said, he had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words, "or in any other waters except in the open sea at a distance of more than," and to insert the word "within;" but he would take the division on the Motion to omit the words "or in any other waters."

said, it was important that the clause should remain unaltered. It provided simply that bag nets should not be allowed "except in the open sea." That was a clear and intelligible definition, but nobody could tell where the mouth of a river began. The Amendment of which the Under Secretary had given notice was clearly proposed to save the interests of Mr. Sampson French. [Mr. H. A. Bruce: No.] Then, it was to save interests which might be represented by the word "Sampson-Frenchism." If they saved the interests of one Mr. Sampson French, they must do the same for a dozen other Sampson Frenches. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) had also given notice of a Motion to save the interests of some Sampson-French. He trusted that the Committee would reject the Amendment.

said, as he had been pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he might say that on looking over the Bill he saw that it would injuriously affect some friends of his, and he had given notice of an Amendment in order to prevent their being injuriously affected.

said, that the effect of the Amendment of which the hon. Under Secretary had given notice would legalize all bag nets in all rivers and estuaries, except those within three miles of the mouth. It would be much better for hon. Members to give in the names of their special friends to the clerk at the table, so that a clause might be framed expressly protecting the interests of Mr. Hector, Mr. Little, and other gentlemen who had friends in that House.

said, he would admit that his Amendment was a departure from the main principle of the Bill. The bag nets were put up legally under the Act of 1842, the framers of which evidently did not know what they were doing in legalizing these destructive engines. The Committee would be justified in refusing to legalize bag nets, because what did a bag net do? It might be run across so as to intercept the progress of all the salmon up a river. At the same time, the Committee would not be right in ignoring the rights that had grown up under the Act of 1842. It would be an act of harshness to sweep them away without allowing time to carry out the necessary arrangements. The case of Mr. Sampson French was one which he would admit had been considered by the Government, and they came to the conclusion that a limited proposal to be moved hereafter by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert) was a very fair one. The Bill would, however, still confer great advantages on the fisheries of Ireland,

said, that if the proprietors of fisheries who were to be conciliated were named, he would vote for the Amendment; otherwise, as the Amendment would work a very important alteration in the meaning of the clause, and was intended to save the property of certain gentlemen, he would oppose it.

said, be wished to know whether they were legislating for public or private rights. The hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had admitted that the bag nets might be so placed as to intercept every fish. Then, why did the hon. Gentleman ask the House to pass a Bill that gave to private individuals the right to intercept and kill every fish that attempted to go up the river? Talk of confiscation Could there be a more complete act of spoliation? He was now in favour of the Government Bill, and he thought it very hard to have to get up and defend it against the Amendments by which the Government now wished to destroy the efficiency of their own measure.

said, that by the Amendment he proposed they did not legalize any bag nets whatever.

said, by the clause as pro- posed to be amended bag nets would be prohibited in river estuaries and within three miles from the mouths of the rivers.

said, he hoped that they would retain the words "other waters," as he knew waters which could not be defined as estuaries, but in which by bag nets they might catch every fish that came up.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. On the west coast of Ireland, there were waters in which they might take every fish by bag nets.

said, he would move to strike out the word "three" and insert the word "five." The effect of the Amendment would be to prohibit bag nets, except at a distance of more than five miles from the mouths of rivers.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. A great many persons might be injured if it were adopted.

moved, after the word "rivers," to add "estuaries."

said, he saw no objection to the Amendment.

said, he would move an Amendment to the Clause, to the effect that no person should be allowed to erect a bag net within three miles of a river, "save any person having an exclusive right of taking salmon in any such river." It was manifest that in the case of an exclusive right to both banks of a river, from its source to its mouth, no injury could be done to any other party by leaving undisturbed the power of erecting bag nets.

observed that a person holding such a property might by means of bag nets erected within three miles of a river inflict an injustice on parties possessing rights of property over contiguous streams.

said, he had no objection to the principle of the Amendment; but he thought that they ought to exercise great caution in adopting it, lest they might thereby interfere with the rights of other parties. If the Amendment was not then pressed, he was ready to undertake that the Government would consider the subject, and endeavour to introduce a provision on the bringing-up of the Report, for the purpose of attaining the object contemplated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, the Amendment was so dangerous that the Committee ought not to allow it to be withdrawn, but they should negative it.

