HOUSE OF COMMONS, ment on the 16th instant, because he thought that such a Bill, founded on the Report of the Commissioners, and embodying certain of their recommendations, would re quire a very great amount of thought and arrangement, in order to make it available for any purpose, and he did not see how a well-considered measure could possibly be prepared before the 16th instant. LORD LYNDHURST would suggest that at whatever time the measure alluded to might be prepared, it should be introduced into that, and not into the other House of Parliament. By that means much time might be saved. LORD BROUGHAM agreed with the proposal of his noble and learned Friend that the Bill had much better be introduced into that House than into the House of Commons. He was aware that there was one motive for introducing it into the other House, namely, the presence there of the learned Commissioners, upon whose most able and learned report the measure would be founded. He had given the subject his best consideration, but he was still inclined to think that, notwithstanding the presence of those learned persons in the other House, it would upon the whole be more expedient that the Bill should be introduced into their Lordships' House. LORD CRANWORTH fully concurred in the surprise which had been expressed that any one could imagine that a Bill could be framed before the 16th instant, founded on a report so laboured and extensive as that which had been presented. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the Bill would probably contain money clauses, which would render it not so fit to be introduced into that House as into the House of Commons. LORD BROUGHAM said, that no objection could arise on the ground that the Bill contained any money clauses, for it was quite common for money clauses to be omitted from Bills begun in the House of Lords, and to be afterwards inserted in the House of Commons. The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to assure his noble and learned Friends who had spoken on the subject that their suggestions should receive every respect and consideration; but he could not say at present whether he should recommend the Government to introduce the Bill into their Lordships' House. House adjourned to Monday next. WESTMINSTER BRIDGE. LORD SEYMOUR laid on the table the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the best and most convenient site for building a new bridge at Westminster. SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS said, he would take this occasion of asking the noble Lord, whether, in compliance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, confirmed as that recommendation had been by the Reports of two successive Committees of that House, he was at present prepared to bring in a Bill for transferring to the department over which he presided the property of the trust estates of Westminster bridge? LORD SEYMOUR said, the result of the Commission was, a Report recommending that a new bridge be constructed at Westminster. In accordance with the recommendation of that Report, he had given the regular notices, so that he might be enabled, if Parliament should seem to wish the matter to be carried out according to the recommendation of the Commission, to bring in a Bill for the purpose. In bringing in the Bill which would be necessary for constructing a new bridge, he intended to introduce some clauses to transfer the property of the Bridge Commissioners to the Commissioners of Works. He did not think it necessary to have separate Bills for the two objects, but it was desirable to wait till the Report should be in the hands of Members, in order to see whether it SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS begged to ask the noble Lord whether he could state at what period the Bill would be introduced? because it was very clear, that, if the Report of the Commissioners were carried into effect, no time ought to be lost in preparing and introducing such a Bill. He apprehended that there would be no objection whatever to the introduction of such a measure; and as the season would soon be advancing, and the necessary preparations ought to be made, he trusted the noble Lord would not delay it. LORD SEYMOUR said, he would give notice on an early day. Report ordered to be printed. OUTRAGE ON A BRITISH SUBJECT AT FLORENCE. and also to the Government of Tuscany LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in reply to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, I beg to state that the account which has appeared in the papers of this transaction, is, I believe, very nearly a correct one. There is no difference between the English account and the Austrian, except as to one or two points. It appears that the gentleman was walking LORD DUDLEY STUART said, he behind the band of the regiment, listening rose to put a question to the noble Lord at to the music, and that there was some obthe head of the Government, of which he struction in the street which brought him had given notice. There had appeared in all near the officer who was in command of the the public papers a statement with respect troop. The officer struck him with the flat to an outrage committed on an English of his sword, and he turned round and was gentleman travelling in Italy, at Florence, about to complain, when he was struck on by the Austrian soldiery stationed there. the face by another officer. Then, accordIt appeared that a gentleman