted by the Government, and two of the most important departments were already acting in accordance with those recommendations.

said, that having been a member of the Committee he was quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Baronet, but he would press upon the Government the necessity of acting promptly. Within a short time the country had been in danger of a great war, and if that had occurred, they would have found our transport system as imperfect as it was on the breaking out of the Crimean war. A time of peace and calmness was a fitting opportunity for establishing a better system.

said, he also hoped the Motion would not be pressed. With respect to the third recommendation of the Committee, he wished to make one or two suggestions which might, perhaps, be considered by the Government before finally adopting any course as to the Emigration Department. The recommendation in the Report was, that that Department should be abolished altogether; but in describing the duties of the office some of its most important functions were omitted. The hon. Member for Sunderland had omitted to refer to the duty cast upon the Emigration Department to carry out the provisions of the Passenger Act. Every vessel leaving this country with passengers was inspected by that department, upon which also devolved the duty of prosecuting in cases of ill-treatment of passengers whether leaving or arriving in the United Kingdom. When the Committee recommended the abolition of the Emigration Department, they should have pointed out what other department ought to discharge those most important duties. The arrangements for sending Government emigrants to the colonies had been put upon the same footing as the transport of stores and soldiers; but that was a mistake. The greater part of the funds employed in the conveyance of emigrants was not the money of this country, but the money of the colonies. A very large proportion of the expenses of the Emigration Office itself was defrayed by the colonies. He would ask the House whether they were prepared to transfer to a department having nothing to do with the colonies the duty of looking after the safety and comfort of these emigrants, or would they wish to cast that duty entirely upon independent agencies appointed by the colonies themselves? The latter would inevitably happen if the Admiralty did the work of the present Emigration Office. The colonies were unwilling that an arrangement should be made by which these functions were taken away from a department with which they were in direct communication, and turned over to a department with which they had nothing to do.

said, that his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office also objected to the amalgamation on colonial grounds, for the reasons just stated by his hon. Friend.

, in reply, said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the principle for which he contended, he should rest satisfied with the pledge of the Government on the subject, and should not press his Motion.

