in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the measure was in itself small and unpretending, but it had this merit, that it would, if passed, tend to maintain the dignity of the law, and render pure the stream of justice. The clerks to magistrates stood in a very anomalous position. The whole question of the advisers to our unpaid magistracy required consideration fifty years ago; the rural magistracy were few and far between, their butlers were generally their clerks, and their only legal advisers "Burns Justice;" the increase of population and the consequent increase of crime had altered this, but the position of the clerks had not kept pace with the requirements of the times. The clerk to the magistrates was charged with very responsible duties, he was the legal adviser of the justices to whom he acted, and yet he had no freehold in his office, and he was liable to be discharged at the pleasure or caprice of the magistrates. Now, the House had imposed on these clerks very important duties. They were compelled to make Returns to the Home Office under no less than seventeen statutes, some of which were of a very important nature. The position which he held was this—that these clerks should be paid by salary; that they be attorneys of a certain standing, should not be removable from their office except for misbehaviour, and that they should have no direct or indirect pecuniary inducement to recommend commitments to the justices whom it was their duty to advise. He was aware that there was an organized opposition to his proposal, the justices clerks had, like other trades, their union, and had determined to oppose his Bill; they had sent a form of petition to all the Petty Sessional divisions, 433 in number, but only thirty-one petitions had been presented against his Bill; this spasmotic action might keep the matter in its present position a little longer, but there was a strong feeling entertained by the ratepayers that the pre- gent system of unpaid clerks, with the inducement which they had to recommend commitments, greatly increased litigation, and that they were thereby made the sufferers. All fees taken by magistrates were more or less a tax on the working classes of the country. The hon. Member referred to the evidence taken by the Royal Commission which sat in 1845, to inquire into the state of the criminal law in support of his view that the prosecution by magistrates' clerks was a highly indecorous proceeding which led to frivolous prosecutions and gave rise to the obvious remark that they had a direct interest in advising commitments. He also referred to the evidence given before the Public Prosecutions Committee. Amongst the witnesses was the Lord Chief Justice, who said he was of opinion that the clerks to the justices could be made useful agents to conduct public prosecutions; but unless the clerks were put on salaries that plan would not do. Lord Campbell said it was of the last importance that the magistrates' clerk should have no interest in the prosecution to bias his mind, and no advantage, directly or indirectly, in the case in which he gave his advice. He also read letters from gentlemen holding official position in England and Wales, in favour of his proposal. On the passing of the Municipal Act, it was provided that the clerks to magistrates in boroughs should not prosecute any person sent to gaol by the borough magistrates. It seemed an anomaly that a clerk to borough magistrates, and a clerk to county magistrates, should live side by side of each other in a town that one could prosecute, the other could not. Was the integrity of the one greater than that of the other? lie had inquired in the larger boroughs, and found that no practical in convenience had arisen from that enact ment. The town clerk of Birmingham said that the prohibition of justices' clerks conducting prosecutions in the borough had not caused any inconvenience whatever. The town clerk of Leeds stated that no inconvenience had arisen in that borough from the clerks of justices being prohibited from conducting prosecutions of prisoners committed for trial by the borough magistrates. They were not, then, to suppose that the prohibition would cause any inconvenience in counties. No person should be personally interested in a matter that came judicially before him. There was a provision in the Coroners' Act to prevent coroners from acting as solicitors in any case brought before them in their capacity of coroner. If the Bill should go into Committee he would endeavour to remedy some other grievances connected with the magistrates' clerks. On many occasions the magistrates' clerks, either by themselves or their partners, actually practised before the bench to which they acted as clerks; and every one must admit that was a most indecorous proceeding. It was exceedingly improper that the magistrates' clerks should, either by their partners or in person, defend persons committed for trial by the magistrates under whom they acted. This measure was only a step in the right direction; but he hoped that before long another step would be taken, and the recommendation of the Committee on public prosecutions would bo carried out. He hoped they should have as magistrates' clerks gentlemen of legal standing, and that they should have public prosecutors to conduct the prosecutions intrusted to them fairly and impartially.

moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The only allegation in the preamble was that inasmuch as by the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76 it was enacted that it should not be lawful for the clerk to any justice for any borough in England or Wales to be employed in the prosecution of any offender committed for trial by the justices to whom he acted as clerk, it was expedient that the same restriction should be imposed on clerks to justices in counties. But he would observe that no analogy could be drawn between the position of clerks to borough justices and clerks to county justices. The position of the former was regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act, which statute enacted that they should not prosecute prisoners committed by their own bench; but it should be borne in mind that that Act was passed during a time of great excitement, and it was then thought desirable to take steps to prevent political bias from being imported into prosecutions. Two Committees had sat in reference to this matter, and the witnesses all agreed that the magistrates' clerks were the most efficient persons to carry on prosecutions; and the danger was that if they were prevented from carrying on prosecutions the business would fall into the hands of a low class of attorneys, and the cases would be inefficiently put before the Courts, and facilities would arise for compromising felonies, and for committing other irregularities. According to the evidence given before the Commission, only one or two complaints a year had been made to the Treasury with reference to prosecutions conducted by magistrates' clerks. Those complaints generally came from rival attorneys, who probably felt some jealousy in the matter, and he believed the present proposal originated in the same quarter and from the same feeling. The hon. Member had talked of an organization of justices' clerks, but he had heard of no such organization, nor had he received any petition or communication, except a letter from a gentleman in Devonshire, who objected to the Bill as likely to be injurious to the profession and to the public at large. The present scale of fees was so low as to offer no inducement to respectable attorneys to undertake prosecutions, and though magistrates' clerks, from their familiarity with the work and the number of cases conducted by them, made them to some extent remunerative, there was no ground whatever for the imputation that for the sake of so small an emolument they would advise magistrates to commit persons for trial improperly. Indeed, summary convictions were more remunerative than committals. The justices, moreover, so far from objecting to the practice, actually encouraged it, as otherwise prosecutions would fall into the hands of an inferior class of attorneys, and extortion might be practised, and the ends of justice frustrated. Cases occasionally occurred of persons being reprehended for touting for prosecutions, and this Bill, if passed, would render such cases very much more frequent. Some of the witnesses examined in 1855 suggested that justices' clerks should be paid by salary instead of by fees, which course had been rendered optional by a subsequent Act; but not one of them questioned the propriety of justices' clerks conducting prosecutions, and the general tone of the report was that any scheme which did not provide for the efficient conduct of prosecutions must necessarily be defective. Believing, therefore, that to adopt this restrictive measure without making other provision for the proper conduct of prosecutions would be attended with very injurious results, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, it seemed to him that the passing of this Bill would tend very much to increase the evils which the hon. Member was anxious to prevent, and would lead in many instances to extreme inconvenience, and even to the miscarriage of justice. Extreme accuracy being required in criminal cases, it was very important that prosecutions should be prepared by attorneys of the best practical knowledge and experience, and clerks to justices had, as a general rule, these advantages more than other attorneys. Again, it was of great consequence that the depositions should be accurate and full. Justices were not obliged to do more than was necessary to justify their committing a prisoner, and justices' clerks, if forbidden to prosecute, would have no interest in taking down more than barely enough to justify a committal; whereas now they had a direct interest in making the case as complete as possible, otherwise they would incur the censure of their counsel, and possibly of the court also. It was also very useful for the attorney to become acquainted with the demeanour of the witnesses, and a Queen's Counsel of great experience in criminal cases had related to him a case of murder, in which there would have undoubtedly been a failure of justice, had not the clerk judged from the demeanour of one of the principal witnesses before the justice that he was not to be relied upon, and been prepared with additional evidence accordingly. In important cases it was often necessary that justices' clerks should be present to give assistance and information to counsel, and if forbidden to prosecute, and yet obliged to be present, additional costs would be incurred. The costs allowed in prosecutions being very small, respectable attorneys would rarely undertake them; but justices' clerks having several cases, it was worth their while to do so, especially as they were able to copy the depositions on their briefs, instead of paying for copies. Mr. Greaves, who was second, perhaps, to none as an authority in such matters, and who authorized him to say that he disapproved this Bill, recommended that justices should ask the prosecutor if he intended to employ an attorney, and if not, should themselves appoint their clerk if he were an attorney; for, after forty years' experience, he was satisfied that justices' clerks conducted prosecutions quite as well as they could be expected to do, considering the low scale of allowances, and he had, as a general rule, found less desire to press a case unduly by them than by independent attorneys. It was true that this practice was forbidden in boroughs, but in large boroughs, such as Leeds, which had been mentioned by the hon. Member, attorneys of high standing were appointed to act as public prosecutors, and to do exactly what magistrates' clerks did in counties. There was less necessity, however, in boroughs, because the cases being tried there the attorneys were at home, instead of going for two or three days together to a distant sessions or assize town; but, looking at results, were there not far more cases in boroughs than in counties of scandalous practices by low attorneys competing and bargaining with policemen for prosecutions, and even such unseemly occurrences as two counsel rising to conduct the same prosecution? He should rather prefer altering the law with respect to boroughs than assimilating that of counties to it. If cases were unduly committed it was the fault rather of the justices than of their clerk, and it was not a practice likely to prevail to any extent, as it seldom failed to call forth strong observations from the prisoner's counsel and from the court itself. It had been said that the clerk should be paid by salary, but it should be remembered that this did not touch the point, because the conducting prosecutions was beyond his duty as clerk for which the salary would be received. On these grounds he thought this measure uncalled for and likely to be mischievous, and he therefore seconded the Amendment.