said, that he could not approve of the Amendment, because it appeared to go beyond the purpose for which it was intended, and would enable a proprietor not only to preserve the bag nets already established, but to create new bag nets. All he could say was, that he and his right hon. Friend (the Chief Secretary) would give their best consideration to the subject.

said, he trusted than any further consideration given to the Amendment would lead the Government to oppose it on the Report.

said, that he was a Member of the Select Committee to which the Bill of 1842 was referred. He felt quite certain, that if that Committee had foreseen the operation of the clauses of that Act, it would not have received the support of a single Irish Member. It was proposed on the responsibility of the Government; and though he was a consenting party to it, it was because he was ill-informed; and it had ever since been a matter of deep regret to him that he had assented to the passing of a law which had most materially injured not only the fisheries of Ireland, but also the poor of that country. It had, indeed, perpetrated an act of spoliation and confiscation. Parliament took away from one man and gave to another, and, what was worse, took away from the poor and gave to the rich. But the clauses of the Act of 1842 were proposed on public and not on private grounds—not to enable the proprietors of the lower fisheries to make money, but because it was alleged that new and destructive engines had been invented for taking fish, that the public markets were ill-supplied, and that fish would be more abundant if that Act were passed. The Committee were now told, with truth, that the operation of the Act of 1842 had been most destructive to the fisheries, and that it had deprived the poor of their daily bread. Were they also to be told that the Act conferred vested rights upon particular individuals, to enable them to fish in a particular manner, and that the House of Commons must look on while all the river fisheries of Ireland were being destroyed? He trusted the Committee would not believe that rights conferred in such a manner, and for such objects, ought to stand in the way of more beneficial legislation. They had heard of nothing but the Shannon during the debates on the Bill before them; but what had become of the fish in the small and beautiful rivers of Ireland? They were absolutely destroyed, and the fish were gone. He was told that it was an angler's question. Well, he was in favour of protecting the rights of anglers, for an angler's success represented the stock of fish in the water. But year after year the stock of fish in the Irish rivers had diminished; He had supported the Bill as a compromise; but he could not find any compromise in the present Bill on the part of the weir-owners. The clause proposed that no fixed net not legally in use for catching salmon at the time of the passing of this Act should be used in any inland or tidal waters. He would propose as an Amendment to leave out the words "at the time of the passing of the Act" for the purpose of inserting "on January 1 1848." He proposed that Amendment, because in 1848 he brought in a Bill, which became law, by which he did not attempt to repeal the Act of 1842, but which remedied some of its defects. He did not recognize by that Act any of the vested rights supposed to be created under the Act of 1842, and the effect of his Bill was to increase the supply of fish in the rivers. The proprietors in many districts, however, took advantage of the increased stock of fish, and put up fixed engines. They thus took all the fish which his Act had been the means of preserving. The result was that the fisheries were again destroyed. His object now was to prevent those who took advantage of the improvement to be effected by the Bill before the Committee from setting up any claim of vested interest in consequence of what they did in 1848. Those parties ought not to be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong; and if his Amendment were agreed to, the clause would only recognize the fixed engines put up prior to the Act of 1848.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that the Bill before the Committee was no compromise at all. [Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE: Not as to stake nets] Was it nothing to prohibit all new stake nets? Was it nothing to appoint a commission to carry put the Act, with larger powers than any commission had ever had before, to inquire into the rights of parties, and overrule everything contrary to those rights? He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the rights and interests which had sprung up since 1848 had no claim upon the consideration of the Committee. If the Amendment were carried, it would be for the Government to consider whether they would proceed with the Bill. It was opposed to every principle on which the Bill was brought forward.

said, he also must express his disapproval of the, Amendment. He denied that the salmon fisheries of Ireland had declined under the existing law. There certainly had of late years been a great increase in the quantity of fish forwarded from Ireland to the markets of Liverpool and London since 1842.

