The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 30, 1852.

will speak to Colville, if he is in town, when I get there
on Tuesday.— Believe me, yours truly, W. Beres-
ford.—Nov. 21." So the matter rested until Feb-
ruary, 1848, when the right honourable gentle-
man again wrote to Mr. Flewker. "Feb. 17.
Dear Sir, —I am very glad to hear so good an account
as you give of the prospect of success in the Derby
petition. I shall be glad to give you any assistance in
my power when the case comes on.—Yours truly, W.
Beresford." Then came a most important letter, and to
which he begged to call the particular attention of that.
house. The right hon. gentleman was not content with
subscribing 1001., but he thought he might render as-
sistance with regard to the election petition by sending
Mr. Frail to Derby, and on the 25th February he wrote
the following letter. He (Sir A. Cockburn) read that
letter to show that, as regarded election matters, Mr.
Frail was a stranger to Derby till that time, and that
appeared clearly from that letter. "Dear Sir,--I have
an agent who is skilled in all election matters, and un-
derstands every manner of scheme with regard to pe-
titions. He will be in Derby next Monday, and will
bring an introduction from me. You may trust him
most implicitly, and you will get some very useful hints
probably from him respecting your petition.—Yours
truly, William Beresford.-77, Pall-mall, February 25."
It was clear that letter referred to a person who was a
complete stranger in Derby to whom the right hon. gen-
tleman gave an introduction, and for whose capacity
and trustworthiness he was called on to vouch, and for
which he did vouch. He wrote another letter on the
same day, the 25th Feb., to Mr. Flewker, and which
was brought to him two days after by Mr. Frail
" Dear Sir, the bearer, Mr. Frail, is the person I wrote
to you about.—Yours, truly, Vt. Beresford." This
showed conclusively that up to the 25th of Feb., 1848,
Mr. Frail was a total stranger in Derby, and had never
intermeddled in any of its election matters. The next
letter he would read would be for the purpose of showing
the relative circumstances that existed between the
borough of Derby and Mr. Frail. On the 3d of March the
right hon. gentleman wrote to Mr. Flewker as follows :
"Dear Sir, —I have endeavoured to see Mr. Colville, but I
find he is in the country hunting, probably near Ather-
stone. I will speak to him whenever he comes up to town.
I have seen Mr. Frail, who gives me a good account of the
case that can be made out against the sitting members. I
have requested him to give you every assistance in his
power, and attend to everything that the Derby party
desire to be done. I shall be happy to assist you also
when the committee sits." (What this meant he (Sir
A. Cockburn) did not altogether know.) " The great
matter to be looked to is to collect funds and to keep the
case quiet till it is brought before the committee.—
Yours, truly, W. Beresford.-77, Pall-Mall." The
next letter he should read was one written by Mr. Frail,
and was important, as showing the footing on which he
'stood with regard to the political and electioneering in-
terests of the borough of Derby, and it was written and
dated from Carlisle. (Cheers and great laughter.) It
appeared that an election was going on at that moment
in the city of Carlisle. A petition had been presented
against the hon. gentleman who had been returned at
the general election of 1847, and the petition having
proved successful in unseating them, there was a new
election in order to fill the vacant seats. Mr. Frail ap-
peared to have been sent if not by the .direction, but with
the connivance of the right hon. gentleman to lend his
assistance in the conduct of that election, and Mr. Frail
wrote to Mr. Flewker to the effect, " That he had just
received his letter, and that he would be in town on the
following Wednesday, and that he had written to make
the necessary arranTemcnt3 for the lodgings of the wit-
nesses. If he could lie wa3 to get Andrews or Alex-
ander." (This meant two learned friends of his, eminent
members of the parliamentary bar.) "If not get Byles."
That meant his learned friend Serjeant Byles; one of the
most distinguished advocates in Westminster Hall, but
who would probably be better known to hon. gentlemen
opposite as the author of a work entitled " Fallacies
of Free-trade." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was
really very sorry that his learned friend should have
stepped aside from his professional career to enter
on matters of that kind, and should now be
left high and dry with nobody to read his book,
and no one, except, perhaps, such gentlemen as the
hon. and gallant member for Lincon, who would be
ready to offer him any inducement to publish a second
edition. (" Hear," and laughter.) But the most sig-
nificant port of that letter was, that although it was
signed in the name of " Frail," above: the signature was
written the words, " Nixon, King's Arms, Carlisle ;"
thus showing in what manner he was to be addressed at
Carlisle ; and he added, "my best compliments to Hib-
bert, and remember that it is Thomson and not John-
son ;" thus showing that there had once been a mistake
about a name. The next letter was from the right hon.
gentleman to Mr. Flewker, and was as follows :—" Dear
Sir,—Mr. Frail has been out of town on very important
business for four or five days, and that is the reason why
you have not heard from him. I do not think that he
has got your letter. I think he will be able to get to
Derby on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, but
not before. I have sent to speak to a gentleman from
Derby, and will give him any direction I can that may
be serviceable. I regret that Frail is out of town.—
Yours truly, W. Beresford.—Saturday (1848)." That
correspondence clearly established the purpose for which
be (Sir A. Cockburn) had used it, namely, that Mr.
Frail had nothing to do with Derby in 1847 ; nor until
1848 ; and that letter in question could have nothing to
do with any election before that time, but that it was
written subsequently to the election of 1848; and looking
to the position which the right hon. gentleman and Mr.
Frail had established in the borough, it was possible they
had applied to him for a safe man, and that if he had
sent Mr. Frail he would have been readily accepted
as an agent. The petition in 1847 ended in the va-
cating of the seats of the sitting members, and
there was to be a new election ; the writ was sus-
pended till the 24th August, and the new election
took place on Friday and Saturday, the Ist and
2nd September. Did the letter in question apply to
that election ? It certainly might, looking to the posi-
tion the parties to it held in the borough ; but in order
to test that point, the proper way was to look at the
letter itself, and see whether it applied to the circum-
stances of 1848 or to those of 1852. It should be ob-
served in the first place, that the letter was addressed
to Mr. Frail, and directed him to send a safe man to
Derby, on the assumption, that he was too much occu-
pied to leave " his own place." But how would it
have been known to persons in London what his occu-
pations were ? Now, Mr. Frail was in no business
at all. He was originally a hair dresser, but left
that business some years ago, and had applied him-
self to two pursuits exclusively—horse-racing and elec-
tioneering. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) He was
described in the letter as clerk of the course at
Shrewsbury, and was anything going on in the way
of horse-racing and turf matters which would have con-
fined him to that place just then in 1848 ? Nothing of
the kind. The Shrewsbury races took place in the
spring and in November. Nor were there any races in
the neighbourhood of Shrewsbury at that time. He
would next ask whether there was any electioneering
going on at that moment ? None. The seats for that
borough were both full, and no election was going on.
But there was proof that Mr. Frail did go to Derby at
that time and appeared at the races in a jockey costume,
that he called on Mr. Flewker, and having taken an in-
terest in the unseating of the late members, asked if he
could be of any use in the next election ; but he found
that there was no money stirring. Whether it was
that the honourable and learned gentleman the present
member for Falmouth, who was then a candidate,
had a great aversion for corruption, or whether it
was that there being two conservative candidates,
only one of them having a chance, there was no spirit
in the election—(hear, hear)—Mr: Frail was informed
that there was no money going, and he withdrew,
no doubt not without great dissatisfaction. (Hear, hear.)
But he (Sir A. Cockburn) turned to the election of 1852.
Was there anything to keep Mr. Frail at Shrewsbury
then ? Yes ; there was a contested election going
on there,`and besides, it required peculiar activity on his
part, seeing that a contest had arisen at the last mo-
ment. The election at Shrewsbury took place on Tues-
day and Wednesday, while that at Derby did not take
place until Wednesday and Thursday ; while the contest at
Shrewsbury did not arise until the previous Friday. There
was great excitementand turmoil, and the exertions ofMr.
Frail were necessarily confined to his own borough, and
therefore the right hon. gentleman had a right to suppose
that Mr. Frail could not leave. But that was not all. The
writer of the letter dissected thata man should be sent from