regretted that he could not on this, as on most occasions, concur with his hon. Friend and Colleague, who had moved the second reading of the Bill. His experience convinced him that the present system was the best that could be adopted under present circumstances. At the same time he should quite approve the payment of justices' clerks by salary, and of their undertaking prosecutions as a part of their duty; but this Bill seemed to him to begin at the wrong end. It had been his duty as Chairman of County Sessions to endeavour to ascertain the opinion of the magistrates concerning this Bill, and there was almost an unanimous opinion that the Bill would do more harm than good. The same opinion, he was informed, prevailed in Nottinghamshire. They said that in some districts there were no respectable attorneys willing to conduct prosecutions, the remuneration being so small, and the Bill would, therefore, throw the work into the hands of an inferior class of practitioners. In boroughs the case was very different, as there wore plenty of qualified attorneys ready to prosecute. He did not wish to take up the cudgels for the magistrates' clerks, but he thought it right that he should notice one matter, and that was with regard to the depositions, and he must say that there were very few cases that had come under his notice during nine or ten years experience of the subject in which it appeared on the face of the depositions that there ought not to have been a committal, and though prisoners were frequently acquitted, this arose from witnesses varying in their evidence and other causes. The Bill, he was persuaded, would make matters worse rather than better, and for these reasons he should vote for the Amendment.

said, he had acted as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions for upwards of thirty years, and he thought no case had been made out for the Bill. Had a foreigner listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colvile) he would have inferred that the magistrates were not present at committals, or had no voice in the matter, and that the prisoner was committed by the clerk. Now he never sat on the bench when the magistrates did not act on their own judgment, uninfluenced by the clerk. He was sorry the hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not present to defend the magistrates from the reflections which had been passed on them. The clerks in his own county were paid by salary under the permissive law passed a few years ago, and he hoped and believed this system would be more extensively adopted. For he quite concurred in the opinion that it was better to avoid the possibility of suspicion, that the clerk advised the committal in order that he might obtain the fees for prosecuting. He did not, however, think a sufficient case had been made out for the Bill, and he should therefore vote against the second reading.

said, that for more than a quarter of a century he occupied the position of one of the clerks of the peace to one of the Ridings of Yorkshire, and he thought, therefore, he might claim to have had some experience in this matter. When examined before the Commission on Public Prosecutions in 1855, he expressed an opinion in favour of justices being authorized to direct their clerks to see to the due prosecution of all cases sent to the sessions for trial, and he objected to the appointment of district agents at considerable salaries as unnecessary, the justices' clerks, in most instances, in the North of England being the principal solicitors in the towns where the Petty Sessions were held, and among the most respectable men in the profession. The ten years that had since elapsed had only strengthened these views, and he was convinced that the Bill, instead of improving the administration of justice, would seriously impair it. As to the pecuniary interest of justices' clerks in prosecutions, he need only remark that the sum allowed for the preparation of the brief and for a journey, sometimes of fifty miles, to the place where the trial took place, was only two guineas.

as a member of the Commission of 1855, remarked that the evidence of the Lord Chief Justice was irrelevant to the question now before the House, his examination having been confined to the appointment of public prosecutors. While admitting the right of the hon. Gentleman to bring forward this proposal, he must say that it was inconvenient to deal with matters of legal procedure in this patchwork manner; and if an alteration were required in the administration of the law, he would rather see a Bill introduced by the responsible advisers of the Crown. In his eighteen years' experience as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, he could hardly call to mind a case in which improper motives could have actuated the committal, and so far from its being the vice of the age to prosecute people improperly, he believed that for one person who was improperly convicted there were 999 who were improperly acquitted, or, he should rather say, who were not brought under the cognizance of justice at all. The question of the appointment of a public prosecutor could scarcely be discussed on this occasion; but he was persuaded that the Bill would make matters worse in every respect, and he hoped that after the expression of opinion that had taken place, the hon. Member would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

said, that as it had been stated that certain members of the Bar were in favour of the Bill, his opinion as a barrister, who had practised for a great many years at quarter sessions, might not be unacceptable. He should certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill, for it provided no substitute whatever for that which, though it might be open to some abuses, was the only machinery that secured prosecutions in proper cases. Petty sessions being scattered all over the country, in places where no legal practitioners resided, it was evident that if there were not some person authorized to undertake the duty, there would, in a multitude of cases, be no one to conduct the prosecution until the case came on at the quarter sessions, and there would be seen a scandal which was even now occasionally witnessed— policemen, or attorneys with no knowledge of the case, scrambling for the prosecutor, and endeavouring to get the job into their own hands. The practice in boroughs, moreover, could not be cited as a model, for within his own knowledge persons had been appointed to conduct prosecutions who, though otherwise efficient, had in consequence of their entire ignorance of the case up to that moment committed mistakes, the ends of justice being thereby defeated. No substitute was proposed in this Bill for the present system, and believing that justice would in many cases be defeated were that system to be abolished without any other provision taking its place, he could not support the measure.