said, he rose to move that it was expedient that the Ecclesiastical Statutes be revised with a view to their consolidation, and he did so upon two grounds. The first was, that ecclesiastical matters were at length claiming the attention of the Government, and the Home Secretary had given notice of a Bill for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts, to which his own Motion might be said to be supplementary. The second ground was, that the consolidation of the statutes was regarded as a work which ought to occupy the attention of Parliament, more especially at a time when it was not occupied with the consideration of subjects of an important external character, and when the Session was likely to derive its character from the promotion of measures for effecting important internal improvements. The Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law had resolved, after mature discussion, that the best way of carrying out this consolidation was not by any general system, but by choosing groups of statutes devoted to one particular subject, and consolidating each group separately. With regard to the consolidation of the statutes generally, the first Motion was brought forward by Lord Brougham in 1833, when a commission was appointed to consolidate the criminal statutes. They reported in 1835, and then the matter lay dormant until 1853. In 1854 another commission was appointed, and existed till 1859, when it ceased. It made several valuable reports, and left many materials for future consolidation. The result was, that there had been three great consolidations of the law of late years — the Bankrupt Act in 1849, which paved the way for the amended Act of last year; the Customs Act in 1853, when from 1,000 to 1,500 statutes were consolidated; and the criminal law consolidation of last Session, which had also given universal satisfaction. He then asked the House to consolidate the Ecclesiastical Statutes, without which the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be extremely imperfect. These statutes had been collected by an eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Stephens, in two large volumes, containing 2,270 octavo pages. The collection extended up to 1846, and if these statutes were brought together at that time, they would probably occupy 3,000 pages. Of the ecclesiastical laws, one class related to religious and the other to temporal matters. In the first division were all the statutes relating to the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and the Thirty-nine Articles, and such other statutes as might be considered as the foundation of the Church both in England and Ireland, or illustrative of her history. He had explained to the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he was willing to amend his Motion, so that none of these statutes should be in any way touched by it. The distinction between the temporal and religious statutes was well known to ecclesiastical lawyers, and might be made without any difficulty. It was possible to keep them on the Statute Book; but collected and bound in a separate form. The second class of statutes were those relating to temporal matters. These were far more voluminous than the others; there were, he believed, about 2,300 of them altogether; there were 26 Church building Acts; there were 40 or 50 Acts relating to glebe leases, clergy leases affecting church property in England and Ireland; there were 78 Acts relating to Church discipline. It might be thought desirable not to touch the last class of Acts, and the same might be said of the Acts relating to dilapidations. They might however be consolidated without alteration. Then there were 39 Acts relating to the augmentation of benefices; to the residence of the clergy, 31; and there were 11 statutes relating to vestries. Many of these Acts had been recommended as special objects of consolidation by the Statute Law Commission in its various reports. The number of these statutes that had been passed, especially since 1800, was perfectly extraordinary. In the reign of George IV. the number of statutes passed relating to ecclesiastical matters was 265; in the reign of "William IV. There were 136, and in the present reign, down to 1846, there were 173 passed. Taking as a standard the average number of statutes passed in the three years preceding 1846, there had been passed since then about 432 statutes. The total number of statutes was about 2,400, and, deducting the purely religious and eleemosynary statutes, that would leave about 2,283 to be considered. Then allowing 700 for repealed statutes, there would remain about 1,500, which could be consolidated without in any manner interfering with the religious statutes. The Statute Law Commissioners stated that of the Acts passed since 1800 three-fourths had either expired or become obsolete. That report was signed by men of great eminence—by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Stanley, and the present Lord Chancellor. But it was perfectly indifferent whether the number was 1,500 or 500: if it was large, it made it imperative on the Government to consider how they could be presented in a more compendious form; if the number was smaller, there was no difficulty in the matter. In either case, when the Ecclesiastical Courts were occupying the attention of the Government, the ecclesiastical law ought also to be considered. He would remind the House that one of the last things it did in the last Session was to pass a Bill repealing many hundreds of obsolete statutes, with the object of preparing a revised edition of the Statute Book, in which the laws of the land might be presented in the most compendious form possible. He asked the House to carry out that intention; the present was a fitting time for the work, as there was not likely to be any urgency or press of business to prevent it. Since the Statute Law Commission expired, two gentlemen of great learning and ability had been employed in the expurgation of the Statute Book; that was, in picking out the expired, repealed, and obsolete Acts; they were beginning at the beginning of the Statute Book, and going gradually through it down to the present time. He need not say they had not advanced far in their labour. Some years would probably elapse before they completed their work. But their labour had nothing to do with the Motion he submitted; because their task was confined to the expurgation of the Statute Book; they were not employed at all on the consolidation of the statutes that remained. What he proposed was more comprehensive; it was both to expurgate the statutes relating to temporal ecclesiastical matters, and to consolidate those statutes that remained into-the smallest possible compass. Now, the ecclesiastical law was a particular study, and a matter of special knowledge. It involved the deepest interests, both of the clergy and laity. The revision should therefore be confided to special hands, and treated as a special subject; if accomplished, it would be a great step gained towards the consolidation of the whole statute law, and would be a reform that, he hoped, would prepare the way for an English code. He was glad to find that the Government intended to propose a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but there were two evils to be remedied—bad law and bad judges. The reform of the courts would touch only the judges, of whom nineteen out of twenty had been declared by high authority to be incompetent to their office. The reform would not touch the other evil of bad, inconvenient, and expensive law, under which it was often said it was better to submit to a wrong than resort to such law to obtain a remedy. It might be said that the state of the Ecclesiastical Law was not a real grievance, or that the grievance was only felt in a few cases. But on this point a distinguished prelate, whose merit had received a just reward by one of the last Acts of the patronage of the present Government, the Bishop of Killaloe, had stated that the present state of the Ecclesiastical Law and the Ecclesiastical Courts tended to shelter great delinquents and render difficult the expulsion of religious error; and within the last week the Record, the organ of that party in the Church from which the Government had selected several of the prelates who adorned the episcopal bench, had declared that the Ecclesiastical Law, with its discordant statutes and anomalies, was enough to warrant any amount of indignation. That law governed 20,000 clergy, and the laity were deeply interested in it, both ecclesiastically and in a pecuniary point of view. The lay patronage amounted to nearly £2,000,000, all of which was governed by that law, but neither the clergy nor the laity were able to ascertain what their rights or liabilities were, without going to an ecclesiastical lawyer. It was perfectly possible to make that law clear and plain. That was the opinion expressed by the Lord Chancellor when in that House, and he did not believe that the noble and learned Lord had changed it since his elevation. No fresh constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts would do that. What was needed was the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Statutes as proposed by his Motion. A work like that would stamp the present Session, for which at present there was no work provided. As yet there were literally but two Bills of any importance before them, and when they had passed the Highways Bill and the Bill for making the road across Ken sing-ton Gardens there was no reason why hon. Gentlemen should not be allowed to return to their constituents. Since his elevation to the Woolsack, Lord Westbury had endeavoured to be a great law reformer; it was in that capacity that he wished to be handed down to Parliament. He had much work before him, but to do it all he would require the strenuous support of the House of Commons. Public attention had been recently called to the work of consolidation in a remarkable speech delivered by one of the most rising statesmen of the day, the noble Lord the member for King's Lynn. He told his constituents that one of the most important works which the present Parliament would have to undertake would be the consolidation of the statute law, and, from the opinions which were known to be entertained on the subject by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, there was no doubt that if the party opposite came into power, that would be one of the first measures which they would take up.