Shrewsbury to Derby immediately on the receipt of the
letter. The letter was written on the Monday, and on the
Tuesday Morgan started from Shrewsbury. In 1848
the election at Derby took place on the Friday and Sa-
turday, and there was no necessity for such speed ; and,
in fact, on that occasion Mr Frail himself did not appear
in Derby until the Thursday, when the races com-
menced. It appeared to him (Sir A. Cockburn) there-
fore, that looking at all the circumstances, the letter
applied to the election of 1852, and not to that of 1848.
poliste greatest difficulty was yet behind, for it was im-
rence that, if that letter had been written with refe-
avau 13, t he election of 1848, it could have been made
a e for the purposes of the election of 1852, except
by the co 'EO 1
racy. -,„rt oton of a villainous and abominable conspi-
of lookedsJooh'iaeoolls to see if there was the remotest proof
tend the otherl3---tr aeY, and whether all the proof did
conspiracy, vh'o",sy,- He would first ask if there was a
told that Mr. Flewker the conspirators ? He might be
wards his party, and was was capable of any hostility to-
ile wwas likely to have carried on such
a conspiracy.
any one
there to defend
' Mr. Flewker ; but, ler
chose of him, was there tiontYao,l)e think the worst they
turpitude in a man who reveal
lilference in the degree of
and that of a man who had teethe secrets of his party
scheme of such fraud and villain audacity to concoct a
y• But, assuming •
Mr. Flewker was capable of doin g y uming that
not make a oonspiracy ; and, although' nee man could
conceive such a scheme, it required the el_3.onrrntmight
to carry it into effect. Even givinf,'P !._, ion of
many
of concocting Su -T, Mr. Flewker
credit for being capable
2 What a conspirae
what could be his motives .
ht hon.ill motive
belt-4-2'
for so acting against thedng
made gentlemanhim no .l The
right hon. gentleman had .
thatlmuse' and
promised him washe
all that he had would
contribute 100/, to the expenses of the Derby petition
had no farther claim;
nor had he pretended to have
and Mr. Flewker could have
the shadow of a
claim on him ? But, assuming that Mr. Flewker had
any desire to injure his party, and had forgotten any
gratitude he might have owed to the right hon. gentle
man, and wished to injure him as a Minister of the
Crown, look at the number of persons he brought for-
wArd to vouch for the transactions at Derby, with re-
gard to Morgan and Frail and having called on the
right hon. gentleman, for annex planation, would he, an
attorney, acute and experienced, lay himself open to a
detection which was inevitable ? Here was a man who
was irritated by the loss of his 7001., and yet he en- ,
; trusted Morgan with a sum of 3001. or 4001. with which
~_ Vie- might have started off, and never given any account
/ a‘A.he was unceKt,ain:oyho 4e was: But, assuming
...
R: Tleiikei wastcapa6l6- of 6311Ceivitig such vil-