named ing to his own account, he put up his hand Mather, happening to be in the street at to his face to cover it, and immediately the Florence when a regiment was passing, in-officer who had first struck him, and who advertently got into the way of the soldiers, and suddenly found himself struck with the flat of a sword by one of the officers. Turning round to ask what was the occasion of this assault, he received from some person a blow of the fist; and while he was reeling under the effects of that blow, and in the act of falling, the officer who first struck him, and who was in command of the troops, cut him down, inflicting a very severe wound upon his head. It did not actually fracture his skull, but it appeared that it was not far from so doing, and the unfortunate man was left weltering in his blood in the street. He was taken up by some passers-by, and carried to the hospital, where he remained for a considerable time; and it was proved that the wound he received was of a very serious, if not of a dangerous, nature. It was also stated that the gentleman representing this Government at the Court of Tuscany, the Secretary of Legation, made representations to the Austrian commanding officer, was in command of his troops, cut him down with a stroke of his sword. He bled very much, and was taken to the hospital. This is the English account. The Austrian account, so far as I understand it, is that, in the first place, it is the usage of the Austrian army not to allow any officer to be insulted when on duty in command of troops, and that some officers have been obliged to leave the army in consequence of having submitted to what was considered an outrage. That in this case the officer in command of a regiment, finding that he was prevented from proceeding at the head of it, owing to a person who was before him, and who, as he conceived, from the shape of his hat, was an Italian Liberal, thought that this person meant to insult him, and touched him with the flat of his sword, desiring him to get out of his way; that the person did not do so; that another officer then interfered and struck him on the face; that then the party (and this is the chief difference between the English decision of the Court of Exchequer, the Board of Inland Revenue might not institute another prosecution for the purpose of getting a reversal of the recent decision. The decision of the Court of Exchequer was, that a person might publish news without a stamp, provided the publication did not take place oftener than once a month; but the Board of Inland Revenue held that the publication of news at all, even only on one occasion, still rendered a work liable to the stamp duty. He begged to ask whether the Government intended to institute any fresh prosecutions, and also whether they intended to bring in a Bill for the purpose of settling the doubts which had arisen with reference to the Newspaper Stamp Act since the decision given by the Court of Exchequer? and Austrian accounts) put himself into an attitude of aggression, and, as the officer conceived, meant to insult him; and that then the officer struck him down with the sword, being, as he alleges, obliged by the rules of his service so to resent any insult offered to him at the head of his troops. However, the result was, that this gentleman, who was quietly walking between the band and the regiment, and did not intend any insult, was seriously injured, and was for some days in the hospital under medical treatment. It appears that the Austrian officers now say that they were mistaken, on their part, in presuming that an insult was intended by Mr. Mather. I should have thought, Sir, that when once aware that there was no intention of insulting the officer they would have been ready to offer any reparation in their power. However, it was not so, and the gentleman was told The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEhe must say he did not intend any insult QUER said, that it was impossible to give before any apology could be offered. This an answer in a case involving legal points he, of course refused, and demanded a unless notice of the precise nature of the judicial inquiry, which has been granted by question was given; and, as he had only the Tuscan Government, and is now pro- received a general notice of the right hon. ceeding. My noble Friend now at the Gentleman's intention to put some question head of the Foreign Office (Earl Granville), with reference to duties, he was not preas soon as he heard of the affair, and be-pared to say whether the right hon. Memfore receiving any report from Florence, ber had correctly stated the decision of wrote to desire that the circumstances the Court of Law. He might say, howshould be inquired into and redress required; but the British resident had already taken steps to comply with the request of the injured gentleman to procure a judicial investigation of inquiry. I have not yet heard the determination arrived at; but undoubtedly this gentleman is entitled to reparation for the injury he has sustained. BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE-THE STAMP ACT. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. During last year a prosecution was instituted by the Board of Inland Revenue against the publishers of a work called The Narrative of Current Events, edited by Mr. Charles Dickens. The Board of Inland Revenue having prosecuted Messrs. Bradbury and Evans for publishing that work without a stamp, the Court of Exchequer decided that it was not liable to the stamp duty. This decision, as he was informed, had not given satisfaction to the Board of Inland Revenue, who were still of opinion that monthly publications were liable to the duty, and the public were yet in doubt whether, in case they were to act upon the ever, that the Government had no intention at present of taking any steps with the view of reversing the decision of the Court of Exchequer. LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, that some particular points of the decision to which the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had referred, were now under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and no final determination could be come to by the Government on the subject until the law officers had given their opinion as to what course should be taken. THE QUEEN'S SPEECH-A SUPPLY. Queen's Speech referred. MR. HUME said, that the Motion was a very proper one, and he hoped that the House would agree to grant the supplies necessary. All that he asked was that the Estimates should be laid upon the table of the House at as early a period as possible, in order that there might be ample time for their consideration; and as it had been said that the militia were to be called out, and a considerable expense was to be incurred, he had to express a hope that the Government would not incur any expense on this account until the question had been discussed by the House as to the propriety of enrolling such a force. He believed himself that the time for the militia was now gone by, and that a force could be obtained which would be at once more efficient and more economical. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that no expense would be incurred on account of the militia until the Government had taken the opinion of the House upon the subject, with the exception merely of the charge of the inspection and drilling of the militia staff from time to time. Resolved, to Her Majesty." who benefited so largely by the profession would be willing to reform its abuses. Now he must say that that remark was unworthy the talents and character of the hon. Baronet, and he trusted that on reflection he would think that he was scarcely justified in making such an observation, for he was sure that it was not from any want of anxiety on the part of the members of the profession that the Court of Chancery had not long since been reformed. Every step that had been made towards its reform had been taken-as it almost necessarily must be-by members of the profession. He need not remind the House how long the names of Mackintosh and Romilly were associated with those legal reforms which they attempted from time to time without result, owing to the determined inertia of the House. Lord Brougham afterwards took the same cause in hand, and succeeded in effecting considerable reform; and since that time a number of Committees had been appointed on the motion of members of the profession in that House for the investigation of grievances connected with the administration of the law; and the Bill to which he now wished to call the attention of the House was founded upon the Report of a Committee of that House, appointed to consider the whole subject of the fees of the Courts of Law and Equity. This was the first of the Bills that were to be brought forward to remove the abuses of the Court of Chancery-it was but the first "That a Supply be granted COURT OF CHANCERY-SUITORS IN CHANCERY RELIEF BILL, The SOLICITOR GENERAL rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of the Suitors in the Court of Chancery. He was aware that some apology was required for prefacing by any remarks the introduction of a Bill which was not likely to meet with any objection; but he was anxious to take the first opportunity of stating briefly to the House the course of measures which it was in the contemplation of the Government to take for the amendment of those abuses and grievances which had for a long time existed in the Court of Chancery, in which, he was happy to say, so much interest of late years had been taken by that House, and to which such pointed allusion was made by the hon. Baronet who moved the Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Baronet was, perhaps, somewhat carried away by the warmth of his own feelings in respect to the case, in which, although not a party concerned, he was still deeply interested; but of that warmth he (the Solicitor General) was not disposed to complain, because he took it to be only a mark of that general discomfort and dissatisfaction which must be felt by a great proportion of the suitors of that Court with respect to the heavy expenses and long delays to which they were subjected. He thought, however, that he had a right to complain of the hon. Baronet's remark, that he had little hope that the numerous lawyers who occupied seats in that House would take steps for reforming the Court of Chancery, because it was not likely that those and had been prepared under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, to carry into full effect the recommendations of that Committee; and he believed that its result would be a most material relief to the suitors, not merely from the actual expense, but from the annoyance attendant upon the payment of the numerous fees now levied in that Court. This Bill would be followed by another, of a still more