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the subject to which he had called attention was a large and important one, and that in several of its branches there could be very little difference of opinion as to its being desirable to improve the law. But to agree to an abstract resolution in the terms proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be inexpedient and productive of no advantage. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the very learned and able publication of Mr. Stephens, which obviously had suggested to him the terms of I his original Motion. That Motion was for the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynary Statutes, which happened to be the title of that learned gentleman's voluminous work. He was not surprised that his hon. Friend, on taking up that work, should have been alarmed and astonished at the great magnitude of the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynary Statutes. His hon. Friend had accurately stated that these two volumes contained 2,270 and odd pages, and that, if continued down to the present time, the work would contain somewhere about 300 more. The statutes mentioned in them were 2,283, and considerable additions had since been made to the number. No doubt, the first exclamation of hon. Gentlemen would be, "What an appalling mass of statutes, and what enormous need there must be for consolidation." But if they would take the trouble to look a little more carefully into the volumes, their alarm and astonishment would be considerably diminished, because it would be seen that almost every statute became an Ecclesiastical Statute under the touch of Mr. Stephens. A close examination of the Statutes comprised in the book immediately repelled the idea of consolidation. Not only did Mr. Stephens's volumes contain those Acts which most persons would recognise as being part of the ecclesiastical law — Acts relating to the constitution of the Church, its primary and normal relations to the State; Church Discipline Acts; Church Building Acts; Acts relating to tithes and commutation of tithes; Acts relating to cathedrals, bishops, deans, and chapters, and the like; but in addition to these a great part of the bulk of the book consisted of Acts which only referred to ecclesiastical matters in the most partial and incidental manner. For instance, the last Statute of Limitations contained a clause which applied to ecclesiastical property; therefore the Statute of Limitations appeared in Mr. Stephens's book. The Municipal Corporation Act was also there, because municipal corporations had advowsons which required to be sold. All the Acts relating to the registry of births, deaths, and marriages, all the Marriage Acts, all the Burial Acts, were also mentioned. There also appeared in it the Acts for the government of Canada, and the Act for providing for the regency of the kingdom in case of Her Majesty having been removed while the heir to the Crown was a minor. Not only that; but his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be surprised to hear that his old friend the paper duty found a place there. It so happened that books of a certain description, published at the two Universi- ties, were exempted from the paper duty, and the Act concerning the paper duty therefore, figured among the Ecclesiastical Statutes. The Metropolitan Police Act was there, because it contained provisions forbidding certain things being done on the Lord's Day; the Prisons Acts, because they regulated the appointment of chaplains; the Bakers and Sale of Bread Act, because bakers might not sell bread on Sunday; and the Evidence Acts, because parishioners were empowered to give evidence in certain parish cases. The House would thus see at once that under the name of Ecclesiastical Statutes many things were brought together which in no essential point came in contact either with the Church, the clergy, or with religion. These, instead of being proper subjects for consolidation, absolutely repelled consolidation, and to attempt it would be to create confusion and not order. At the same time, there was left a certain residuum more properly ecclesiastical, and that divided itself into various branches. He could not for a moment adopt his hon. Friend's division into religions and temporal. There was hardly an Act on the Statute Book to which that division was appropriate. Except so far as the services of the Church and the Thirty-nine Articles were concerned, there was hardly an Act which was not, primarily and properly speaking, temporal and concerning temporal matters. The great constitutional statutes which fixed the relations of Church and State were one class of Ecclesiastical Statutes; and as he understood, that his hon. Friend did not think it expedient to tamper with them, they might be dismissed from consideration. He then came to those statutes—and they were not so numerous as his hon. Friend supposed—which related to Church discipline, and entered into the body of the special law to which the clergy were subject. As to the administration of that law, there was undoubtedly considerable room for improvement, but there was no uncertainty as to what the law was. And here he could not help observing that much of the latter part of his hon. Friend's speech had reference rather to the improvement of the law than to its consolidation, and the pamphlet of the right rev. Prelate he quoted alluded to the evils of the present law and the amendments which it required. That was a delicate and difficult subject, and any one who successfully undertook it would be a benefactor to the public. But amendment ought surely to precede consolidation; it would be desirable to get the law into the state in which they wished it to be before they proceeded to consolidate it. The practical question when dealing with consolidation was, what were the branches of the law which were in a state in which it was at once practicable and convenient to consolidate the scattered statutes for the purpose of putting the law into a clearer and more legitimate state. He was far from denying the expediency of performing that process in respect of some portions of that great mass of law which was grouped together under the name of ecclesiastical, but if the Government committed themselves to doing it as to the whole, they would be giving a most idle promise, which there would be no chance of their redeeming in the current or even in a dozen Sessions. There were some things which fell within the general scope of the Motion which it would be expedient to do, and his hon. Friend would have done good service in pointedly calling attention to them. In fact, he believed he did not state too much when he stated that the Government would profit by his suggestions, and would direct their attention to the consolidation and revision of the law upon those topics. For instance, the Church Building Acts were extremely numerous; they related to an important subject, and occasion was constantly arising for reference to them. They were a very ill-drawn set of Acts, each prepared without due consideration of the others, and their consolidation and revision would be attended with great advantage. He thanked his hon. Friend for having directed attention to that subject. It would not be overlooked by the Government, and he hoped that the day was not far distant when a Bill would be presented for the amendment and consolidation of that purl of the law. To the subject of residence houses, which was closely connected with that of church building, attention might also, with great propriety, be directed. Nor did he say that the Government should stop at those points, or that other branches of the law kindred to them might not properly be dealt with. What he submitted was, that it was not expedient for the House, by adopting this Motion, to pledge themselves to a very great undertaking, which could not be entered upon without a large staff and a very considerable expenditure, in addition to that which was now being devoted to the progressive work of the improvement of the law. A specimen expurgation statute was passed last Session; two gentlemen of very great ability and aptitude for the work were now engaged, under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, in the continuance of that work, and his Lordship hoped during the present Session to submit to Parliament a Bill which would remove from the statute book all useless, obsolete, and repealed statutes which had been passed between the time at which legislation commenced and the end of the reign" of Henry VII. That would be no inconsiderable progress, and the work would go on with as much expedition as was consistent with its careful and conscientious performance. Surely, it was desirable that before consolidating the Ecclesiastical Statutes a similar process should be applied to them. He thought that his hon. Friend might leave the direction as to the order of that work to those who had it in hand; and he would remind him, in conclusion, that the commission to which he had alluded did not recommend the undertaking of this Herculean task of a general consolidation of everything which could be called ecclesiastical law. They preferred the course which the Government thought it morewise to adopt—that of dealing with particular subjects on principles similar to those on which they had constructed other Consolidation Acts.