lanies as had been attributed to him, and was besides
dead to all prudential reasons, yet he could not
have acted alone; he must have had confederates
and co-conspirators. If they were so, his honour-
able friend, the member for Derby, and Mr. Hey-
worth, and the chairman of the committee; Mr. Moss,
who was now, for the second time, filling the office of
chief magistrate of the town, must all be considered as
co-conspirators. He would not stop now to vindicate
those hon. gentlemen—the character of his hon. friend
the member for Derby spoke' for itself. (Hear, hear.)
In order to establish a plot and conspiracy, it was neces-
sary to include the whole body of agents and partisans
of the conservative party. He would begin with Mr.
Frail, and he would ask this question of those who
asserted that there was a conspiracy—How came the
letter to Mr. Frail to be in the hands of Morgan ? It
was addressed to Frail and came into the hands of
Morgan, and what was the natural supposition but that
it was given by Frail to Morgan in order that he might
show he had a right to go to Derby. He had heard it
said that that letter was one which had been given
by Frail to Flewker, and placed by Flewker in the
hands of Morgan in order to the preparation of
his scheme. Nothing, it appeared to him (Sir A.
Cockburn), could be more improbable. But there
were circumstances which set that question entirely at
rest. (Hear, hear.) He had paid particular attention to
what he was about to state, and he thought it was
clear the letter must have been delivered to Morgan at
Shrewsbury, and must have been given to him by Frail
and not by Flewker. On the back of the letter was
written, in pencil, in the same handwriting as the entries
in the book containing a list of the electors which was
found on Morgan, and which was proved to be in his
handwriting, these few words—" Stafford, Lichfield,
Burton-on-Trent, Derby." Now, those were the places
at which a man travelling from Shrewsbury to Derby
would have to change carriages. There was no direct
communication between Shrewsbury and Derby, and a
man who was a stranger to Derby, and going there for
the first time from Shrewsbury, might be supposed to
ask for information as to where he would have to
change carriages, and go on different lines of railway,
and nothing was more natural than that he should
write such information on the back of the document
which he took with him. And accordingly there was
written, first Stafford, secondly, Lichfield, thirdly, Bur-
ton-on-Trent, and lastly Derby, the places which fol-
lowed each other in regular order on his route from
Shrewsbury to Derby. If the letter had been delivered
by Flewker to Morgan at Derby, he having once gone
that route, would not have required such information ;
and in the second place, even if he had, the names of the
places would have occurred in the order in which a man
would go from Derby to Shrewsbury. That was a fact
which, though small, was significant to show that the
letter must have been delivered to Morgan at Shrewsbury,
and not at Derby • and any other hypothesis was out of
the question. Then if the letter was delivered by Frail
to Morgan, the consequence was that it was impossible
to conceive the concocting of any conspiracy by any one
except Mr. Frail. Now, who was Mr. Frail ? He
was a person with regard to whose electioneering
character he (Sir A. Cockburn) had the worst opinion.
He was, to use the language of the right honourable
gentleman the Secretary-at-War, familiar with every
agency and means which was put in motion when it was
desired to work out a system of electioneering corrup-
tion—but there was nothing to make him (Sir A. Cock-
burn) say that he knew anything which could detract
from Mr. Frail's fidelity to his party. No one knew
better than the right honourable gentleman whether Mr.
Frail was to be trusted in 1847 ; and all through, in the
management of election petitions, and in the fresh elec-
tions consequent on the vacating of seats on petitions,
he acted as the confidential agent of the right honoura-
ble gentleman, who at that time exercised the delicate
and mysterious functions which he (Sir A. Cockburn)
supposed were necessary to the management of the
electioneering matters of his party. The right hon-
ourable gentleman said that Mr. Frail was a man
implicitly to be trusted. Mr. Frail had been engaged
for fifteen years as a conservative agent in election mat-
ters ; and every gentleman connected with Shrews-
bury and with that part of the country would
bear witness to Mr. Frail's fidelity and zeal for his
party. (Hear, hear.) Had the right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had represented
Shrewsbury in one Parliament, been in his place on this
occasion, he (Sir A. Cockburn) would have called him
into court as a witness to Mr. Frail's reliable cheracter.
(Laughter.) But there were other gentlemen in the
house to whom Mr. Frail was known ; and whatever
might be thought of that person's morality in these mat-
ters, at least some of those who did know him would not
for a moment call in question his character for zeal and
fidelity to those whom he undertook to serve. (Hear,
hear.) Upon what conceivable hypothesis, then, was it
to be supposed that Mr. Frail would have given up this
letter, if this letter really referred to a previous election?
Why did he give the letter to Morgan at all ? He
(Sir A. Cockburn) thought that ho could account for
it. It happened that the contest going on at Shrews-
bury had taxed all the energies of Mr. Frail, and re-
ceiving the letter from the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Beresford) late, probably, at night, in the midst
of confusion, and having no time to write a letter of his
own to the parties at Derby, while it was of importance
to get Morgan off at onge, he very naturally put the
right hon. gentleman's letter into Morgan's hands, say-
ing, "Take that, show that, and it will make all right."
Well, then they came to Morgan ; and the next question
was—was Morgan in the conspiracy ? Morgan, it was
understood, was the confidential man of Mr. Frail. Mr.
Frail, among his other duties, had to superintend the
registration of Shrewsbury and of the county of Salop ;
and Morgan was the man whom Frail employed to
serve notices, Morgan being an estate agent and
valuer (so we understood), and therefore being very
useful to give evidence or or against Mr. Frail's
friends' claims when necessary. (Laughter.) Morgan
was known in Shrewsbury to be devoted to Frail, and
was it to be supposed that such a man would have lent
himself, supposing Mr. Flewker had selected such a man,
to an act of villany to his party ? But if the house
were to believe all this, there was still a difficulty to
overcome. No sooner. did Morgan get to Derby than he
was taken by the hand by the friends of Mr Horsfall,
the candidate. He went to the Messrs. Cox. Would
Messrs. Cox have betrayed their relative and their can-
didate ? If the letter had been, indeed, written in refer-
ence to some former election, it could only have been
made use of by Morgan on some understanding with
Messrs. Cox ; or, supposing those gentlemen not in the
conspiracy, was it possible that Morgan could have de-
ceived them with an old letter of 1848 ? The next ques-
tion was as to Radford. It would not be doubted for a
moment that Mr. Radford was the staunchest partisan
of the Conservative party in Derby. The statement
of the landlord, Taylor, was, that the moment Radford
was madeaware of i Morgan's arrival in Derby, he went
to the County Tavern and had an interview with
Morgan. Well, then, was Radford in the conspiracy ?
In effect, therefore, the house had to make up its mind,
if it would entertain the idea of a conspiracy, that all
these persons, Frail, Morgan, Messrs. Cox and Radford,
were in the plot ? But there was another circumstance
to be borne in mind. The stranger who was found
guarding the door when the police were in search of
Morgan was the man who came from Nottingham with
Hibbert by the desire of Huish and Radford. But there
was another test to be applied to this theory of a con-
spiracy—the experimentum crucjs—and the inference ap-
peared to him to be conclusive. If all these people were
in a conspiracy, what would have been the conduct of
fhe responsible agents of Mr. Holdall, when the facts
were brought to light, and Morgan was taken before the
magistrates ? If Morgan had been an impostor, they
would have denounced him. But they came for-
ward, and threw the shield of protection over
him. (Hear, hear.) Was not the conclusion obvious ?
(Hear, hear.) 'When Morgan was brought before the
magistrates, Mr. Forshawe, Mr. Horsfall's solicitor and
confidential agent, appeared with a Mr. Sale, another
attorney, who had been acting as a subordinate agent.
Nr. Forshawe was seen talking in a corner of the hall
with Sale while the preliminary proceedings were going
on before the magistrates ; and at the end of the con-
versation Sale rushed forward, and announced himself
as Morgan's legal adviser, Morgan, in the first instance,
not appearing to have any legal adviser whatever.
When the magistrates intimated that they would remand
the prisoner, Sale said, I hope you will take bail : we
are prepared with bail to any amount." Was that
reconcileable with the idea that Morgan had been be-
traying the conservative party ? (Hear, hear.) .Again,
when Morgan was brought up a second time, succour ap-
peared from another quarter. Of course, when the
discovery was made public, there was consternation in
the minds of Frail and of his conservative friends tin
Shrewsbury and elsewhere ; and it did happen that two
solicitors from Shrewsbury suddenly appeared in Derby.
One of them was an intimate friend of Mr. Frail—Mr.
Frail's son being, in fact, in that Solicitor's office ; and
the other, the clerk of the peace at Shrewsbury, was
also a friend of Mr. Frail. These persons busied, them-
selves in the affair of Mr. Morgan, and in the end they
procured the bail for Morgan. Well, now, was it
credible that there was a conspiracy to the detriment of
Mr. Frail ? These (continued the hon. and learned
gentleman) constitute the facts of the case ; and I have
gone through them with a twofold purpose. In the first
place, to justify myself, in order that it may appear to the
house that I have not rashly or inconsiderately brought
the matter before them ; and in the next place, to put
the right hon. gentleman in possession of the whole case
—(cheers)--both as to the facts and as to the argument.
(Cheers.) Unquestionably, if he had been conducting
this case as an advocate at nisi prius, he should have
rested upon the prima facie case, waited for the answer
of the party charged, and reserved for the reply the
additional facts he had adduced, and the observations
arising out of them. But he had thought that in a case
like this such a mode of proceeding would not have been
handsome, and, in consequence, he had brought the
whole of the evidence in the most ample manner to the
knowledge of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers)
Under these circumstances, what was the course which
the house ought to pursue ? He apprehended that it
was impossible to say that an inquiry should not be
instituted ; and he was happy to know that in that
opinion the right honourable gentleman himself con-
curred. (Hear.) He was bound to do the right
vioernourable gentleman the justice to say, that from the
y this matter.
commencement, he had demanded an inquiry into
declared that he (Rear, hear.) In his address to his con-
stituents in July last, the right hon. gentleman had
this "conspiracy," insist on a complete inquiry into
The hon. inquiry, he would hind that if no one else asked for an
That was a manly Zisealft propose it to the house. (Hear.)
he was glad that the right hon.
declaration ; and
bgeentleman appr.oved of
the motion for an inquiry.the n..
ibaronet (Sir J. Y.
thinhiosnel.f f.entleman
Buller), who had spoken for
the other evening, had also expressed
same
time
hinted
drabhlies
to an inquiry, but he had at the
doubts whether such an inquiry instituted by the house
would not be prejudicial to the object of the committee who
would try the Derby election petition. He (Sir A.Coclabium)

