MR. S. B. MILLER 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

of them was surprising. From the 1st of Question proposed, "That the word January, 1851, to the 1st of April, there'now' stand part of the Question." 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 Ire-in opposition to the rule that no money in land 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.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."-(Mr. Whiteside.)

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. | Friend. He himself had not the honour In his opinion, as far as he had materials of being an Irishman, but it had fallen to for forming it, the English system ought his lot to serve for some eight or nine years to be assimilated to the Irish, rather than upon Commissions connected with Courts of the Irish to the English. He might re- Law, receivers, and Ecclesiastical Courts, mark that six out of the persons who com- and, in company with his old colleague Sir posed the Commission of 1861 were pledged James Graham, he had dragged to light, beforehand to the abolition of the Masters. he would not say the misdoings, but the That Commission consisted partly of Eng- curious proceedings of English and Irish lish and partly of Irish Members, the receivers, ecclesiastical registrars, and so English Members being ignorant of the forth. It was so marvellous a proceeding Irish system, and the Irish Members being that they always used to say to themselves equally unacquainted with the English sys- that there was no sport except rat hunting tem. In conclusion he asked the House to in a barn that could be at all compared to stop the Bill in its present stage, in order it. Well, he had sat listening with great that it might be seen how the matter stood patience to the statements made on the prewith regard to the Commission now in pro- sent Bill, which related to matters of great cess of completion. If there was a neces- interest and importance; and he had hoped sity for assimilating the practice of England at the conclusion of the able speech of his and Ireland in this matter it should be by right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) that the assimilating the English to the Irish, which Law Officers of the Crown would have given was the better system. To alter the con- some explanation on the subject to the stitution of the court which had been in House. It was due to the subject and also operation for sixteen years with satis- to his right hon. Friend; but to leave the faction to the public and to the Judges, question in entire silence was not fair to was a serious matter, and such a measure hon. Gentlemen, and especially to laymen, ought not to be entered upon without the who, like himself, were anxious to come fullest information and the greatest deli- to a right conclusion with reference to this beration. 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.

GENERAL DUNNE 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. Gentlemen 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 adjourn ment of the debate.

MR. HENLEY could not wonder at the course taken by his hon. and gallant

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) 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 bad 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

made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Ardglass, Blackpool (South), Cowes (West), Dawlish, Dunoon, Foryd, Hopeman, Hornsea, Llandudno, Penzance, Plymouth (Hoe), Redcar, Scarborough.

Resolution reported: - Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MON

ARMY-WAR OFFICE WARRANTS.

QUESTION.

MR. O'REILLY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the following statement, which appeared in The Times of the 5th April, is

correct :

"The Secretary for War recently established a branch of his department to codify and revise warrants and regulations issued from the War Office; he has appointed Mr. J. Norman Lockyer to the charge of this branch ;"

time that the Act authorizing it passed through Parliament; and if he can state how many valuations, including those solely for Poor Law purposes, have been made for Ireland during the last thirty years? He also would beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will postpone the second reading of the Rateable Property Bill until the production of such Return?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, in reply, that the estimated cost of the revaluation was £46,000. It was intended to take place once every fourteen years, and the expense would be equally divided between the local rates and the Treasury. He could not undertake to give

whether this duty is part of that formerly discharged by Mr. Orde Marshall, recently superannuated at the age of forty-eight; whether, if so, he will state what pay and the estimated cost of the last valuation, allowances are received by Mr. Lockyer for performing this duty; who performs the remainder of the duty formerly performed by Mr. O. Marshall, and what pay and allowance are received for its discharge, and what is the precise economy effected by these changes?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he was afraid that he could not give his hon. Friend a full explanation of the subject without occupying too much of the time of the House. The short answer, however, which he might give was this. It was true that in December last such a

branch was established, consisting of Mr. Lockyer and others, who would receive an extra allowance in addition to their pay The duty was almost entirely a new one, and it was difficult to state precisely the amount of economy effected by the change, as it formed part of a larger system of reorganization which secured a saving of £4,000 a year. If his hon. Friend wished for a more detailed statement in regard to this branch he would enter into a fuller explanation on going into Committee of Supply.

IRELAND-REVALUATION OF PRO

PERTY.-QUESTION.

LORD JOHN BROWNE said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is able to state the estimated cost of the revaluation of Rateable Property in Ireland, which it is proposed by the Rateable Property Bill to carry out every fourteen years; whether the expense of those repeated valuations are to be charged on the local rates, and whether they are to be compulsory; whether he has any objection to a Return stating the total actual cost of the last general valuation of Ireland, and of its estimated cost at the

but he had no objection to giving a Return of the actual cost and also of the number of valuations made during the last thirty years. He was also willing to postpone the Committee on the Bill until the Return was produced.

LOTTERIES FOR CHARITABLE PUR

POSES.-QUESTION.

MR. WHALLEY said, with reference drawn for on Saturday the 12th instant at to a Lottery publicly advertised to be Edinburgh, for the benefit of St. Vincent Roman Catholic School, to ask the Lord drawn thereto, as being a violation of the Advocate, Whether his attention has been Law respecting Lotteries; and what, if any, steps have been or will be taken by him to give effect to the Law in that behalf?

THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, stated that the statute under which such lotteries were punishable was one that permitted proceedings by a common informer.

The course he had generally adopted in regard to these matters was to prosecute in cases where the lotteries were got up for private gain, but not in cases where they were promoted for charitable purposes. Whether that was a right distinction or not was a matter of opinion; but if it was not thought a proper course a common informer might at all times prosecute. It was right to say further that he did not think the law regarding lotteries should be made the subject of sectarian complaints. Lotteries, or at least what were said to be lotteries, were resorted to by persons of all denominations; but most of the complaints within his knowledge had been mainly directed against those for Roman Catholic purposes.