fundholder was certainly, therefore, not a case for pity. The grand point for their lordships' consideration was, the great increase, not only of poaching, but of crime generally; not owing to the operation of the Game-laws, but to the extraordinary state of penury and distress to which the labouring classes had lately been reduced. The Earl of Hardwicke said, he could not agree with the noble lord who spoke last, that the great increase of poaching arose out of the distressed state of the country, and not out of the laws. He thought the country was highly indebted to the noble lord opposite for the great pains which he had taken upon this subject; which was certainly one which deserved the serious consideration of the whole legislature. It was notorious that the gaols of the country were filled with persons accused of the crime of poaching; and it would be a happy circumstance, if any device could be found to give a check to the growing increase of that, and of other crimes. He trusted that, whatever the result might be, the noble lord would proceed with his measure, that their lordships might at least have the opportunity of fully considering the subject. Nothing could be more absurd than that an alderman of the city of London should not be able to purchase a pheasant as well as a turkey. He would allow him to purchase all kinds of game. Lord Teynham adverted to the great demoralization of the peasantry which had taken place, and thought that no time ought to be lost in entering upon a thorough investigation of the subject. The peasantry of the present day were not the peasantry of our ancestors, "their country's pride," but a degenerated peasantry. Taxation had reduced that portion of the population of this country to such a state, as existed in no other part of the world. He himself would move for the appointment of a committee to examine into the condition of the labouring classes, if no other of their lordships thought proper to do so. The Earl of Carnarvon thought that the best thanks of the House and the country were due to the noble lord for bringing this important subject under their consideration. A bill had, not long ago, been brought up from the other House on the same subject, which was in some respects attended with difficulties, and their lordships had thought proper to reject it. In the bills now to be brought forward he trusted that those difficulties would be removed; and, if they proceeded on the same principle as the former bill, they should have his decided support. He fully agreed with the noble lord who spoke before him, that great demoralization had been produced in the condition of the labouring classes, more especially in the agricultural districts, where the wages of labour were reduced to the minimum, and the poor-laws were executed in such a manner as to aggravate the evil. That this was one cause of the increase of the crime of poaching, as well as of other crimes, there could be no reasonable doubt; but still it could as little be doubted, that the increase of the crime of poaching ought, in a considerable degree, to be ascribed to the operation of the Game-laws. It was impossible that those laws should not contribute, in a high degree, to the increase of that crime, when it was considered, that game was a commodity which no one was ashamed to buy, although, in the first instance, it could be sold only by thieves. Respectable people would feel ashamed to purchase any other article, knowing it to be stolen; but this feeling did not extend to game. No man could attach more consideration to the comforts of the country gentlemen than he did; but, owing to the present state of the Game-laws, crimes against them remained often concealed and unpunished, and, by that means, naturally led to crimes of greater magnitude. Until the qualifications and other obnoxious parts of those laws were done away, matters could not be placed on a proper footing. He highly approved of affixing a milder punishment to the crime of poaching, in the first instance; and he was satisfied that in such cases, the parents and other relations, and even the farmers whom they served, might often be induced to become sureties for their future good behaviour; and that this would have a good effect in repressing the crime. It was a common saying, that there was honour even among thieves; and these people would be deterred more effectually by the consideration that their relations and friends would be compromised by a second crime, than if they knew that they themselves would be the only sufferers. This sort of feeling was apparent, in the extreme difficulty found in inducing one poacher to give up another. He concluded by again thanking the noble lord for bringing forward the subject, and for the pains which he had bestowed upon it. main cause was, in his opinion, the unfor tunate habit of paying wages out of the The bills were then read a first time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, February 27. Lord Clifden said, that there was one part of the question which the noble lord had entirely omitted to mention in bring-poor-rates- thus destroying, in the ing forward his laudable propositions; but labourer's mind, every feeling of indehe supposed the great difficulty of touching pendence, honour and honesty-for there upon so delicate a subject must have oc- might be honour and honesty in all stations, casioned the omission. He alluded to the and rendering them negligent of character, use of spring-guns. Two years ago, a when they found that character could be noble lord had carried a bill through that of no use to them. This was an evil which, House, which had for its object the putting perhaps, was not so well known to the an end to their use; but it was lost in the noble mover, as it had not, as yet, in its other House. It was a disgrace to the worst