could not see the justice of the objection ; he thought
on the contrary that it would be rather an advantage to
the defendants to know exactly what they were charged
with. (Hear, hear.) When a man, in a case like this, had
to defend his • character and his seat, he (Sir A.
Cockburn) spoke feelingly —it was very desirable to
know the grounds upon which he would be attacked ;
and he therefore did not anticipate that any practical in-
convenience could accrue from the house proceeding at
once to investigate the circumstances which he had laid
before them. (Hear, hear.) Even were it admitted that
there would be some inconvenience, that inconvenience
would be outweighed by the consideration brought before
the house. (Hear.) Were this an ordinary case it might
be left to the ordinary tribunal appointed by the house
to deal with election matters. But a case which affected
a right hon. gentleman, a member of the Government,
and a Privy Councillor, did appear to him (Sir A. Cock-
burn) to assume a very important aspect, and into which
it would not be beyond the province or beneath the
dignity of the house itself to inquire into. (Hear, hear.)
The form in which that inquiry should be carried on he
would leave entirely to the house ; and he should only
move that a special committee should be appointed.
The constitution of that committee—the quarter from
which it should be selected—that he would leave en-
tirely to the house, feeling confident that, whatever the
number of the committee, and from whatever side of the
house is was taken, an impartial and careful investiga-
tion would result satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) In con-
clusion, the hon. and learned gentleman (who was fre-
quently, in consequence of speaking with his back to the
reporter's gallery, very indistinctly heard), thanked the
house for its attention, and expressed a hope that from
a consideration of political morality, and in dealing to
great offenders that justice which was insisted on to poor
voters who were tempted into venality, the motion
would meet with no opposition.
The motion, as read by the SPEAKER was that a select
committee be appointed, &c.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that the course which he had
taken on a former evening in reference to this matter,
would prepare the hon. and learned gentleman for the de-
claration on his part, that, having listened to the state-
ment-of the hon. and learned gentleman, he had come to
the conclusion that an inquiry was necessary ; and he was,
accordingly, ready to second the motion which had been
made. (Hear, hear.) And, having thus accepted the
motion, and not anticipating any opposition from other
parties in the house, he might be excused expressing the
hope that the case would now go to a committee unpreju-
diced by any debate of that house. (Hear, hear.) He,
for his own part, would refrain from any comment on the
statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, and he
would sit clown with saying, that in whatever way the
committee was constituted the result of a fair and ample
inquiry would be .thoroughly satisfactory to the house and
to the individuals at present implicated. (Hear, hear.)
_ _

Mr. S. WORTLEY took the same view of the import-
ance of this case as the hon. and learned gentlemen, and if
the house was of the unanimous opinion that this investi-
gation should be referred to a select committee it would be
extremely unbecoming in him to offer any opposition ; but
he was anxious, he confessed, with all proper consideration
for the privileges of the house, of the importance of the
case, and of the desirability of serving the ends of justice,
that those proceedings proposed by the hon. and learned
gentleman should not be taken without at least his protest
against their being drawn into a precedent. This petition
was presented at the very outset of the session, and at the'
very time when a Derby election petition was pending.
Now, he believed, that for the last half century it had
been the constant endeavour of that house to remove
all matters connected with election petitions beyond
the jurisdiction of the whole house. For that purpose
the Grenville Act was introduced, and to improve
that act again Sir Robert Peel introduced the existing act
of parliament, the object of these measures having been to
remove from the general consideration of the house, where
party feeling was always supposed to prevail, all matters
connected with elections, and to refer such matters to an
impartial tribunal, which a select committee was
presumed to be. This petition rested upon the asser-
tion that there was a general system of bribery carried
on at Derby, and that was precisely the assertion which
a select committee would have to inquire into—(hear,
hear)—and if that system was found to have prevailed,
then the election for Derby would be void. To guide the
house in this matter there were several precedents, but
there were none exactly similar to this case. There was
one committee on which he (Mr. Wortley) had had the
honour of presiding, the subject being the interference of
a noble peer in an election for Stamford. Another com-
mittee had been appointed in 1835 or 1836, to inquire into
the conduct of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Raphael in an elec-
tion for the county of Carlow. An older case was that of
a committee appointed in 1819 to inquire into the con-
duct of a member of that house, Mr. Quin, who had used
his power as Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Limerick
to influence voters. But in that case an election petition
had been pending. An older case still, and a celebrated
one, was that of a committee appointed in 1806 to inquire
into an allegation of Mr. Sheridan having been accused of
tampering with the witnesses before an election committee.
On that occasion a committee was appointed, but it should
be remarked that it was not appointed without great ob-
jections having been urged against it at the time ; and the
results of the course then taken ought to have great influ-
ence with the house now. On that occasion the late Lord
Grey, then Lord Howick, and at that time a Minister of
the Crown, said, "That since the passing of Grenville's
Act, it had not been the practice to hear witnesses at the
bar" (which was the preliminary) ; and he earnestly re-
commended the house to confine the examination to the
question of tampering. The subsequent proceedings de-
monstrated how difficult it was to confine the exami-
nation in that way • and another distinguished person,
the last of the illustrious brothers, Thomas Grenville,
also expressed at the time his anxiety that the
house should strictly act upon the principle of Gren-
ville's Act. That, however, was not quite a parallel case,
for in that case it would have been possible to par-
ticularise the subject of inquiry for the committee, to take
only the charge of tampering with witnesses, and keep
that separate from all the other questions involved in the
election in question. But here that was impossible, be-
cause here the gravamen, except the personal part of the
allegation, of the charge was, that there had been a general
system of bribery at Derby : upon that the hon. and learned
gentlemen rested his whole case, and his whole object had
been to show that in the organising and promoting of that
system of bribery, the right hon. gentleman (Major Bores-
ford) was implicated. (Hear, hear.) If the committee
now asked for should find the right hon. gentleman guilty
of the offence imputed, they would establish the fact of
bribery at the Derby election, and consequently the election
would become void, and to all intents and purposes such
a committee would be doing what the ordinary election
committee would do. Whatever the result of the com-
mittee
might be, the case on one side would be disclosed,
and that was not desirable. The hon. and learned gentle-
man had said that the disclosure would be a benefit to the
sitting member ; but the proceedings of that house ought
not to be of a character either to benefit or to injure any
party. There was another danger. In assenting to this
motion they would be establishing a precedent of permit-
ting political parties to come with private petitions to that
house, and to try their hand with their case before a select
committee, where witnesses could not be examined on oath,
but where they could be cross-examined, and where, per-
haps, in the result, the eads of justice would be defeated.
(Hear.) He had brought these general considerations be-
fore the house as a matter of duty. If he received no
support, he would submit to the decision of the house ;
but he did think that those who were in the habit of tak-
ing the lead on either side of the house ought to be very
cautious in establishing a precedent of this kind. (Hear,
hear.)