said, that the construction of railways had no doubt facilitated the transmission of fish from Ireland to this country, but he believed, at the same time, that the salmon fisheries of Ireland were being gradually destroyed by the existing state of the law. He should add, however, that he thought it would not be wise for them to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury, inasmuch as by pursuing such a course they would in all probability render impossible the passing of the Bill.

said, that the Amendment would open the door to a vast amount of litigation. There was no certain record of the fixed engines in existence on the 1st of January 1848. It was most desirable that the Bill should pass in the present Session, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

said, he approved of the Amendment as an abstract proposition. But he thought it was not desirable that they should by its adoption endanger the success of the Bill. The measure as it stood would at all events be productive of considerable advantage. Out of 138 fixed engines in the Shannon it would remove 77, that number of the fixed engines being bag nets.

remarked, that the only fault he found with the right hon. Gentleman was that his Amendment did not go half far enough. There were, he believed, only three rivers in Ireland containing bag nets. In all the others the stake nets were retained just as they were left by the Bill of 1842.

said, he perceived that the general sense of the committee was opposed to the Amendment and he would therefore not persevere with it.

said, he wished to move an Amendment in the clause to the effect, that "in no case should any stake weir, stake net, or fly net be allowed to extend beyond the low-water mark of ordinary neap tides." He believed that the Bill as it stood would be productive of little or no benefit of any kind, while it would be attended with one great disadvantage, that it would render any future amendment of the law entirely hopeless.

said, it would be better to get rid of stake nets by a direct Motion than by a side-wind of the kind proposed. If the Amendment were agreed to, the stake nets on the Shannon would be entirely useless.

said, he would divide the Committee against the clause.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a court martial, held on board Her Majesty's Ship "Victory," at Portsmouth, on Charles Thomas, a seaman, charged with insubordination and using offensive language to a Boatswain, who had ordered the liberty- boat to leave before its appointed time, when the prisoner was returning to his ship after the expiration of his leave of absence to get married; and if so, whether it be true that, under the circumstances of that case, the prisoner was adjudged to be reduced to the second class, to receive forty-eight lashes, to be imprisoned in Winchester Gaol for two years, and then to be discharged with disgrace from Her Majesty's Navy; and whether he will lay the proceedings of the court upon the table of the House?

, in reply, said, that as the hon. Gentleman appeared to have been misinformed with respect to some of the particulars connected with the court martial on Charles Thomas, he (Lord Clarence Paget) would shortly state the circumstances of the case. It was customary, especially at the home ports, to allow the seamen, as far as possible, to go on shore after their day's work, it being understood that they were to return to their ship on the following morning; and at a given hour a boat was sent for what were called the liberty men. Now, the first point on which the hon. Gentleman seemed to be misinformed was that the liberty boat to which he referred, left the shore before the appointed time, assuming which to be the fact, the House would naturally be led to infer, that it was not Thomas's fault that he had not returned to his ship in due course. The boat, however, had not quitted the shore before the time appointed, and, according to the evidence of the sailors in her, Thomas was not down in time to go on board. He had, however, later found his way on board, and was very indignant with the boatswain who had charge of the boat, towards whom he used most violent, offensive, disgusting, and insubordinate language—language which he also made use of in reference to the captain. His offence was of so grave a nature that it was thought requisite that he should be tried by court martial. Now, the hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that Thomas had been on leave of absence for the purpose of getting married; but he had set up no such defence on his trial. On the contrary, he stated that he had been on shore to see his brother, had been drinking with him, and had, unfortunately, become intoxicated. The evidence of the sailors who were with him, however, was to the effect that he was sober when he used the language just referred to. The sentence passed by the court martial was stated perfectly accurately in the question; but he was bound to say that those tribunals, like individuals, were sometimes liable to error. They sometimes erred on the side of leniency; sometimes on that of severity. All sentences of courts martial came under the revision of the Admiralty, which not unfrequently exercised the privilege of mercy in mitigating a sentence, when in their opinion it was too harsh. He (Lord Clarence Paget) had no doubt that in this case the Admiralty would have an opportunity of mitigating the sentence; but he must be allowed to say, that if such a mitigation occurred, it would not be the consequence of the subject having been brought before that House, because nothing could be more fatal to the discipline of the navy, than that the House of Commons should be turned into a Court of Appeal from the judgments of courts martial. He hoped that the hon. Member would not move for the proceedings of this court martial, which would, under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, be obtainable by the prisoner at the end of three months.