said, as no hon. Gentleman had said a word in favour of the Bill, except the hon. Mover, he hoped he should be allowed to offer one or two remarks. He thought that the present system of prosecutions was most defective, and that it was kept up for the mere sake of economy. It appeared to him that the magistrates' clerk—who was the person employed to prepare the depositions—was not the proper person to conduct the prosecution. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tiverton appeared to think that if the conduct of these prosecutions were not left in the hands of the magistrates' clerk there would be a failure of justice. It, however, occurred to him (Mr. Neate), that there was probably a failure of justice in some cases in consequence of the prosecutions being left in their hands. It was quite clear that if a scale of allowance was fixed in the different counties, which would give a sufficient remuneration, respectable attorneys would be found to conduct the prosecutions. There was no doubt that the whole system required revision. He, how- ever, hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his measure to a division.

said, he had listened with great attention to the remarks of the Member for Oxford to see whether he had any arguments to bring forward in support of the Bill, and he must say that he had not heard one single thing in its favour. The subject was to be looked at from two aspects—first, would it forward the cause of justice; and secondly, had the clerks of the justices recommended prosecutions for the sake of the fees? Neither of those propositions had been proved. It was impossible that magistrates would allow a prosecution to go on improperly in order that the clerk might get the fees, unless they were fools not to see it, or knaves sufficient to allow it, and he could not believe that the magistrates sitting in petty sessions were either the one or the other. He had been waiting to hear some case of corruption of this kind cited in support of the Bill, but nothing of the kind had been brought forward. During the great number of years he had had experience as a magistrate he did not recollect an instance of the sort coming within his knowledge. He had, however, known charges which had not been brought forward by magistrates' clerks, and that never ought to have come before the quarter sessions, preferred by others; and in every instance that they had come before him he had disallowed the expenses except those witnesses who had been bound over, and for whom he had felt some compassion. He found as a general rule that magistrates' clerks got up their cases better than other people, and if those gentlemen were prevented from prosecuting, none of the miserable cases which came before quarter sessions would have any person whose duty it would be to look after them, and the result would be that the unfortunate man who had been robbed would come gaping into court, and the chairman would have to grope through perhaps thirty or forty depositions, and to take his chance of sifting out the truth. Under such circumstances he should certainly oppose the second reading of the Bill.

said, allusion had been made to the absence of the Home Secretary during the discussion, but he could assure the House that his absence was inevitable, and that, if present, the right hon. Gentleman would have been ready to bear his testimony to the integrity and honesty which the county magistrates had always displayed in the discharge of their duties. It would be impossible for the Government to support the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that after the expression of the feeling of the House, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill would be induced to withdraw the Motion. The opinion of the House was so directly opposed to the Bill that he did not consider it necessary for him on the part of the Government to enter into a consideration of its merits.

said, after the discussion which had taken place he would not press the Bill. He was quite satisfied with the result of the debate, and the knowledge he had obtained, that the House was in favour of paying clerks by salary. The Member for Chippenham had stated that the witnesses in the Committee on Public Prosecutions had declared that it was desirable that justices' clerks should prosecute. He would find this nowhere proposed, except when accompanied with the condition that the clerks should be paid by salary. If this was done, he himself would not object to such a proposal.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to prohibit any person from calling himself a veterinary surgeon who had not passed an examination at the Royal Veterinary College and obtained a diploma from that institution. There were at present 1,244 persons practising as veterinary surgeons under the assumption that they had obtained diplomas. There were 1,189, farriers who were acting as such who had no diplomas. Altogether there were 2,433 persons practising without any diploma against 1,144 regularly qualified practitioners. It was essential that an improved status should be given to veterinary surgeons, and he felt that a simple Bill requiring that every veterinary surgeon should be bonâfide a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would be of great value at the present time. He proposed that any person who fraudulently held out to the public that he was a veterinary surgeon should be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not exceeding ã5 and not less than ã2. The Bill, however, was not to affect persons who should have assumed the title six months previous to its passing.

said, he was at a loss to understand why a man should be prevented from assuming the title of veterinary surgeon. He suggested that when in Committee some alteration should be made in its provisions, to make them apply to those who held themselves out as members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