Mr. WALPOLE said if he thought that the privileges
of the house would be at all intefered with, or that the
rights of individual members would be at all intruded
upon, by an assent to the motion of the honourable and
learned gentleman, he (Mr. Walpole) would have given it
the utmost opposition in his power. But the right hon-
ourable gentleman who had just sat down must have the
goodness to recollect that the rights of that house to in-
quire into election proceedings were independent of statute
law, and besides that, the right honourable gentleman
would observe that it was the right of the house to enter-
tain any charges brought against any member, particularly
against the members of the Government, if those charges
were stated in a manner to make it the duty of the house
to inquire into them. For that reason he was assured that
they were not violating any constitutional privilege in
acceding to the appointment of a committee, assuming
that a sufficient case had been made out. After the
statement of the honourable and learned gentleman op-
posite, it would he impossible to deny that a case for
enquiry had been made out, and if it could not be shown
that there would be practical inconvenience, the commit-
tee ought to be granted ; and seeing that the right hon.
gentleman, through his hon. friend, had himself courted
the inquiry for personal vindication, to refuse the com-
mittee would be in effect to refuse the right hon. gentle.
man a privilege he was entitled to. (Hear, hear.) Further
than that, he (Mr. Walpole) would not go. He did not
wish to prejudge the case at all, and he would only make
this remark upon the statement of the hon. and learned
gentleman, that perhaps the argumentative manner in
which he (sir A. Cockburn) had urged the latter part of
his case, might be calculated in some degree to prejudice
the inquiry. The only inconvenience which he (mr. Wal-
pole) could apprehend from the appointment of a commit-
tee was as regarded the effect
upon the interests of the e
sit-
ting member ; but it was to be remembered that the result
could not in any degree bind the ordinary committee to
whom the election petition
would be referred ; and at any
rate of two evils it was preferable to select the least, and
to assent to the motion. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") Far
greater inconvenience would result from refusing the
l to the right honourable
inquiry ; in the first pace
point of fact, the
gentleman (Major Beresford), for,
in;ie
right hon. gentleman was no party telectionpmode ofon
and in the petition committee he would have no
interfering to defend his own rights. (Hear.) He would
not enter further at all into the considerations attending
this matter, and as to the construction of the committee,
he would suggest that it be left to the committee of selec-
tion. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL was glad to find the right hon.
gentleman assenting to the appointment of a committee,
and thought the right hon. gentleman had fully answered
the right hon. gentleman with whom the objection had
originated, and that he (Mr. Walpole) had taken a per-
fectly constitutional view of the question. He (Lord J.
Russell) believed it would bo a great evil if there should
be any bar such as that suggested by the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. Wortley) to the house, instituting an imme-
diate investigation into any allegation of a specific offence
against a privy councillor. (Hear.) The suggestion of
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) as to what should
be the construction of the committee was entitled to great
weight with the house.
Mr. HORSFALL asked for the indulgence of the house
while he ventured to correct a misstatement of the hon. and
learned gentleman which affected his (Mr. Horsfall's cha-
racter. The hon. and learned gentleman stated that he (Mr.
Horsfall) was stopping with his worthy friend Mr. H. Cox,
as showing that he was a party to the transaction alluded
to, because, as he said, he was one of the firm of Cox, Bro-
thers and Co. Now, he begged to say that Mr. Henry Cox
was not a partner in the firm of Cox Brothers and Co.
Another point to which the hon. and learned gentleman
alluded as being most conclusive, was the fact of his (Mr.
Horsfall's) solicitor, Mr. Forshawe, attending before the
magistrates when this man 'Morgan was before them. He
did attend, but not as the hon. and learned gentleman re-

presented, to defend Morgan, but to see that nothing was
said or done that might be prejudicial to him (Mr. Horsfall.)
These were two points on which he wished to set the hon.
and learned gentleman right, and it was not his intention
to enter into the case, so speedily to come before a com-
mittee ; but he did venture to say this, and he believed that
those who knew him would give him credit in stating the
fact, that highly as he valued the honour of a seat in that
house, he should consider it dearly bought if he obtained
it by participating directly •or indirectly in such transac-
tions as those which were alleged to have taken place in
this election.

Sir C. WOOD remarked that the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary of State had suggested that the committee
should be named by the committee of selection. It ap-
peared to him there was another body by whom it would
be far better that they should be selected, and that was tho
gentlemen appointed by the Speaker's warrant for the
general committee of elections.
Mr. WALPOLE said he believed he used the wrong
word. He meant the general committee for elections.
Sir C. WOOD was pleased to hear that the right hon.
gentleman concurred in his suggestion. Probably the
number would not exceed that of an ordinary election com-
mittee, namely, five, but it might be well to follow the
course taken in the Carlow case, namely, that one member
representing the petitioner, and one representing the right
hon. gentleman, should serve on the committee, not to
vote, but in order that the accusation on the one side, and
the defence on the other, should be fairly brought before
the attention of the committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with the right
hon. baronet that this committee should be selected by the
general committee for elections, and also that the number
he had named was the most desirable number, but he dif-
fered with him as to the desirability of their following the
precedent of the Carlow case, that there should be a friend
chosen on each side to sit as assessors. He was quite sure that
if any such gentlemen were selected, they would act pre-
cisely as the old nominees acted, they would become advo-
cates.