efficient character, founded on the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the whole subject of the Court of Chancery, which was laid upon the table on the first day of this Session; and he trusted that it would be found to afford very efficient relief-he did not say complete relief, for that could hardly be expected in the present state of the proceedings-but a very large and effective benefit and relief to all those who had the misfortune to be involved in litigation in that Court. It would be remembered that a Committee was appointed in 1846, on the Motion of his learned Friend, Mr. Watson, then Member for Kinsale, to | in the course of a year (on a rough calcuinquire into the subject of fees in the lation) to 333,000, each entailing the anCourts of Law and Equity; and that Com- noyance and trouble of a separate payment, mittee made a Report, upon which considerable reforms were adopted with respect to the system of fees in the Courts of Common Law. That Committee was renewed in 1847, in the present Parliament, upon the Motion of the present Master of the Rolls, and it had made two Reports; one of the evidence taken in 1848, and the other upon the remedies to be applied to remove existing abuses, in 1849. During the year 1850 it was in contemplation to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report, and the subject then occupied much of the attention of Lord Cottenham; but his unfortunate illness prevented his completing the work, which was therefore delayed until the appointment of the present Lord Chancellor. In consequence, however, of the arrear of business which had accumulated during the illness of Lord Cottenham, and of the numerous Bills which required attention during the last Session, the Lord Chancellor was not then able to turn his attention to the subject of the present Bill. During the recess, however, he had gone carefully through the Report of the Committee, the recommendations of which, with one unimportant exception (in which he thought the Lord Chancellor rightly differed from the Committee), were to be carried into effect by the present Bill, which would also contain some most important provisions not included in the Report. The suitors in the Court of Chancery complained of the whole fee system as being highly objectionable; and it had long since been strongly recommended by Committees of that House that the officers in the courts of justice should be paid by salaries and not by fees. Fees occasioned no inconsiderable trouble in the collection, besides the temptation which they offered to those who collected them, if they received them for their own use, to multiply the various forms on which they were payable; and, on the other hand, if they did not receive them, but paid them into a fee fund, there was serious temptation in connection with the accounting for them. Fees too were always an obstruction to reform, because at every step there was a "vested interest to be encountered. The Committec, on investigating the fees payable in the Court of Chancery, arrived at this startling result that the number of fees 'paid in the various offices had amounted in addition to the expense. Some of these fees, indeed, were of such a minute character that in one instance 2981. had been paid for fees in no fewer than 392 payments. There were ninety officers in receipt of these fees, and therefore that number of persons to be applied to for the purpose of making payments, and of these only forty accounted on affidavit for fees received by them, the fees received by the other fifty being merely accounted for by their superior officers, who stated that they had received a return from the inferior officer, which they believed to be correct. The Committee were of opinion that the whole of this system should be abolished, that all the officers should be paid by salary, and that some system should be instituted by which, instead of receiving these fees at various offices, the whole might be more economically collected in one payment, by which more effectual security might be obtained against any possible irregularities in the accounting for them. According to this Bill, the officers would in future be paid by salaries, and the fees would be levied by stamps, which would be issued to parties requiring them, and would obviously leave no room for fraud, and would not subject the parties to the necessity of applying at so many various offices to pay fees. The Committee found that the tax on suitors by fees amounted to no less than 150,0001. per annum, or, including the further sum they had to pay for office copies, to 180,000l. But the grievance did not rest here. The House must have heard several times of the "suitors' fund," of which the report of 1849 gave a full account, and which was formed in the following manner :-A large quantity of cash is at all times standing to the credit of the Accountant General in Chancery, which is not required at the particular moment to be invested in stock for the purposes of the cause out of which the deposit may have arisen: in fact, it very much represented the cash deposited by customers with a bank, and of which they had not required investment. The money was liable to be paid out by the Accountant General at any moment when demanded in the proper course of proceedings in the Court; but still the various transactions of the Court must always leave a large sum of money in his hands, not requiring to be invested. In |