said, he wished to know, whether the Admiralty could not take steps to prevent misunderstandings respecting the proceedings of courts martial, getting abroad? The matter was one on which the public mind was very sensitive.

sincerely wished the Admiralty had the means of preventing misunderstandings on such subjects. And here he might refer to a question of which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) had given him notice, respecting a case where it was stated in a newspaper that a sailor had actually been ordered fifteen years' hard labour for attempting to commit suicide. There was not a word of foundation for that statement. The only way in which erroneous assertions respecting the Navy could be corrected, was by hon. Members having the goodness to draw his attention publicly to them as they occurred.

said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the continued severe distress in the cotton districts, and the great sufferings of the operatives from the want of remunerative employment, it is not due to them that an early morning sitting should be fixed for the Second Reading of the Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Bill.

said, in reply, that the second reading of the Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Bill would probably come on the first thing on Thursday evening; but he could not at present make any arrangement respecting its committal. The Government had, however, every desire to expedite the passing of the measure.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information respecting an outrage said to have been perpetrated by Arabs on an English subject at Zanzibar in February last, and respecting reports lately published in the French newspapers of hostile feeling against the European residents excited in the minds of the native population of Zanzibar by certain alleged operations of British cruisers engaged in the repression of the Slave Trade?

, in reply, said, he had referred to the French papers, and he had found in the Journal des Debuts an account of a state of things at Zanzibar corresponding with what his hon. Friend had stated It appeared that a meeting had been held of European residents respecting the feelings of the Arabs towards the English. The meeting was presided over by a French gentleman, and considering the source from which the information came it was somewhat suspicious. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to the papers which had been laid on the table, he would find, that while the slave trade had been repressed on the west coast of Africa, it had received an unfortunate development on the east coast, under the name of free-labour emigration. It was carried on not only by French agents, but under the French flag. The British cruisers, acting under a treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, had done all in their power to put an end to this infamous traffic, which appeared, from the evidence of travellers in Africa, to have produced the greatest possible misery amongst the unhappy people of the country. In districts that had formerly been inhabited by races of negroes in an advanced state of civilization when compared with those on the western coast, hundreds and even thousands of villages had been deserted, and an extent of suffering had been produced that could hardly be described. He hoped that the efforts of the British cruisers would put a stop to this state of things; but unfortunately the French merchants at Zanzibar derived large profits from the traffic, and they were very much averse to have it interfered with. He trusted, however, that when the French Government were informed of the facts, the Emperor, who had expressed his determination to put down the slave trade, would cause something to be done to remedy the evil.

said, he wished to know if his hon. Friend had any information from the British Consuls?

said, he had none beyond what he had stated. The hon. Gentleman subsequently rose, and said that he wished to correct any misconception that might be entertained as to the meaning of his remarks on the slave trade on the east coast of Africa. What he meant to say was, that a trade which was virtually a slave trade was being carried on. A trade in what were called "free labourers" was being carried on under the protection of France, but the way in which those free labourers was obtained was something very much resembling a slave trade. By the Convention with France the slave trade was put an end to.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Tyrone, What is the salary and the emoluments of Captain Fishbourne, one of the Honorary Secretaries of the Patriotic Fund?

