The House then proceeded to a discussion of the several amendments, upon which some further divisions took place. The result was, that two only of the amendments made in the other House were dissented from-one of these having been moved by Lord John Manners, and adopted against the wish of the Government. The rest of the amendments were agreed to. Under these circumstances, Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons had no difficulty in procuring assent to the Bill, as modified by the Lords, and this measure, so long and vehemently contested, at last became the law of the land.

One more measure that was introduced by the Attorney-General to supply a defect which had of late been much felt in our criminal jurisprudence, may conveniently be noticed here. This was the Fraudulent Trustees Bill, the object of which was to make trustees of settlements, directors of companies, and other persons invested with a fiduciary character, criminally responsible for frauds and malversation of the funds committed to their hands. Several cases had recently occurred, in which embezzlements and frauds to an enormous extent had been practised by persons entrusted with the property of others, which had created great public scandal, yet in the existing state of the law could not be brought within the category of any criminal of fence. The late Attorney-General (Sir A. Cockburn), before his elevation to the Bench, had promised to bring forward a measure to cure this great anomaly in the law, and his successor (Sir R. Bethell) readily followed up the design. In moving for leave to bring in his VOL. XCIX.

Bill on the 19th of May, the learned gentleman lucidly explained the existing deficiencies of the law, and described the class of cases for which he desired to provide. Fraud or theft, when accompanied by a breach of trust, is divested of its criminal character: a trustee who robs widows and orphans is not a criminal, but a debtor. Much evil has arisen from our practice of making rules to include every case that might occur, instead of adopting some comprehensive definition which should accurately define the offence, and leave particular instances to fall within its scope. But we have been unlucky in definitions. Blackstone's definition of theft-' feloniously taking and carrying away the goods of another '-involves the very thing it professed to define. A trustee cannot commit a theft, because he is the legal holder of the property in trust. Sir Richard Bethell confessed he had not felt bold enough to introduce a new definition; so he had framed clauses to meet the several cases of breach of trust. In dealing with the fraudulent conversion by a trustee of the property committed to his charge, he proposed to enable a cestuique-trust to proceed against his trustee; but to guard against spiteful actions, he provided that no proceeding should be commenced without the sanction of a Judge of one of the Courts at Westminster, or one of the Courts in Ireland, or of the AttorneyGeneral. As there were so many kinds of breach of trust, more than ordinary care would be required to decide upon the language used in the Bill. But the Bill was not confined to cases where offences had been committed by one person holding property for the [N]

benefit of another: it dealt with breaches of trust on the part of directors and managers of companies; and contained a series of clauses making it criminal to keep false accounts, to make false eutries, to disguise their nature under false representations, to make fraudulent statements of the affairs of a company, and to pay dividends out of fictitious capital. The Bill dealt in like manner with the assignees of bankrupts and insolvents; and extended the existing law affecting bankers and agents so as to include all cases of property committed to their charge, although they had not received instructions in writing. The Bill preserved the principle that a man shall not be tried and found guilty on evidence procured from his own confession in a civil proceeding, but did not exempt those persons from prosecution who had voluntarily confessed that they had fraudulently possessed themselves of property. In the course of his speech, the Attorney-General stated, that having now read the documents in the case of the British Bank, which had been laid before him by the solicitor for the assignees, he had no hesitation in saying that he would, without a moment's delay, try whether the law as it then stood was not strong enough to meet that case. In conclusion, he asked the House to co-operate with him by suggesting remedies for any defects there might be in his Bill: he would thankfully receive aid from any quarter. He expressed a hope that the present session might be signalised by such an instalment of legal reform as would remove a great opprobrium to our jurisprudence, and would lead-particularly in the case of those in humble

life, among whom the constant recurrence of the frauds against which the Bill sought to provide produced so much misery-to an improved state of things, while it tended to place our legislation on a more respectable footing.