said, he entirely sympathized with the motives which had induced his hon. Friend to bring the subject before the House. One more important, he thought, could not engage their attention. He concurred, however, with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that it would be inexpedient for the House on a matter of such magnitude to commit itself to the terms of a somewhat vague resolution. The Solicitor General had placed the real question in a. very plain and intelligible form before the House, and had promised on the part of the Government that as regards the statutes relating to church building, they would at once apply themselves to the work of consolidation; and those statutes certainly required, more than many others, to be so dealt with. He had also intimated that the statutes relating to residence should be consolidated, and that other groups should be dealt with in u similar manner. He (Mr. Freeland) thought that this was the proper course to pursue to effect a few simple reforms in the law, and to present results in a definite shape to the country. He thought that this would prove a far more satisfactory course than launching out into vague resolutions, the scope of which the country could not appreciate. He hoped that the Lord Chancellor would maintain in another place his character as a law-reformer. "Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his resolution to a division.

said, they had several immense volumes of statutes on ecclesiastical law which might he reduced within very small limits; and he believed that if they were consolidated, and the repealed Acts taken out of the way, it would be a boon to the student, the profession, and the country at large. He was glad to see a prospect of the Church Building Acts being reduced to something like an intelligible form. He was sure the Lord Chancellor was in earnest in the matter, and he hoped now something would be done. At the same time he trusted that the Government, in prosecuting legal reforms, would not confine their attention exclusively to ecclesiastical measures.