features, extended to the north of country that they were ever allowed to be England, though it must soon reach that set. Every paper related the accidents quarter also. Thus the labourers were which they occasioned, and the mischief first led to commit offences against the was, that the guilty seldom suffered by Game-laws, and these paved the way for them. Their lordships were aware that still more heinous offences. no man would buy a fowl if he knew it to have been stolen, but no one was ashamed to buy game; and he believed that the highest personage in the state had bought game to a considerable amount. Every man thought he had a right to buy game. The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had no wish to detain the House by going into the details of the bill which had just been offered to their lordships' consideration, as noble lords would be better prepared to give their opinions upon the subject on the second reading of the bill; but, in rising to say a few words, he wished to convey the most cordial expressions of his respect and gratitude to the noble lord for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, in a manner which must secure for it an ample and full discussion. Greatly as the offences against the Game-laws had directly increased, a very imperfect estimate would be formed of the consequences of those offences, unless their indirect effects were taken into consideration; they being the first step towards other crimes of all descriptions, and of a more heinous nature. The offences against the Gamelaws undoubtedly led, especially in the agricultural districts, to the commission of a variety of other and more desperate crimes; and it would be taking a very narrow view of the subject to suppose that the consequences were confined to the increase of the single crime of poaching. He therefore, intended to have on their lordships' table, by the time these bills should be read a second time, a return of commitments for crimes in general, which might have the effect of throwing much light on this subject. He agreed that the increase of crime had been owing to other causes besides the Game-laws; and the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. M. A. Taylor, being called upon by the Speaker to make his motion on the subject of separating the jurisdiction in all matters of Bankruptcy in the High Court of Chancery, said, that, as his right hon. and learned friend, the Master of the Rolls, intended on that night to submit to the House his bill for the improvement of the Adminis tration of Justice in the Court of Chancery, he thought it due as well to his right hon. and learned friend, as to the convenience of the House, to withdraw his motion, until they should be in possession of the measures which were intended to be carried into effect by that bill. He hoped, however, that in thus withdrawing his motion, he should not ultimately lose any thing, as he reserved to himself the power of bringing the subject under their consideration at a future opportunity, as well as to make any observation in the course of that night, which he might think necessary to a proper elucidation of the subject. No exertion, he begged to assure the House, had been wanting on his part, to have those evils and abuses of the Court of Chancery, under which the suitors of that court had so long writhed, fully and fairly examined, and he trusted the time was now arrived when they would be effectually redressed. The Master of the Rolls (sir John Copley) then rose, and addressed the House to the follow purport:- I have, in the first place, to return thanks to my hon. friend for his courtesy in giving | way on this occasion. I certainly did anticipate the indulgence which he has afforded me; but, at the same time, I am bound to express my acknowledgments for the readiness with which it has been conceded. I rise now, therefore, in pursuance of the notice I gave some time back, to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the practice of the High Court of Chancery. The House is aware, that, in the course of the last session of parliament, I gave a notice of nearly the same description, and that in pursuance of that notice I obtained leave to bring in a bill for the same purpose as that which I am now about to propose. It will be necessary, therefore, in the first place, to explain, in a few words, why I did not avail myself of the permission I then obtained, and why I did not follow up the measure I then proposed in the subsequent stages. It must be quite obvious to every one acquainted with the subject, that a measure which purposed to alter the course of proceeding in the highest court of the kingdom, must involve great complexity of arrangement, and call for extraordinary minuteness of detail. In the measure which I submitted to the House last session, there were provisions which would have rendered it necessary to make an application to parliament for a very considerable pecuniary grant, in order to give them full and efficient operation. After having given that and other circumstances due consideration, it appeared to me, and to others, by whose advice I was influenced, that it would be almost impossible, during the remainder of the session, to succeed in carrying that bill, and the other measures by which it must have been accompanied, through the two Houses of parliament in such a manner as to give them the effect of law. These considerations, therefore, in conjunction with others, induced me to abstain from pressing the bill upon the attention of this House during that session; for I thought it would be an idle waste of time to enter upon the discussion of the matters contained in it, without a prospect of coming to any satisfactory issue, and involving the House in discussions which could only lead to unprofitable debates. I thought it, therefore, better