The Bill thus proposed was received with considerable favour by the House. It underwent, indeed, in its progress through Committee, a great deal of minute and searching criticism from members of the House learned in the law, and, carefully as it had been framed, was found to be capable of considerable improvement in its details, but it passed through the House with its main principles unimpaired. The only objection of any substantial weight which was urged against the proposed change of law was founded on the apprehension lest honest men should be deterred from undertaking the office of trustee through a dread of finding themselves involved in criminal liabilities. This objection was much pressed by Lord St. Leonards in the Upper House, who was so much impressed with the danger referred to, that he brought in a Bill of his own, as a complement to that of the Attorney-General, with a view of protecting honest trustees, who might, without any wrongful intent, commit acts which might be construed as violations of trust. The noble and learned Lord, while Sir R. Bethell's measure was still pending in the Lower House, called the attention of the House of Lords to the general subject, to which he had devoted much consideration. Referring to the Bill of the Attorney-General, he said the difficulty lay in confining the measure to breaches of trust really fraudulent. If ordinary breaches of trust

were made criminally liable, it would be extremely difficult to get men of competence and station to act as trustees. Lord St. Leonards gave a very technical description of the provisions of a Bill he had framed to guard against any oppression of trustees who perform their duties in good faith, and commit, without fraudulent intent, many acts that are real breaches of trust. From his account of the Bill, it appeared to set forth acts which the trustee might do, or duties which he might omit, without becoming liable to punishment in consequence of departing from the terms of the trust. This drew forth a vigorous speech from Lord Brougham, denouncing the present state of the law. "A barrister, the guardian of two young women, embezzled' their property, and died insolvent. Equity regarded him as a debtor; common sense as a felon. A Judge in the sister kingdom performed the same act of robbery. Neither could be punished." The law of other countries-that of Scotland, certainly -proceeded upon sounder prin

ciples, for it regarded breach of trust as an aggravation and not a defence. In Scotland, the indictment proceeded in a regular syllogistic form. The major proposition is that in all countries theft is a punishable offence, and the minor proposition that a fraudulent breach of trust is a theft; therefore (said Lord Brougham turning suddenly round in jest to Lord Campbell, who was sitting near him) "you, John Campbell, having committed a fraudulent breach of trust, are liable to be punished." (Laughter.) That grievous anomaly between the law of Scotland and the law of England was happily doomed in one way or another, and there was now no chance of its long surviving.

The Lord Chancellor spoke with much doubt as to the expediency of the measure proposed by Lord St. Leonards. The House, how

ever, consented to read it a second time, but it was ultimately withdrawn, and the measure of the Government, with some slight modifications, received the sanction of the Legislature.

mentary proceedings of this session with an account of some incidental debates on questions of immediate public interest, which were brought before Parliament by members unconnected with the Government. Such was the motion of Sir De Lacy Evans in regard to the improvement of Military Education, that of Lord Goderich on the subject of competitive examinations for the Civil Service, and the successful effort of Lord Naas to obtain a more liberal allowance to superannuated officers in the public departments. The first of these motions involved considerations to which the public mind had recently been much directed, and the gallant officer who proposed it at this time might have felt sure of a general concurrence in favour of his resolution, "That in the opinion of this House a higher standard of professional instruction, and more complete provision for it than hitherto deemed requisite, ought to be established for the commissioned ranks of the army, but especially for the staff; that this will be best promoted by recourse to competitive examinations of officers desiring to qualify themselves for the staff, by adopting the same principle, with such qualification as may be necessary, in examination of candidates nominated by the Commander-in-Chief for commissions in the cavalry and infantry, by preserving the present system of admission of cadets for the Ordnance Corps, by assured encouragements for for proficiency and general fitness for advancement,

and civilian members, empowered to direct the measures for accomplishing these objects."

Sir De Lacy Evans discussed and supported each of these suggestions, anticipating and answering objections. With regard to competitive examinations, Sir De Lacy said, No fair objection could be taken to a certain degree of competitive examination in the case of candidates for staff appointments. Such an examination prevailed in our universities, where the first men of the land those who occupied leading positions in the two Houses of Parliament -- willingly exposed themselves to an ordeal similar to that which he proposed for officers seeking appointments on the staff. Even those who did not seek for honours were obliged to pass an examination, and in many instances they were, in the language of university men, "plucked." (A laugh.) He saw no reason why the officers of the army should not run the risk of being "plucked" also.

The officers of the navy were compelled to pass an examination not only for their first, but likewise for their second and third commissions. In 1819, as stated by the right hon. gentleman the member for South Wilts in his admirable letter to Lord Hardinge of December, 1854, the Duke of Wellington issued an order declaring that for the future there should be an examination of officers for lieutenancies as well as for first commissions. Notwithstanding the authority of that great man, his