said, they had often been promised consolidation, not only of the Ecclesiastical Statutes, but of the laws generally. And he wished to know, before they went into the matter before them what had been done in respect to the consolidation of various other laws? He was aware that, at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), several gentlemen had been employed to condense and consolidate various branches of the law. Among other subjects taken up, a Bill had been prepared embracing the whole of the law with regard to aliens. The measure passed last year was not strictly an Act for the consolidation of criminal law, but only of what were commonly called Sir Robert Peel's Acts; and, owing to the course which had been adopted in consolidating with them certain portions of Lord Campbell's Acts, considerable practical inconvenience had arisen. Some of the clauses only having been repealed and others left standing, it became necessary to consult two Acts for the future instead of one.

said, he could not take credit for having induced the House to adopt any species of law reform. He had only been instrumental in getting rid of the Commissioners, and he felt glad at having done so, because, so long as they occupied the ground, nothing was done in the reform of the law. He thought they ought to proceed first with the expurgation of the old statutes, and then go on with the consolidation of the remainder. With regard to the matter now under consideration, he was of opinion that his hon. Friend had done good service in bringing forward the question, and he hoped he would accept what he might call the pledge of the Government, and alter the wording of his Motion, so that it would stand as a simple declaration in favour of the consolidation of these Acts.

said, that while not going to the full extent with the argument of the Solicitor General he thought that the instalment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had promised would do something. The fact that the Solicitor General called Dr. Stephens's book a jumble of everything, showed the necessity for a complete consolidation.

I meant no disrespect to Dr. Stephens.

said, he knew no reason why the Ecclesiastical Statutes might not be consolidated in one or two years. He ventured to express a hope that the Church of England and that of Ireland—or, more properly speaking, "the United Church of England and Ireland"—would be dealt with as one. If the Government did not treat them as one, but dealt with the Act of Union as waste paper, he hoped they would call together the Irish Parliament to deal with Irish Church matters.

in reply said, that he could not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey, because he thought there was more to be hoped from the promised measure of the Solicitor General than could be got from what the hon. member (Mr. L. King) proposed. As he understood, there was at present no work of consolidation going on, but only expurgation by two gentlemen. If that state of things were allowed to continue, half a century might elapse before the desired object was accomplished. The Statute Law Commissioners had reported that, to a great extent, amendment and consolidation might go on together. After what had been stated by the Solicitor General he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.

said, he rose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for an alphabetical index to the register of voters in counties and boroughs in England and Wales. The object he had in view was neither a part nor a political one; it was simply to remove the confusion in which the register at present stood. Ever one who had looked into the register of any large constituency would find that, though the names were alphabetically arranged according to the parishes, it was difficult to find readily the name that was sought. It was now the fashion that to every book published there should be an index, and all that he asked was to append to ever register, in small type, and in an inexpensive form, the name of each voter alphabetically arranged, and his number on the register. The plan would be very simple, very inexpensive, and very effective. As he believed the proposal would be generally approved of, he should say no more in its favour.