---Sir C. WOOD—They are not to have votes.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would infinitely rather
that they should have votes. He did. not think there
should be advocates on the one side or the other, and es-
pecially in a case of this kind. He thought the committee
should be left to exercise their own judgment, and that
there should not be advocates on the one side or the other
to argue the question with them.
Sir A. COCKBURN said it was found in the adminis-
tration of justice that it was essential to have advocates,
and that they were a great safeguard to truth, and valuable
instruments in attaining trutli; and he trusted, therefore,
that his hon. and learned friend would offer no obstacle in
this case. If the hon. and learned gentleman still objected
to nominees, but would allow each party to be attended
by counsel, he did not want the nominees. He would
take the liberty of saying, in answer to an observation by
his right hon. friend the Secretary of State, that this was
not merely an accusation against the right hon. gentleman
(Major Beresford), but it was an accusation met by a
counter accusation on his part, that it was a scandalous
conspiracy ; and therefore it was a matter that should be
sifted.

Mr. J. S. WORTLEY observed that he only hoped this
would not be drawn into a precedent.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said his right hon. friend had left
his case in his hands, and ho could hava no objection to
counsel. If it were his own case he would rather have
counsel.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had not the slightest ob-
jection to counsel appearing on either side, but he had the
greatest objection to members of the house acting as advo-
cates.

Mr. WALPOLE decidedly concurred ix the suggestion
thoft there should be counsel. He thought it very objec-
tionable, in a . constitutional point of view, that members
'of the louse should have the power to examine and not the
power of voting.
The motion was then put and agreed to, and an addition
was afterwards made to it that each party may appear by
themselves or by counsel.
. . .

A resolution was likewise carried that it be an instruc•
tion to the gentlemen to be nominated on the general corn•
mittee of elections to nominate the committee.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. FITZGERALD said he was most anxious to sup-
port an amendment of the law, and to assist his hon. and
learned friend to the utmost of his power in making this
bill as perfect as possible ; but when he stated to the house
that the bill contained 276 clauses, and that it had only
been in his hands since that morning, he hoped the house
would excuse him if he were not perfectly acquainted with
it. It appeared from the preamble that it was a bill "to
simplify and amend the course of procedure as to the pro-
cess, practice, pleadings, and evidence in the superior
courts of common law and equity in Ireland, so as to make
the same less dilatory and expensive, and to prevent sub-
stantial justice from being defeated by reason of the variety
of forms of action, and the unnecessary length of records, and
to consolidate the provisions of several statutes and rules of
court relating to such proceedings, and also to enable the
said superior courts of common law to give effect to certain
legal rights and just defences without the expense and de-
lay of a resort to a court of equity." He believed the
bill contained 144 sections taken from the Common Law
Procedure Act of last session. Now he conceived there was
nothing more prejudicial than ill-adjusted or hasty amend-
ments of the law, leaving them in a state of uncertainty
whether what had been made law one session would con-
tinue to be law for the next twelve months. During the
vice-royalty of Earl De Grey a commission was issued for
the purpose of inquiring what should be the amendment in
the law ; and their recommendations were embodied into
law in 1850 ; and it appeared strange, after so recent a
change that they were to have a fresh change in an act of
276 clauses. The commercial transactions of Ireland were
so interwoven with those of this country that it was unwise
to have one law for one country and another for another.
This act, however, made a strange alteration. It was well
known that choses in action were not by common law as-
signable, with the exception of bills of exchange. The
208th section of this act made choses in action assignable,
but only in Ireland, and the consequence was that policies
of insurance, and contracts of that nature would be assign-
able in Ireland, whereas they were not so in this country.
Then in some respects this bill did not go far enough. It
dealt in some measure with an important security in Ire-
land—the security by judgment. The law respecting that
had been altered year after year, till at last it was difficult
to say what the law was, and he could appeal to his hon.
and learned friend, whether, if he were asked to state what
the law was on that subject, he would not reply with
some hesitation ? Again, another portion of the act pro-
fessed to repeal a number of acts of parliament, which were
said to be mentioned in schedule A, but on looking at the
schedules he found a schedule B, but schedule A was want-
ing. Then there were some points in which the bill was
not half so extensive as it ought to be. There was the
great question.whether the distinction of the courts of law
and equity should be allowed to exist. He did not profess
to have formed his own opinion on it, but in this bill this
question had been dealt with, and in some important par-
ticulars that distinction had been swept away. If the
principle were good, why should they stop short and apply
it only in this measure ? If they did not takegreat care what
they were about they would have his hon. and learned
friend coming forward with another bill next session to
amend this. They stood in Ireland in advance of this
country in jurisprudence. They had amended the common
Imperial Parliament established them in this country, and
they had also made amendments in the administration of
law, they had county
courts in Ireland long before the
chancery many years before any step was taken in this
country. He believed he was mistaken when he said his
hon. and learned friend was a protectionist in law ; he
thought he had rather become a free trader in law. He
was not going to object, nor should he object, to its being
stated in the preamble that this was " a wise, just, and
beneficial measure." He thought, however, in order that
there might be time to consider the bill, that if it were now
read a second time it should not go into committee till
after the recess. _