said, he believed this Bill was valuable as a means of promoting the education of the veterinary profession. He had been many years one of the Governors of the Royal Veterinary College, which was the principal school of the profession, and he could assure the House that great exertions had been made by the College to raise the scale of education in veterinary science. No obstacle had interposed more constantly, or tended more directly to defeat this attempt than the fact that the education after it was completed brought with it no distinction, so that the uneducated as well as the educated appeared before the public with equal claims so far as appearances were concerned, as many as chose, however unqualified, adopting the denomination of veterinary surgeons. During the recent visitation of the cattle plague, veterinary surgeons had been placed in a difficult position. They had had to treat a disease which was practically novel in this country—for this disease had not appeared in this country for one hundred years. The Royal Veterinary College was informed of the nature of the disease from the reports of Professors Simondsand Spooner, the former of whom had made inquiries on the Continent, not only last year, but the year before that, and they had done everything in their power to prepare the profession for the dangers they had to encounter, and also to warn the public. But the profession was in this position, they were bound not to discourage any attempt to find a remedy. Although they knew that abroad no remedy had been found effectual, the public were loath to believe that the disease was incurable. This incredulity was very dangerous, and the more embarrassing, since the only method of dispelling it was to allow every experiment a trial, while the disease was rapidly spreading by contagion. The College, therefore, with the government of which the Speaker and he had for years been connected, promoted as far as they could every reasonable experiment. He was sorry to say that those attempts had not been successful; from the novelty and the nature of the disease mistakes had inevitably arisen; yet there could be no doubt that veterinary surgeons had been of great and general service to the country, since they had informed themselves of the symptoms of the disease as quickly as could be expected, and had thus contributed to the earlier adoption of those preventive measures which the Legislature had adopted. Everything connected with the visitation of the cattle plague had proved the necessity for increased information and improved veterinary capacity. Believing that one principal means of rendering these available to the country was to distinguish the possession of these in the person of those who had acquired them by education, he (Mr. Newdegate) trusted that the Bill before the House would pass.

said, it was not his intention to oppose this stage of the Bill, but it would be necessary to make some amendments in it in Committee. He thought the Bill went too far in declaring that any one who called himself a veterinary surgeon without having the diploma of the Veterinary College should be amenable to the law. If, however, he assumed that he was a member of a College when he was not, that might render such a person liable to penalties. In the case of the chemists and druggists and the pharmaceutical chemists, it was made an offence to assume the name of pharmaceutical chemist, and if with regard to veterinary surgeons they added something to the title, such as Royal College, &c, it might form a reasonable proposition that for the infringement of the title the person so offending should be liable to a penalty. He did not, however, think that the state of veterinary science was sufficiently advanced to entitle the members of the College to a monopoly of the practice, especially as it had been proved that diplomas had been given to men whose knowledge of their profession did not entitle them to that distinction. Subject to those observations, he did not, on the part of the Government, object to the second reading of the Bill,

suggested that this Bill should be postponed, as he had come prepared with the papers to discuss only the Common Law Courts Bill, which had been postponed.

declined to consent to an adjournment.

appealed to the House whether, under the circumstances, they ought to be compelled to proceed with this Bill. The previous night there were three Irish Bills on the paper—the Petty Sessions Bill, the Common Law Courts Bill, and the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill. He found when he got his Parliamentary papers that morning, that the first of these measures was withdrawn. The Common Law Courts Bill stood next, and this Bill third. The Common Law Bill contained 144 clauses, and certainly afforded enough matter for discussion to have occupied the day, but he now found that, without any reason being assigned, that Bill was passed by without a word of explanation. He had come down prepared to discuss that Bill, and not the Court of Chancery Bill; and on the grounds of fair play he appealed to the House not to allow a Member to be taken by surprise after such a fashion. He begged to move under the circumstances that the debate be adjourned, and he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would accede to that proposition.

seconded the Motion.

said, he distinctly advised his right hon. Friend last night that the Court of Chancery Bill would be proceeded with, if time allowed, to-day. He did not himself know until he received his paper the order in which the Bills would be placed upon it. The Court of Chancery Bill had stood over from the month of March last, and he must, therefore, press that the debate be proceeded with.

understood last evening the answer given was simply that the Bill would be proceeded with to-day, but nothing was said as to the order.

said, if he were allowed a short time he would fetch the papers, and proceed with the discussion of the Bill.