said, he was afraid he must ask leave to preface his answer by explaining why Captain Fishbourne, although in receipt of a salary, was designated Honorary Secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund. At the time when the Commission issued it was not supposed that the Fund would reach a large amount, or that the time occupied in its distribution would extend over a long period, and consequently the establishment in connection with the Commission was organized merely on a temporary footing. Under these circumstances it was decided that the office of Secretary should be an honorary appointment; and Captain Fishbourne, having been strongly recommended by Sir James Graham, then First Lord of the Admiralty, his name was inserted in the Royal Commission along with that of Colonel Lefroy as one of the joint Honorary Secretaries. Colonel Lefroy shortly after received an appointment at the War Office, and ceased to act, and Captain Fishbourne thus became the sole acting Secretary of the Royal Commission. He entered on his arduous and responsible duties in the year 1854, and continued to serve as Honorary Secretary, without any salary, until 1860—that was, for a period of upwards of five years. It was true that during this period he received an annual allowance at first fixed at one hundred and fifty guineas, but afterwards raised to £200, but this was not a remuneration for service performed, but merely to indemnify him for the additional expenses imposed on him by the necessity of living in London instead of in the country, where he had previously resided; and considering that he was a married man with a family, he did not think the amount would be considered extravagant. But it turned out that the munificence of the public, which placed a sum amounting to little short of £1,500,000 at the disposal of the Commissioners, enabled them to provide not only for the immediate wants of widows and orphans of the Russian war, but also to provide permanent allowances for widows and infirm children, as well as to appropriate large sums towards the endowment of schools for the education of the orphans of soldiers, sailors, and marines, Under these circumstances, the Fund ceased to be of a temporary character, and the permanent services of a Secretary were consequently required. Captain Fishbourne could not continue to act in that capacity Without foregoing all chance of promotion and employment in his profession, in which he had as fair a claim to advancement as any other Officer on the list of Captains of the Royal Navy; and he, consequently, applied to be placed on the same footing as the paid Secretaries of other Royal Commissions. It was not, however, within the competence of the Royal Commissioners to comply with this request, because his position was defined as Honorary Secretary in the Royal Commission, which they had no power to alter and they consequently decided on securing his services by appointing him paid Member of the Executive and Finance Committee; and it was in that capacity, and not as Honorary Secretary, that he received payment for his services. The amount of his salary was fixed by the Royal Commissioners at £600 a year, and to remove all doubt, he (Mr. Corry) might add that that salary was not in addition to, but inclusive of, his previous allowance of £200 a year. The duties which Captain Fishbourne performed in return for that salary required his daily attendance during the usual hours of official business at the Office, except when absent on other duties, such as visiting schools. Being at the head of the Office, he was responsible for the manner in which its business was conducted, and no money could be disbursed without his signature and sanction, and the present annual disbursement amounted to nearly £78,000. The hon. Gentleman had further asked, "What is the amount of Captain Fishbourne's emoluments?" His answer was, that he was not in the receipt of any emolument but his salary of £600 per year. He was, according to invariable practice, allowed his travelling expenses, and the total amount of these for eight years and a half had been only £201, being at the rate of less than £25 a year.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the officers of the Admiralty and the Board of Works in Ireland, regarding the serious obstruction caused to navigation in the rivers Bride and Blackwater, in the county of Waterford, by stake and head weirs. It appeared that a considerable number of weirs had been placed in those rivers, rendering them almost impassable; and that with regard to them the Admiralty and the Board of Works in Ireland acted very unsatisfactorily, each shifting the responsibility upon the other. The matter had at last got into the hands of the Board of Trade, and he trusted that some redress would at length be obtained by the persons who complained of the obstruction caused by the weirs. He should conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.

said, that the reports to which the hon. Gentleman had referred showed that the navigation of these two rivers was seriously interfered with by the erection of weirs. But when he came to consider to what the delay in the removal of those obstructions was owing, he found it did not arise from any apathy on the part of the administrators of the law, or from the bandying of responsibility between the Admiralty and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, but from the incomplete and inconsistent powers given by the Act of Parliament. There were many prohibitions in the acts, and no doubt many of the weirs were illegal, but it was not by any means easy to apply a remedy. Many exceptions were granted by the law itself; and the Commissioners of Public Works had no power to take the initiative in the removal of the weirs. It was necessary that a complaint should first be laid before them before they could interfere. Somebody else, in short, must set the law in motion, but up to a recent period not a single complaint had been made. It was quite true that power was given to the Commissioners to remove all weirs where they appeared to obstruct the navigation of any river; but the reason why they had not interfered was because they were of opinion that they were conservators of the fisheries rather than of the navigation of the rivers. They had looked upon the Board of Admiralty rather than upon the Board of Public Works as the conservators of the navigation. Nor did they consider that they had power sufficient to enable them to interfere successfully. There was no right of appeal under the Act of Parliament. Moreover, the powers of the Board were on the point of ceasing, and were about to be transferred to the new Commissioners of Fisheries. He therefore recommended the hon. Gentleman to wait till these changes had been made before he proceeded with the subject.