--liir.l-6ilft observed, that he was bound to say, as one
who had paid great attention to the subject of law reform,
that this was a measure very much in advance of that of
last session. In the first place, it did away with the tech-
nical divisions of actions. In the next place, questions
might be raised without the necessity of pleading. Then
it introduced another valuable principle, that of assign-
ment of choses in action ; and in many other respects ho
considered it a great advance of the bill of last session.
But just in proportion as it did honour to the hon. and
learned gentleman was it a reflection on our system of
legislation, as instanced in law reform. Last session they
dealt with the commonlaw procedure of England. This
year they dealt with. the common law procedure of Ire-
land, the principle in both being identical,
and it was
not wise that on two subjects so identical there should
emanate from that house two bills so different ; for,
although Ireland might be truly said to be in ad-
vance of this country, with regard to her jurispru-
dence, still the two objects were identical. A conference of
eminent persons had been lately sitting to bring the laws
of the three kingdoms into unison, but this bill tended to
raise up new diversities, and even its very improvements I
wore, in a sense, rather a retrogression. Therefore he
thought the matter required some care, and though he '
would by no means opposethe second reading of the bill,
he would take the liberty
which it appeared +- of suggesting some matters in
-.,, him the bill was worth consideration.
The main and principal
learned gentleman addressed the house was on the desira-
bility of retaining those forms of action which the hon.
point on which the hon. and
and learned gentleman stated his intention to abolish. He
replied that that was not to be carried out ; for though 1
by the fifth section it is stated in the margin that techni-
cal forms of action were to be abolished, yet
to the section itself, it stated that the technical forms
heretofore used " shall not be necessary ;" not that they
shall be abolished, le,v].n them in a middle state. They
If they were good, they ought to be
retained ; if they were bad, they ought to be abolished.
But if they went a little furtheri they would see that not
T
might be revived.
only were these forms of action not abolished but they re-
mained as vital and integral a part of the law as they ever
did. The sixth section stated that "the right to recover
in
nderatesnpteiocnt awfhainehy
any debt or damage4s
trover,
.replevin, or detinue,
of
fr
tort,e
matter of contract
may/ be en-
forcedmight have been heretofore the subject of any action of
in an
debt, covenant
npeeersfoo;albeactien,
covenant, asstunpsit, trespass, trespass on the case,
Now, what did that meaush:ll Why,B:l it meant that
com-
menced and prosecuted in the manner hereinafter pro-
vided."onraltackinhatgteol,r
if a question arose as to the jurisdiction of the courts of
common law in Ireland, or as to what this act applied
to, the only answer the' hon. and learned gentleman
gave was that the courts of common law would have andall
actionsactJ°nejet:tmbenet cashilaeldl henceforth
juris-
diction, and that this act applied to matters which had
been sued for in those different forms of action which the
hon. and learned gentleman now proposed to abolish. So
that this act, instead of relieving them from these forms of
action, only proposed to etuate them, for the Trish
lawyer 100 years hence would be just as much obliged to
acquaint himself with all these forms of action, debt,
assumpsit, covenant, account, trespass, and so on, in order
1 to see the difference between the jurisdiction in law and
equity, as at present. He quite agreed that these forms
of action were to be abolished, if they were to take an ad-
vance in common law proceedings; but then it followed that
as these forms of action constituted not only mere forms
of pleadings, but the very basis of the common law
procedure of the common law courts themselves, by
abolishing these forms, the very distinction between
common law and equity was taken away without in-
tending it. It seemed to him, therefore, on the hon.
and learned gentleman's admission, that if a law re.
former could make up his mind to go as far as this bill
went, he ought to make up his mind to go a great deal
farther, and abolish the distinction between law and equity.
This was not merely a theory on his part, but it will be
remembered what took place as to the Common Law Bill
of last year. The commission recommended that forms of
action should be abolished, and then prepared their bill,
and then they found that they were not merely getting rid
of.these forms of actions, but of the common law procedure .

xj....AtilL

altogether. Then they said they should not be necessary,
and therefore in these two bills they withdrew the enact-
ment and restored the forms of action. The hon. and
learned gentleman had and he thought to his credit, gone
beyond the commissioners. He was the more induced to
put this to the hon. and learned gentleman, because in
another part of the bill he proposed that, with regard to lost
instruments there should be at law a perpetual injunction,
and an equitable defence to actions relating to personal
estate. If the principle were good for this it was good for
a great deal more. Was it not a monstrous inequality in
this country to have one court that the said estate was in
the mortgage; and another that it was in the mortgagee ;
one that said there was no right but in the trustee, and
another that said the right was in the cestui que trust.
He hoped his hon. and learned friend might be induced to
consider whether the bill could not be carried further.
Then, again, there was no provision for verifying the repli-
cation ; nor was it easy to perceive why though a party
might introduce new matter without leave of the judge, yet
if he wished to traverse any old matter he must have that
leave. He objected also to the proposed enactment by
which the parties after having finished their pleadings, in-
stead of proceeding to trial should be obliged to draw up
an abstract of the pleadings, and if they could not agree
upon them to apply to a judge. This was objectionable on
the ground of expense, and would moreover be likely to
lead the attorneys into mistakes. What confirmed him
most in this view was the fact, that in the specimen of the
pleadings given in the appendix the framer of the bill had
actually stated the issues wrongly. He hoped the hon.
and learned gentleman would direct his attention to this
matter, so as to place it on a more satisfactory footing.
So with respect to judgment. Under the present system
there was a strict technical judgment for every form of
action in common law, but if they abolished those forms,
how was the judge to act? (Hear, hear.) The hon gen-
tleman concluded by expressing his general satisfaction
with the bill.