returned, and said that he had not been the cause of the delay that had occurred this Session in reference to this Bill. He had only objected to its proceeding after midnight, for he was not willing then to plunge into Chancery, as the subject was bad enough in the daylight, and it was too much to expect the House to enter upon its consideration after dark. The measure had been before the House for some two years past, and proposed to effect most important changes in the present state of things. The first part of this Bill consisted of twenty-six clauses, and dealt with the appointment of new officers. Under this Bill he found that seventeen new officers might be appointed; to judge whether any necessity had arisen for this addition to the staff it was necessary to see what the staff was. In Ireland there was one Chancellor, one Lord Justice, one Master of the Rolls, three Judges in the Landed Estates Court, and four Masters—in all ten. In England there was one Chancellor, two Lord Justices, three Vice Chancellors, one Master of the Rolls, and one Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court—in all eight. So that in England there were but eight judicial officers to do all the business of Chancery, while there were ten in Ireland. Surely that was enough; and why, then, was it proposed by this Bill to increase the number to seventeen? The Committee which some years ago was appointed upon this subject was presided over by the Attorney General of the present Government, and when he proposed in the Report to put in a clause in favour of creating Vice Chancellors it was distinctly negatived. Why, then, was this Bill introduced in direct opposition to the Report of that Committee? The Bill was certainly not introduced at the request of the Irish practitioners, nor had it been framed to meet the wishes of petitioners from that country. It was, however, thought desirable to assimilate the practice in the two countries, and as usual, therefore, a costly Commission was appointed to inquire into matters which had already been inquired into and satisfactorily reported upon. Upon the Report of these Commissioners the present Bill was founded, and the first proposal by way of assimilation was the removal from their offices of men who were perfectly competent to perform their duties. As far as he could ascertain, no Court existed for the Vice Chancellor to be created by the Bill, nor had the foundation stone even been laid of the offices for the other functionaries. There was a belief prevalent-in England that Masters in Chancery were decrepit and worn-out old men, and at the time the inquiry was held the Irish Masters would have been only too glad to be paid off. The Commissioners, however, found that they were hale and vigorous gentlemen, and did not act upon that system. Indeed, the Masters had survived many of the Commissioners. In England these gentlemen might not be the most active and competent men, but the Masters in Ireland were now vivacious and energetic, and were as competent to perform their duties as any who might be put in their places. He maintained that fully three-quarters of the Bill before the House was unnecessary. They said that the Masters should have the jurisdiction and all the powers of a Court of Equity. The Master became a Judge, and what followed? There were four Judges, who did their duty perfectly well. The proposition was to pay off the existing staff, having salaries of ã2,500 a year, and to appoint one Vice Chancellor in their place at a salary of ã4,000 a year. He had a written statement from one of the Registrars of the Court of Chancery, who said that one Vice Chancellor would never be able to do the work of the four men whose office it was intended to abolish. If one man could do the work he certainly must be a remarkably clever man, but he did not believe that such a person could be found in Ireland. What more did the Committee do? Having provided that the Masters should be made Judges, they were not to be dealt with as Masters, but as Judges. It might be asked were no references made to them by the Master of the Rolls? He made very few, and to his honour it ought to be mentioned that there was one vacancy which he had not filled up. With respect to the Chancellor, there was one Master whom it was proposed to keep, and very properly—Master Fitzgibbon; and it was stated that the business was now done as cheaply and as well as it could be done. The Committee recommended that every equity Judge should dispose of the whole suit before him without any reference, and one of their resolutions recommended the practice of receiving evidence viva voce before the Judge who had to decide the case. That was a sound practice, and every facility ought to be afforded for the extensive application of that system. The proviso that the evidence should be taken by the examiners was vicious in principle, because the examiners had no power to decide what was legal evidence and what was not. The Committee recommended that the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and another Judge, or two of them, should be armed with extensive powers to regulate the practice and procedure of the Court so as to obtain economy, simplicity, and expedition, and should make general orders accordingly. Now, why was this recommendation not carried out? His idea was that nothing was wanted in the way of amendment to the present order of things but a good mode of procedure. The mode of procedure the framers of the Bill sought to introduce was vicious; it was actually proposed to introduce the old bill-and-answer practice, a mode of procedure which only one suitor had adopted during the last ten years. It had always been held that what was wanted was a process by which good equity might be obtained, at a moderate price J and that described the present state of the law in Ireland in that respect. The Commissioners inquiring into the subject had been ordered to see whether anything could be done to reduce the costs to suitors; but they had made no inquiries upon the subject at all, and the first result of their labours was a Bill proposing to increase the expenditure of public money, notwithstanding they went to work to see how ranch they could save the Exchequer. How did they propose to save public money? First, by creating seventeen new places; and when they had their new Vice Chancellor they would, no doubt, want a good grant for the building of a court for him to sit in; for, of course, they could not expect him to do the work in the humble places in which it was now done. He would strongly recommend the country gentlemen of Ireland to get into chancery as soon as possible, if they intended going there at all; because, if the matter in dispute affected a sum exceeding ã250, it could be settled cheaply now; but if the Bill passed he could assure thorn they would have uncommonly little change out. He hoped that the Solicitor General for Ireland would in his reply particularly direct his attention to the question of costs. In his opinion the costs under the new sys-tem would be much heavier than they were under the old. In one year, ending November, 1863, the Bills in the Irish Court of Chancery were 676—in the English Court of Chancery 2,796, being in the proportion of 4 to 1. In one year the taxed costs in the English Court of Chancery were ã720,739, in the Court of Chancery, Ireland, ã124,087 being in the proportion of six to four in favour of England. In England the cash and stock paid into the Court of Chancery in one year was ã8,552,220, and of money paid out ã8,663,39.5. In Ireland the amount paid in was ã335,175, and paid out ã340,584. In fact, the figures proved that what might be considered as cheap in England might be enormously expensive in Ireland. He submitted that, as the question of costs was to be inquired into, and had not been inquired into, and as the Commission had not concluded their labours, it would be a most impolitic proceeding to pass the Bill. Another point on which the Master of the Rolls and the Commissioners had different opinions was as to the practice of compelling a plaintiff to swear that the facts in his petition were true to the best of his information. In England the course adopted was exactly the converse of that pursued in Ireland— everything being taken to be denied till it was proved, and, consequently, it was necessary to establish the case by evidence. The matter was thus stated by an eminent authority—

"All statements made in a Bill or petition, being verified in the first instance, are accepted as true without further proof, unless denied. The English rule of practice, however, is the reverse; if the defendant does not answer in England when required so to do he is supposed to have traversed every averment in the Bill."