moved, at the end of the Motion, to add, "and all other encroachments on the property of the Crown and the rights of the public in the tidal waters and shores of Ireland." He said that all the rivers of Ireland were interrupted by weirs which parties had no right to place there. They wanted no Commissioners and no Act of Parliament. The Attorney General was all they wanted. In England, if anybody intruded on the seashore, there was an information filed at once. In Ireland, if an intrusion was made for the public benefit, as for a railway or the like, the Board came and removed the intrusion; but if it were by a private person, it seemed there was no remedy whatever. The Attorney General ought to file an information at once against the offenders. The weirs had been erected under the pretence of the Act of 1842, and now that they had been erected it would no doubt be pretended that a Charter granted by Charles I or Charles 11 sanctioned their erection. The longer they were permitted to remain the greater pretence would be given for pleading before a jury that a charter had been granted.

said, that the Motion seemed to him very like a truism. It looked like a declaration that the Government ought to enforce the law; and there required no Motion to inform the Government of that. The question was, whether or not the Government had failed to do their duty. From the statements that had been made by the hon. and learned Member, he did not see that any evidence had been brought forward of any neglect of duty on the part of the Government. As far as he had been informed, many of the weirs on the Bride and Blackwater were as much legal weirs as any in the empire. It was true that a number of cases of alleged illegality had been brought before his notice. But the answer he had given was, "Bring me sufficient evidence of the illegality, and I will prosecute. But if you do not, I must decline to do so." If sufficient evidence had been brought, he should have felt it his duty to proceed by a writ of intrusion in the Court of Exchequer. But nothing had been said that evening to show that the Government had been guilty of any dereliction of duty.

said, the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury and of the hon. and learned Attorney General did not quite accord. There were three branches of the Executive in Ireland—the Admiralty, the Commissioners of Works, and the Commissioners of Fisheries—who were charged with the duty of abating these obstructions. Each cast the responsibility upon the other, and between them the duty was neglected.

said, that the case be-fore the House was a case of great hardship. The Reports showed that no less than three branches of the executive Government had for several years been guilty of breaches of duty. That was practically a denial of the rights of the poor. Under the circumstances he would, nevertheless, not recommend his hon. Friend to press his Motion.

said, that resting upon the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), he would not press his Motion.