said, he wished to reintroduce the Bill of his right lion. Friend the War Secretary for the amendment of the Acts relating to the payment of expenses of prosecutions. It was proposed that there should be a uniform scale of allowances to witnesses payable by the Treasury, which should in no case be exceeded; but that the county magistrates should have power, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State to increase the allowances out of their own funds. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he was glad that a Bill on the subject was to be introduced, because the existing regulations caused great inconvenience and frequent complaints, particularly in the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The magistrates of Lancashire had made a strong presentment on the subject, complaining that the scale interfered with the due administration of justice by deterring witnesses from attending courts to give evidence. He had heard of the case of a surgeon who, after losing a day's practice, in a case in which two men were sentenced to penal servitude, found, on reaching home, that his allowance loft him a balance over expenses of 1s. 6d

said, that having been a Member of a deputation from Yorkshire on the subject, he wished to corroborate the opinion entertained as to the injury and inconvenience accruing to the present administration of the law from the present mode of paying witnesses.

explained, that the Bill was the same that was brought in by his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) last Session. It was founded on the Report of the Commission of 1858. He would not put the second reading for a very early day, and he wished the Bill to be printed before he named a day for the second reading.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the procedure of the Court of Chancery. The object of his Bill was simply to make it imperative on the Courts of Chancery to determine every question of law and fact necessary to enable them to administer the jurisdiction they possessed. He did not desire either to enlarge or to diminish, to alter or affect in any way the jurisdiction of these courts. In the exercise of i that jurisdiction, however, there often arose questions of law and fact, which, under the present mode of procedure, the courts of equity were in the habit of referring to the courts of law for their opinion or decision as preliminary to the determination of the equitable questions arising in the case, and he proposed by this Bill that this course of procedure should be discontinued. The object of the Bill, though simple, was therefore of considerable importance, and would produce very large results in the administration of justice in those courts. He was quite conscious that the onus lay upon him to give solid reasons for the change. The Legislature had already thought it desirable to remove all doubt as to the power of the Court of Chancery to determine all questions of law and of fact requiring to be determined for the exercise of its jurisdiction; and the Act of the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, gave them full power for that purpose, and with the same view took away from the Court the power of obtaining the opinion of a court of law by stating a case. But notwithstanding the evident intention of the Legislature, the Court of Chancery was still in the habit of sending questions of law and of fact to be determined by a court of common law as before. It was still within the power of the Court of Chancery to refuse or postpone its own decisions until some question of law or fact had been decided at law either by means of an action or of some issue directed by the court to be tried at law. The cases of injunctions applied for in equity against the infringement of patents or of copyright would very well illustrate the subject, though there were many other classes of cases in which the inconvenience of the present system was equally great. If the owners of a patent alleged that it was infringed, they applied to the Court of Equity for an injunction, and their right to the injunction in equity depended in equity on the legal validity of the patent and on the fact of infringement. The court was in the habit of saying to such parties, "You must bring your action at law or try your issue. Prove that the patent is valid and has been infringed, and then you may come here, and we will grant you an injunction." That state of things caused much uncertainty, delay, and expense. The courts had the power of determining the law and the fact for themselves, but it was a question of discretion with them whether they should exercise the powers they possessed or not, and frequently they were led to say that the courts of law were a better tribunal, and to decline to discharge the duties to which the Legislature had invited them. Every suitor to the Court of Equity was told that the court had the power to determine all the questions of law and fact, and the result often was that he exhausted all his evidence and went through the whole of his case, as if everything were to be decided in equity, only to find that it had all to be done over again, with great additional delay and expense, in a court of law. The grievance was of so large and frequent a character that it was worthy of redress. In about one hundred cases that had recently come under his notice, one-sixth contained some specific question of law or fact that required to be determined to enable the Court of Chancery to exercise its jurisdiction, and more than two-thirds of this proportion had been sent to a court of law. One objection might possibly be urged—namely, that judges of courts of equity were not so equal to the discharge of these duties as judges of courts of law, and that in equity there was no adequate machinery for the purpose. But it was well known that equity lawyers were selected to argue pure questions of law in the Exchequer Chamber and in the House of Lords, the courts of the last resort. In fact, it was necessary to be master of the whole law before any person could with propriety undertake to practise or to administer justice in courts of equity. He had known, for instance, a case of copyright, which was a pure question of law, sent out of the Court of Chancery to be tried in a court of law; and when argued at law, the authorities cited had been for the most part cases which had been decided in a court of equity. Now, he proposed to make it imperative on the Court of Chancery to determine all such questions itself. Questions of equity were frequently arising in courts of law, and, there was no such necessity for judges in courts of law to be masters of equity as there was for judges of equity to be masters of law; but a court of law never thought of sending equitable cases to courts of equity, but dealt with them itself; and, in like manner, there could be no doubt whatever of the capacity of courts of equity to deal with questions of law. The only question, therefore, was, whether courts of equity had sufficient facilities to deal with all questions of fact? It was quite competent for them to summon witnesses and to sift evidence viva voce, and to proceed by jury trial when necessary; and though for the first half-dozen cases there might, perhaps, be some awkwardness in the way in which practitioners in equity might deal with a jury, yet the difficulty would soon be got over. At all events, if there was any part of the duty which the equity judges were unable to discharge, let them be deprived of jurisdiction so far as regarded that part, but do not let suitors be bandied backwards and forwards flora one court to another to try a single question of right. He desired, in conclusion, to say that he did not for one moment complain of the course taken by the judges in the courts of equity, or of the way in which they exercised the discretion intrusted to them, as to the determination of questions of law and fact. No body of men, without exception, could be found more able or more willing to discharge every duty which was placed upon them. But, taking human nature as it was, the result would be such as he complained of—when there was power to send particular cases elsewhere, there would be a natural and inevitable tendency to do so. If each court was, as it was bound to be, master of the principles of law and equity, and each court was bound to discharge all its own duties, the advantages of a division of labour would make it convenient that the courts should be separate as now; a great and substantial remedy would be provided for evils existing under the present system; and there would be no necessity for any fusion of or any breaking down the boundaries between the principles administered in courts of law and in courts of equity. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the procedure of the Court of Chancery.