at once to abandon the bill which I then introduced, reserving to myself the right to repeat the motion when I considered it to be more expedient, and to follow it up by a bill, embodying those provisions which I thought adequate to effect the reformations which were proposed. This is the short history of the measure which I then introduced; and I am happy to be able to say, that I have reason to believe I acted correctly upon that occasion, and that the course I pursued has obtained the approbation of those whose soundness of judgment entitles them to respect. I rejoice, indeed, that I did so postpone the consideration of the question, because that postponement has afforded me additional opportunities of considering subjects, as I have already observed, of very great difficulty, and of maturing the plans which I am about to submit to the House. I am satisfied, too, from that more mature consideration, that it will not be necessary, in the bill which I am now about to propose, to make any provisions which shall call for pecuniary assistance; but that, on the contrary, we shall be able to carry all its objects into effect, without requiring from the country any grant of money. It will not be expected that I should now go into an explanation of all the particulars of the evils or the remedies, as applicable to the practice of the court of Chancery, with the same minuteness of detail, as when I had last the honour to address the House on this subject. I am convinced, that such a course would be as irksome to the House, as it would be painful to myself. I shall endeavour, therefore, to treat the subject generally, and to render my references as clear and as intelligible as possible, not only to those who are acquainted with the practice of the court, but at least in its outline-also to those who are not practically acquainted with the court, and who have no practical knowledge upon the subject. In the first place, therefore, it will be necessary to understand the nature of the subject, that I should get rid of all those cavils and objections which have no bearing upon the question we are about to examine. I may say, with confidence, that I have never found any one individual, upon whose judgment I could place the least reliance, who attempted to find fault with that system of jurisprudence which distinguishes the court of Chancery from the other courts of civil and criminal law, and which is with us called Equity. I never recollect any one who ventured to assert, that the jurisdiction of that court could be dispensed with; and, considering the nature of the subjects brought under its consideration, which it is called upon to be conversant with, I consider it impossible that such a court could be dispensed with, in the present state of society. If one party, for instance, enters into an agreement, the stipulations of which may be binding to a great extent, every person knows that, if we attempt to call him to a specific performance of his contract, the law affords no remedy. The relief which, in that case, must be obtained, is peculiar to a court of equity. If I have a tenant who, under the power of a lease, attempts to cut down my timber and to commit other dilapidations upon my property, what remedy have I in a court of law? There is none to be had. If I wish to obtain my object, I must call upon a court of equity to interpose, and prevent what would otherwise prove perhaps an irreparable injury to my property. I mention these instances to shew that a court of equity possesses a power of affording relief which cannot be dispensed with, and which we might seek in vain from a court of law; and I repeat the observation which I made before; namely, that I never knew an individual, who possessed any knowledge upon the subject, and whose opinion could be relied upon, who would venture to say that equity could be dispensed with, that what is called equity could be even administered by the courts of law, or that it could be obtained by any other means than a distinct and different tribunal, limited to a peculiar object. If that be so -and I can scarcely think it will be denied —then it will not be difficult to understand the points to which our inquiries must be directed. Before, however, I go further, I think it right to endeavour to remove a reproach which has been frequently cast upon the court of Chancery, with respect to the slowness of its operations, as compared with those of the courts of law. In one respect, the operations of the court of Chancery are impeded from the very nature of the questions which it is called upon to determine. In a court of law, there is only one issue to be tried, upon which the court may be, perhaps, able to decide almost instantly. In a court of equity, the judge who presides is called upon to determine upon many complicated questions connected with large masses of property, in the hands of various individuals, and to decide between the claims of one body of men, and another body, supporting their rights upon different interests. To take, for an illustration to the House, a familiar instance of the nature of proceedings in the court of law and the court of equity. A man sues another for a debt in a court of law. The questions to be determined are simple-the existence of the debt, and its amount, and the process is ended. Let us take an analogous case in a court of equity, and see the course of proceeding there. A man dies, perhaps insolvent, the whole mass of his creditors step in, and demand a division of his effects; but, instead of the question being determined there, as in a court of law, by one action, every individual creditor is called upon to prove his debt, and there are, consequently, as many causes to be tried as there are creditors to claim. It would be no difficult matter to enumerate many other instances in which a complexity, arising