Sir A. COCKBURN, being still a member of the Com-
mon-law Commission, wished to say a few words on the
subject. He thought it would be a great pity if the bill
were not read a second time at once ; and if these matters
of detail were prematurely brought before the house,
instead of being left for consideration in committee. (Hear.)
hear.) He quite concurred in what had just been said by
the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Kidder-
minster, namely, that the bill was greatly in advance of the
English Common Law Procedure Bill. . (Hear, hear.) The
abolition of the forms of action had been recommended by
the commissioners, but the proposal meeting with the dis-
approval of certain great legal authorities, who had become
alarmed lest the commissioners should be going to tou
great lengths, they had been obliged to withdraw them
to save the bill. (Hear, hear.) He very much re-
gretted this; and ho trusted that the principle would
be extended to England. (Hear, hear.) The commis-
sioners had under consideration at that moment many
very important questions that would form matter for
their report, which would be before the house before
their next meeting. Amongst these was the question
of the various instances in which the equitable juris-
diction of the Court of Chancery might be transferred to
the courts of common law. For instance, there was dis-
covery by the examination of parties to the suit. They
(the commissioners) would propose that the common law
courts should have the power, by no expensive procedure
in equity, but by simply bringing up the parties and put-
ting them to the torture of cross-examination, to enable the
judge to strike out the pleas. So also those who had only
an equitable right, or who had only an equitable defence to
a suit, should have power to commence, or to plead to, an
action at common law. (Hear, hear.) Again, by the pre-
sent rule a common law court, though it could give da-
mages for a breach of a contract, had no power to order
a specific performance ; but ho (Sir A. Cockburn) could
see no reason in the world why it should not be able to
do both, and the commissioners proposed so to extend and
mould the order of mandamus as that it should effect this
most desirable improvement. (Hear, hear.) The commis-
sioners would likewise propose to do away with all those
technicalities which were nothing more than more obsolete
forms. They would also suggest for consideration the
question whether juries should still be required to be una-
nimous in their decisions ; and what was even of greater
importance, whether the judge should be left by consent, as
in the county courts, to deal with the question of fact, in-
stead of compelling the parties in every case to have re-
course to the more expensive and less satisfactory decision
of a jury. (Cheers.) He (Sir A. Cockburn) felt that one
reason why the county courts had proved so successful was
the circumstance that if in the course of the trial anything
should turn up, there being only one judge, he could close
the books and order the parties to come before him again ;
whereas, in the superior courts, if anything occurred by
surprise, the party had no remedy but to suffer a nonsuit
and to get a new trial on the payment of costs. (Hear,
hear.) These matters, which were all under consideration,
would be viewed in a liberal light, and with a desire
to make the procedure in common law as nearly per-
fect as possible. The fault of our present law was that
it was imperfect and bad, stubborn, inflexible, and in-
capable of application to the wants of the ago ; and yet the
Legislature, instead of mending it, had only abused the
lawyers. (Cheers.) If the law was inconsistent with
the wants of the times, the first thing to bo done was to
make it better ; and to effect that to which we were tend-
ing, namely, to do away with all distinctions between
law and equity. (Cheers.) He trusted that they had all
started in this great and long-deferred work with a con-
scientious desire to discharge their duty ; and he was proud
to tllink that from one end of Westminster Hall to the
other there was but one common feeling, namely, to lend
their best aid to this reform. (Cheers.)' It was quite a
mistake to suppose that it would be against the interee,s of
the lawyers; for the present system, by preventing parties
from insisting upon their rights, was really as injurious to
the profession as to any other class of the community.
(Cheers.)
Mr. CROWDER gave his cordial support to the bill ;
but he was astonished to find that the various improve-
ments to which reference had been made had been intro-
duced into this bill, whereas they had been omitted from
the English act after the attention of the law officers of
the Crown had been drawn to them. For instance, there
was payment of money into court. By the English bill
money could not be paid into court in suits for assaults,
for false imprisonment, for malicious arrests, for criminal
conversation, or for debauching the daughter or servant of
the plaintiff, although the Solicitor-General expressed his
agreement. (Hear.) He (Mr. Crowder) hoped that these
alterations would before long be again introduced to the
consideration of the house, and that they would be incor-
porated also with the English law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to the observa-
tion of the hon. and learned gentlemen who had preceded
him, remarked that they must have forgotten the circum-
stances under which the law officers had the charge of the
English bill committed to them. It was utterly impos-
sible for them to have acted differently. The hon. and
learned gentlemen opposite seemed to have forgotten the
impatience with which hon. members on that side of the
house had listened to any proposal at all on the part of the
Government to introduce new measures. Every such at-
tempt was viewed as an endeavour to prolong the session
unnecessarily, and to disappoint the expectation that they
formed of an early dissolution. (Hear, hear.) The bill
came down at a very late period from the House of Lords,
and it was perfectly impossible to introduce any amend-
ments, unless at the risk of losing the bill for that session.
He (the Attorney-General) was, therefore, not a free
agent in the matter ; and as for the present bill being in
advance of the English act, they must remember that a
dwarf on the shoulders of a giant could see farther than the
giant himself. (Laughter.) The Irish law reformers had
had an opportunity of seeing how far the English had
gone, and of considering how much further they might
go themselves. He (the hon. and learned gentleman) should
await with much anxiety for the report of the Common
Law Commissioners, but it would be necessary to consider
very carefully their suggestions (and more especially one of
them), the nature of which had been intimated to them by
the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir A. Cockburn). The
house must not rush at once into all the reforms which had
been proposed by ardent reformers, but must carefully
weigh their propriety. As to the suggestions of the hon.
gentlemen who had spoken, they were undoubtedly of great
value ; but they were somewhat ill-timed. The question
at present before them was the principle of the bill—its
details had best be left for committee ; and he hoped they
would all come to the consideration of the measure .with a
desire to make it as good and practical a bill as possible,
and one that would furnish the same example to English
law reformers as the English bill had set to those of Ire-
land. (Cheers.) _ _

Mr. COLLIER thought the bill one of the most compre-
hensive that had ever been brought in by a lawyer ; and
he thought that the hon. and learned gentleman (the
Attorney-General) had taken an erroneous view in sup-
posing that any reflection had been intended on the conduct
of the law officers. The great advantage of the bill was,
that instead of attempting to patch up the present system
of technicalities, it had thrown it entirely aside, and
adopted an altogether new one. (Hear, hear) He did not
think there was any rational distinction between law and
equity. Equity was in fact a mere excrescence, which had
grown up in consequence of the defects of the law. But
it was another question whether the two could be fused
and united in ono. There was not the slightest objection
even to the permanent retention of the equity courts 2 • but
what was objectionable was, to have two different tribu-
nals dealing with the same subject matter upon two differ-
ent principles ; or to have two courts which had a partial
jurisdiction in the same kind of case. Different courts
might be retained to deal with different kinds of jurisdic-
tion on the principle of division of labour. (Hear, hear.)
Sir D. NORREYS recommended a still further exten-
sion of the County Court jurisdiction in Ireland, as one of
the most obvious modes of effecting the desirable end of
ma king law cheap and efficient. He had made particular
enquiries as to the working of the last extension, and he
found that it had been followed by the most beneficial
results.

Mr. WHITESIDE said a few words expressive of his
gratification at the manner in which the bill had been re-
ceived, and the valuable assistance he had had in drawing
it up from various gentlemen of great legal authority. He
rejoiced to hear the improvements that had been suggested
by Sir A. Cockburn, and he hoped that due consideration
would be given to them. This bill was founded on the
practice of the County Courts and the Scotch Procedure
Bill. In Ireland there was not so much necessity for
Chancery reform, as by a rapid process in use there, up-
wards of 1,500 summonses had been disposed of in a very
short time.

Mr. GEORGE objected to them being one law for Eng-
land and another for Ireland. As the Common Law Pro-
cedure Commission was about to report shortly, he thought
it absurd to introduce a bill specially for Ireland. He hoped
that, when their suggestions were matured, they would be
made applicable to both the Irish and English law.
Mr. PHILLIMORE expressed his gratification at the
provisions of the bill before the house. Ho hoped that
this country would not long allow Ireland to have the
start of her in legal reform. He was opposed to the un-
necessary multiplication of oaths in courts of law, and
therefore doubted the propriety of having pleas verified
in this way. Believing the interests of the profession to
be concerned in the improvement of the law, he rejoiced
in the efforts now making for that purpose.
Mr. NAPIER hoped that there would be no jealousy
because Ireland was taking the lead in law reform. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. BUTT pointed out what he conceived to be a
printer's error in the copy of the bill, theomission of a
sohedule of the repealed acts.
Mr. WHITESIDE promised that this should be sup-
plied, and the bill was read a second time.
WEST INDIA COLONIES, &c., LOANS 3-CT

AMENDMENT BILL.

This bill was then read a second time..
BANK_ NOTES BILL.

This bill passed through Comm.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).
Mr. MACARTNEY moved for certain returns connected
with the working of this Court, which was agreed to.
The house adjourned at ludf-parit nine o'clock,

.;,<1