said, he heartily concurred in the general views and principles which his hon. and learned Friend had expressed, and in his estimate of the practical importance of the subject. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had authorized him to state that his attention had been directed to that very subject, and that he had it in contemplation to embody that, as well as other points touching the practice and procedure in the Court of Chancery, in a Bill which it was his intention to lay on the table of the other House. At the same time, his noble and learned Friend did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of his hon. and learned Friend. who was so well entitled to contribute his valuable assistance upon questions with which he was so well acquainted. He thought that they would all concur in the main principles which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down — that it was of the utmost importance that every court should be, as far as possible, complete in itself, and that multiplicity of litigation should be got rid of, not merely discouraged. In the nature of things, courts of equity must be as competent to deal with questions of law as any other courts, because all equity was founded upon law. With regard to the procedure on questions of fact, great improvements had been made. He assumed, however, that his hon. and learned Friend did not propose to deal with questions of fact in such a manner as to take away the power which courts of equity possessed of sending issues of fact to be tried at the assizes before juries, as was done by the superior courts of law themselves, when, in consequence of witnesses residing on the spot, there would be greater convenience and cheapness in so doing. It might not be improper to add that judges of great authority on many questions had actually laid it down that it was the only proper course for a court of equity to require the previous establishment of the legal right by action of law. Now, they all knew that this course had become, so well-established by precedent, that it might be doubted whether judges would not feel that in departing from that usage they were exercising a discretion, which might be competent to them in the abstract, in a manner which previous precedents had shown to be improper, He also agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that if the equity judges possessed only a discretionary power to try questions of law, they would naturally be inclined to refer them to the common law judges, from a belief that they were more in the habit of dealing with them. The legislation which his hon. and learned Friend proposed was therefore not only useful, but necessary for the purpose of cutting off a vicious course of precedents, and of delivering the courts of equity and the judges who presided in them from the fetters which that usage had imposed upon the exercise of their discretion.

said, he wished to express his concurrence in the principle of the Bill, but it was his opinion that in the event of this Bill becoming law the common law judges should be engaged to assist in the trial of the issues of cases in equity courts, and that barristers practising at common law should be admitted to the equity courts without a breach of etiquette.