said, he rose to move a Resolution, "That it is expedient to make such alterations in the Assize and Circuit arrangements as would secure a more speedy trial in the country of country causes." His aim in proposing that Resolution was to carry out the objects of the Commission of 1857, which had inquired into the subject, and had made several recommendations, by giving to the country districts and to towns more frequent opportunities of trying their causes. In the country there were but two assizes in the year, while in London and Middlesex there were no less than ninety-six sittings—thirty-two for each of the three courts; so that a suitor in Middlesex had forty eight times more opportunities of having his case tried than the suitor over the river in the county of Surrey. This was an extraordinary anomaly; and it was also an anomaly, that whilst county courts sat twelve times a year, causes involving more than £50 could only be heard in the country twice in the year. The Great Charter of King John provided that trials of ejectments and other local causes should take place four times a year, and by a statute of Edward I. and others it was provided that there should be three Assizes in the year. But the tendency of modern times had been to concentrate legal business in London. In 1648 there were 452 causes tried in the county of Oxford, and from 1780 to 1849 the average was only 132. The tendency towards Lon don monopoly had at last produced dissatisfaction in the country, where suitors must either wait half a year, or incur the expense of coming to London; and nothing was more common than for defendants to settle on any terms rather than incur the cost and inconvenience of a trial in London. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce had adopted a memorial declaring that the present system involved a denial of justice, and that it ought to be maintained only on weighty and undeniable grounds of public security, and it was owing to such memorials from various law societies and towns in the country that the Commission to which he had referred was appointed, and inquired into the expediency of having a third assize in the country generally. The Commissioners would have recommended additional assizes, but what restrained them was, that they felt that to accomplish this change additional Judges must be appointed. The Incorporated Law Society of London reported, that considering the long interval of eight months between the summer and spring circuits, it was submitted that there should be a third circuit, and that the terms should be reduced to three by either Easter or Trinity term being abolished. One great objection to the present system was that of having assizes held in so few towns, which necessitated taking parties and witnesses far from their homes; and it was calculated that taking witnesses more than thirty miles doubled the cost of a trial. If that were so, there would be an enormous saving if assize towns were more numerous, and if there were three circuits, which would prevent many country causes being set down for trial in London. The saving which would as a result be effected would more than counterbalance the expense of increasing the number of Judges. At the time the Commission had made its Report there was an impression that the Common Law Judges had not very much work to do, and it was even contended that their number ought to be diminished. The fact was, however, that the business in the superior courts had so increased from various causes that the Judges had now more work than ever to get through, the result being that scarcely any of the courts in Westminster had its full complement of Judges available, some of them being obliged to sit in the Divorce Court or to attend at the Privy Council or elsewhere. Indeed, the great wonder was, seeing how wide was the extent of their duties, that the number of Judges had not long since been increased. In England, which possessed the largest commercial and manufacturing population in the world, there were only fifteen Common Law Judges, whereas in Ireland—where, in his opinion, the number of Judges was far from being too large—there were twelve Judges, although the population was so much less; the number in the superior courts in Scotland being thirteen for a population of only 3,000,000. Now, nothing could be worse in a country than that its Judges should be obliged to get hurriedly through their work, for, according to the old maxim, "Haste was the mother of injustice;" and everybody, he believed, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was satisfied that the number of Judges in England ought to be increased. The expense of creating additional Judges would not be more than £10,000 a year, while that expense would be more than made up for by the saving which might be effected as a consequence of the augmented facilities which would be given for trying causes in Yorkshire and Lancashire alone. The inconvenience of the present system bore with especial hardship, he believed, on the inhabitants-of Yorkshire, who had to go great distances to York to have their causes tried. Now, when they were about to expend so large a sum on providing a refuge for all the animals in the British Museum, it was not, he thought, unreasonable to ask that some £10,000 or £12,000 a year should be laid out in securing the services of a few more Judges to meet the wants of the country in the direction to which his Motion pointed. In 1857 it was intended to issue a commission for the trial of causes at the winter assize in Yorkshire, but that intention was abandoned in consequence, as was stated, of Lord Campbell having "informed the Secretary of State that the Judges were of opinion that parties would not be properly prepared for the trial of civil causes in December." The only difficulty really was the want of more Judges, and he hoped that the public would not be deprived of the accommodation which was so much needed on account of the small additional expense which such an increase would occasion.

said, that some alteration like that proposed had become of vital importance to the north of England, and particularly to such places as Sheffield. From that town they had to travel fifty-five miles to York to try their causes and their prisoners; whilst in Lancashire, which was a much smaller county, they had three assize towns. The expense was not at all to be estimated in comparison with the immense advantages to be derived from the change proposed. There was no place in the United Kingdom suffering from so great a disadvantage in this respect as the west riding of Yorkshire; and he appealed to the Attorney General, who was well aware of the inconvenience, to assist in its removal.

said, he should support the Motion, The population of Yorkshire amounted to 2,000,000, upwards of three-fourths of whom resided in the West Hiding. Thus Leeds had a population of 207,000, Sheffield 185,000, Bradford and Halifax each over 100,000, and many of the other towns had populations of 50,000 or 60,000; and the small number of assizes in the West Riding and the few places in which they were held amounted to a great substantial grievance and hardship. The vast amount of manufacturing and commercial transactions necessarily led to a great deal of legal work, and the present state of things involved, to a considerable extent, a practical denial of justice, owing to the want of due facilities for the administration of justice. He hoped the Government would seriously and immediately take the subject into consideration.

rose to speak to the Motion, when—