There could be no doubt that the practice of the Irish court in this matter was preferable to that of England. Many things, however, which prevailed in England might be introduced into the Irish practice by a general order, and he desired to know why such orders were not issued. He contended, further, that the new system proposed by the present Bill offered no guarantee that the expense involved by it would be less or only equal to the cost of the old one, which was both cheap and satisfactory to the country at large. The system which worked very well in the Landed Estates Court, under its present organization would be greatly altered if a Vice Chancellor were placed at its head.

resumed: He said, that the system of taking evidence by the Judge, and not by the examiner, vivâ voce, was less dilatory and less expensive than the system it had superseded, and many suitors sought aid at the Court of Chancery who could not have done so under the old system. He next dealt with the accounts, contending that it would be impossible that a Vice Chancellor would ever transact satisfactorily the business and accounts that were taken before four Masters in Chancery. A large amount of evidence had been taken upon this subject. The Solicitor General for Ireland was examined, and he said that the pleading, whether it was by Bill or petition, ought to be verified on oath. The plan he (Mr. Whiteside) advocated was to keep the Masters because they had them, and to make the appeals from their decision go, not to the Master of the Rolls, but at once to the appellate court. Mr. Lloyd, Q.C., during his examination, recommended some alterations in the mode of taking evidence, and the statements made by him showed the absurdity of the procedure part of this Bill. Mr. Rogers, Q.C., expressed an opinion that the examination of witnesses ought to be oral, and stated that he was satisfied that one Judge would not suffice to perform the necessary duties, but that two Judges at least would be required, unless matters of account were sent to be disposed of before a chief clerk or deputy. He next dealt with the appeals against the judgments of the Masters; the small number of them was surprising. From the 1st of January, 1851, to the 1st of April, there were but fifty. From January, 1861, to April, 1864, there were 134 appeals, but only forty-two reversed. The Return, in fact, showed that about ninety-nine out of one hundred of the decisions of the Masters stood and were not interfered with: and this constituted such abuse, according to the advocates of the present Bill, as to warrant their removal. The number of cases referred to for Masters in Chancery in 1865 was 475; the number of orders appealed against was twenty-three; number referred, sixteen; number varied or reversed, four; while three were not disposed of. Then, as to the chief clerks, the question of their employment was a vital one. He objected in toto to transferring such important duties to the chief clerks, and leaving them to investigate the accounts. What the Government proposed to do was to change a useful tribunal into an imperfect one. He wanted to hear from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the chief clerks that it was intended to appoint were to be solicitors. He complained that the Commissioners did not examine the Judges and officers of the Landed Estates Court as to how accounts could be taken, for those gentlemen had enormous experience in reference to such matters; and he contended that a similar system to that which prevailed in that court should be acted upon in the Court of Chancery, instead of attempting to introduce into Ireland the chief clerk system, which, he believed, was anything but a success in England. He contended that this Bill was an unnecessary measure, and was objectionable in consequence of the clumsy way in which its object was attempted to be attained, and also in consequence of the large increase of expense which would be attendant upon it. He did not object to the assimilation of the legal systems of England and Ireland in cases where a decided improvement would be thereby effected, but he did object to the efficiency of the system of one country being impaired in order to assimilate it with that of the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

rose to offer some observations in respect to the Bill, in the hope of satisfying the House—or rather, as the House was so small—the public, that the Bill might well be considered unnecessary, wholly irrespective of the consideration into whose hands the patronage might fall, supposing the measure should pass through Parliament. He must also express his surprise that the observations of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had not elicited some remarks in explanation of the principle of the Bill from the Irish Law Officers of the Crown. The Bill proposed to overthrow the existing constitution of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and yet neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor General for Ireland rose to offer one single word in justification of such strange proceedings. The Reports of the Commissions which had been appointed to consider this subject were incomplete, inasmuch as they only reported as to the advantage of assimilating the legal systems of England and Ireland, without taking any notice of that far more important question of the expenditure of the public money, and of the costs of suitors, which was prominently made the subject of reference to them. The chief clerks in the Equity Courts in England were assuming a jurisdiction which they were never intended to possess, and in some cases had gone so far as to act in opposition to the rule that no money in which a married woman had an interest should be paid out till after the woman had been separately examined. He did not say that he should be prepared to oppose the Bill at a future stage, but he thought that the House should have additional evidence on the subject before it proceeded to dispose of such an important question. The only information they had upon the question was that derived from essays and proceedings in Chancery, written by various gentlemen in reply to certain written inquiries made of them. The working of the present system in Ireland had met, as far as he knew, with the general approbation of the public, and it had the further advantage of being cheaper and more expeditious than that of England, and therefore better adapted to the poorer country. Irrespective of the salaries of the proposed clerks and officers, it would be necessary to erect entirely new courts if the English system of administration were adopted in Ireland. In his opinion, as far as he had materials for forming it, the English system ought to be assimilated to the Irish, rather than the Irish to the English. He might remark that six out of the persons who composed the Commission of 1861 were pledged beforehand to the abolition of the Masters. That Commission consisted partly of English and partly of Irish Members, the English Members being ignorant of the Irish system, and the Irish Members being equally unacquainted with the English system. In conclusion he asked the House to stop the Bill in its present stage, in order that it might be seen how the matter stood with regard to the Commission now in process of completion. If there was a necessity for assimilating the practice of England and Ireland in this matter it should be by assimilating the English to the Irish, which was the better system. To alter the constitution of the court which had been in operation for sixteen years with satisfaction to the public and to the Judges, was a serious matter, and such a measure ought not to be entered upon without the fullest information and the greatest deliberation.