from the claims of several parties, might occur, which could only be settled in a court of equity. The interests, and the proportion of interests, which contending claimants had frequently in property, could only be adjusted in such a court. No person, therefore, I presume, supposes that equity can or ought to be dispensed with; or that it is not essentially necessary to continue and persevere in our system of jurisprudence. I yield to no man in my admiration of the simplicity of proceedings in courts of law. I have been brought up in early prejudices in favour of that simplicity; but it is in consequence of the separation of the business in the courts of law, from that which should be conducted in courts of equity, that the simplicity of the former has been preserved. It is in consequence of this just distribution, that a single judge in one year has been able to dispose of, causes during the sittings in Middlesex and Westminster, to the number of three thousand. These preliminary observations I have deemed it necessary to make, to assist me in directing the attention of the House to the points which it appears to me most requisite that their attention should be directed. If, then, it appears obvious, that there can be no question of destroying the jurisdiction of courts of equity, nor of uniting and blending the two jurisdictions and if it is found that individuals come forward with evidence of great delay existing in the business of these courts-to what branch of the subject must our minds 697 derstand, that the bill which he should in the Court of Chancery. be directed with a view to a remedy? Of necessity, to the machinery, with a view to quicken its motion. And, accordingly, we find, that when the government commissioners commenced their labours, two years ago, it was to this point that their attention was directed by his majesty's government. The instructions to them were, to inquire into the practice of the court of Chancery; to ascertain whether any alteration or amendment in that practice would diminish the time and expenses suits in that court. usually attendant upon This was the inquiry directed by govern-basis of his bill, he was sure the House ment; and its object was, in my opinion, would be disposed to receive it with the same approbation which they had bestowed a most proper and legitimate one. Thus much, the right hon. and learned upon the report itself. He had not, howgentleman said, he felt himself called on ever, implicitly followed the directions of to explain to the House, in introducing to the report. It was upwards of a year their attention the nature of the measure since that document had been laid before founded upon the report of these com- the House; it related to subjects of the missioners. This commission was directed most intricate and complex nature; and to persons of great learning and intelli- since its first appearance, it had been subgence, and who, with the exception of two mitted to the eyes of an acute, discerning, or three, whom he should afterwards and accomplished, profession; and not, mention, had spent their lives in the study he might add, without commensurate beand practice of equity. It was impossible nefit. During that period, a noble lord, that persons more fitted to the task could a member of the other House, and also a have been found in the country. He knew member of the commission (lord Redesit had been said, that, although all of them dale), but whose name did not appear to were qualified, from their long acquaint- the report, had published to the world his ance with the subject, to take a better view opinions on the propositions contained in of it than any others, yet the prejudices of it. No one in the country was better inhabit would prevent them from taking a formed upon the subject of the proposijust judgment on the subject. But in tions investigated by the commission, and answer to this, he would point to his hon. further, as to the details of the subject, no and learned friend, the member for Tre- one was more intimately conversant; and gony (Dr. Lushington), who, if he had he regretted, with all the respect that he any prejudices, were such as would lead entertained for his talents and integrity, his mind rather in a contrary direction; that that noble lord had not, day by day, yet he found his hon. and learned friend's attended in his place as a commissioner, name signed to the report, upon the re- to inform his own mind, and the minds of commendation of which the bill which it his colleagues; but that he had waited, was his intention to introduce, was found- until the end of their labours, to give the ed. He would also point to another name public, in the form of a pamphlet, the (Mr. R. Smith's) in the same situation benefit of his reasons, why the propositions the name of one whom he was proud to of the commission ought not to be relied This much he had felt it his duty call his friend-a man of great learning, on. seldom voting upon his side of the House, thus boldly to state, notwithstanding an accomplished scholar, uncompromising the admiration he felt for the extensive in his principles, and industrious, active, knowledge and talents of that noble and and zealous in attending on the commis- learned lord, and his general disposition sion, day after day, in the progress of the to serve his country; still he had profited inquiry. He found the report had the by one or two suggestions made against sanction of his distinguished name; and the recommendations of the commission. he appealed to the authority of these two He would not enter into a lengthened denames to refute the charge of bias brought tail of these suggestions, but confine himagainst the judgment of the commissioners. self to the mention of one of them. GenThe House, then, would distinctly un-tlemen acquainted with the practice of |