thought the Bill was a personal rather than a public one. He was of opinion that the present system of the Court of Chancery in Ireland worked in a very satisfactory manner. It was popular, and he had been informed that it was infinitely cheaper than any system which could be introduced from England. He hoped, therefore, that this Bill would not be allowed to pass without some explanation being given by the Government as to the necessity for the contemplated change in the constitution of the court. It was only a matter of common courtesy that the Law Officers of the Crown should explain to the House why the proposed system was better then the existing one. Irish Gentlemen who were distinguished by their legal abilities had in the strongest language condemned a great part of this Bill, and it could hardly be expected that hon. Gentle men should vote for the Bill unless some attempt were made on the part of the Government to refute the arguments which had been advanced against it. In order to give the Law Officers of the Crown time to make the explanation which he demanded from them he should move the adjournment of the debate.

could not wonder at the course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend. He himself had not the honour of being an Irishman, but it had fallen to his lot to serve for some eight or nine years upon Commissions connected with Courts of Law, receivers, and Ecclesiastical Courts, and, in company with his old colleague Sir James Graham, he had dragged to light, he would not say the misdoings, but the curious proceedings of English and Irish receivers, ecclesiastical registrars, and so forth. It was so marvellous a proceeding that they always used to say to themselves that there was no sport except rat hunting in a barn that could be at all compared to it. Well, he had sat listening with great patience to the statements made on the present Bill, which related to matters of great interest and importance; and he had hoped at the conclusion of the able speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) that the Law Officers of the Crown would have given some explanation on the subject to the House. It was due to the subject and also to his right hon. Friend; but to leave the question in entire silence was not fair to hon. Gentlemen, and especially to laymen, who, like himself, were anxious to come to a right conclusion with reference to this matter. The House was in no position to come to a decision on the question, until they had heard what could be said in favour of the Bill. He thought, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend was quite warranted in moving the adjournment of the debate in order to give the Law Officers of the Crown an opportunity of making the statement which no doubt they would make, and which possibly might satisfy the minds of all hon. Gentlemen.

was most anxious to hear all that could be urged against the Report of the Commission before he addressed the House; because the reasons adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin in favour of the rejection of that Report appeared to him to be so insufficient and inconclusive as not to require any reply. He wished, before making an answer, to hear what additional matters the learned Gentlemen opposite could bring forward in support of the argument of the Member for the University of Dublin. It had been assumed that his learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had moved the second reading of the Bill without making any statement as to its provisions. That was not the case. The Attorney General, while abstaining from matters of mere detail, which could he settled in Committee, explained the main features of the Bill—namely, the abolition of the Master's offices in Ireland, and the adoption of the English system. He would at the proper time show that this Bill was based on the Report of a Royal Commission, consisting of men of the highest eminence in both countries, who were supported by the unanimous opinion of all the men who, from their practical acquaintance with the Irish Court of Chancery, were best qualified to form a judgment on the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Armagh had stated that the Master of the Rolls did not give evidence before the Commission.

said, if he had made such a statement he had certainly done so by mistake.

said, that no doubt it was a mistake, and a very grave one, for the Master of the Rolls was one of the first witnesses examined, and his evidence was strongly in favour of the Bill. He wished to call attention to the names of the Commissioners who had been treated in such an offhand way to-day. They were the present Lord Romilly, Mr. Blackburn, the present Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland, Chief Justice Monaghan, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Napier, Vice Chancellor Wood, Baron Hughes, Sir Hugh Cairns, and the English Attorney General. Was not something more substantial than the arguments of the Member for the University of Dublin required to induce the House to overthrow the settled opinion of a Commission composed of such distinguished men as he had just named?

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the question before the House was the adjournment of the debate.

was then proceeding with his remarks when—it being a quarter to Six of the clock—