ing these Courts. He was, how ever, in communication with Dr. Lushington on this subject, and the Chancery Commissioners, acting on the direction of Lord St. Leonards, were still engaged in their inquiry into it. There was one class of cases comprised in this department of the law, viz. matrimonial suits, to which he had given some attention, and had formed a decided opinion: that was, as to the power of divorcea matter which was also now undergoing the investigation of a Commission. He held that the proceeding in these cases, which was at present by a privilegium, or private statute, ought to be strictly of a judicial nature. Having now stated what subjects he should not at present deal with, it remained for him to mention those with which he did propose to deal. The first was, the transfer of land. After dwelling for some time on the difficulties with which this question was surrounded, arising from the necessity of identifying each parcel of land, and from the existing complication of titles, which was the real impediment to simplicity of transfer, the noble and learned Lord proceeded to explain the measure which he proposed to introduce, the scheme of which was in the main like that introduced by Lord Campbell, in 1851, making provision for the Registration of Titles. He would name an early day for the second reading of this Bill, refraining at present from entering into its details. Another Bill which he was about to introduce, was for the Regulation of Charitable Trusts, a subject on which more than one attempt at legislation had been made. There was another subject which he had taken in hand, and in a slight de

gree commenced; it was a work as important as any that could engage the attention of the Legislaturethis was the reform and consolidation of the Statute Law. Lord Cranworth proceeded to give some particulars of the present state of things in reference to the Public Acts. He had ascertained, that from the first year of Edward III. to the year 1844, there had been an aggregate number of statutes, exclusive of Irish and Scotch Acts, amounting to 14,408. They were all in a most repulsive form, being drawn up in a very perplexing style, and devoid of any classification. The Judges were supposed to be acquainted with all these laws, but, in fact, no human mind could master them, and ignorance had ceased to be a disgrace. Various attempts had been made, at different times, (of which Lord Cranworth gave some account,) to digest this mass of statutes; nothing, however, had as yet been done, except some cases of partial consolidation. He had examined the statutes of several recent years, to find out what proportion of them were of a permanent nature. The result was, that he estimated that not above onefourth of the whole number required to be dealt with in consolidation. He did not, therefore, consider the difficulties of the task to be by any means insurmountable. The method by which he proposed to commence the undertaking was this:-he had engaged Mr. B. Ker, and some other learned gentlemen, to examine the statutes at a particular period, to mark what were repealed or obsolete, and to distinguish what was local and temporary. The next step would be to reduce all the Acts on one subject into one statute, and thus prepare the way for a com

plete classification. All this would be done under his personal guidance and inspection. If the experiment succeeded, he did not despair eventually of realising some useful results, and of producing a work of which there would be no cause to be ashamed. He believed there was no reason why this proposed step should not form the foundation of that to which he had always looked forward as most desirable; a Code Victoria, which should put us on the same footing as the Code Napoleon had placed our neighbours. The measures now commenced would at all events be attended with some benefit at every stage of their progress. The noble and learned Lord concluded his speech by laying on the table a Bill for the Registration of Assurances in England, of which he then moved the first reading.

Lord St. Leonards admitted the validity of the Lord Chancellor's apology for not yet bringing forward any material measures of legal reform. Fusion of law and equity was a misnomer: confusion would be the result arrived at. With regard to the question of divorce, he was not surprised that it had not been touched upon. He had a very strong opinion, but would not express it upon that occasion. As regarded his noble friend's land registration measure, he professed himself its determined opponent, though he was to a certain extent a friend to the principle. There were far more pressing subjects on which their Lordships were agreed, and the time was not only premature, but most inappropriate, for this proposition. He had also grave apprehensions regarding the proposed digest of the statute law. The difficulty attending a digest of that

kind was greater than by possibility could be conceived. At the same time, he wished his observations to be understood simply as suggestions.

As

Lord Campbell complimented the Lord Chancellor on his lucid and able statement; assuring him that he would have acted most indiscreetly had he attended to the "absurd clamour" which orators and newspapers were making about the fusion of law and equity. He agreed that one court ought finally to decide every case, and that the suitor should not, as at present, be driven first to the court of equity, and then to the court of common law, to his exceeding discomfort and possible ruin. regarded trial by jury, to which the Lord Chancellor had cursorily alluded, there were matters--such, for instance, as concerned complicated accounts-for which the jury system was not intended, and was not adapted; but, certainly, in questions of libel or defamation, or actions involving facts as well as law, it was the best possible tribunal. In reference to the question of divorce, the Lord Chancellor was right in abstaining from dealing with it at present, especially as the report of the Commission would speedily appear. He approved of the measure for the registration of deeds, to which he thought the whole nation would be favourable.

In the House of Commons, on the 10th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement of the intended Ministerial measures of the present session. They proposed, he said, in the first place, to bring under the consideration of the House the estimates for the year, as soon as they could be prepared. With regard to the num

ber of men for the army, navy, and ordnance, there would be no increase voted before Christmas; the sum to be voted would exceed that of last year's estimate, for which increase satisfactory reasons would be given. The other measures of the Government were, first, a Bill to enable the Legislature of Canada to dispose of the Clergy Reserves; secondly, a Pilotage Bill, in introducing which the President of the Board of Trade would state the views of the Government regarding the various matters affecting the shipping interest; thirdly, the consideration of the disabilities of our Jewish fellow-subjects, with a view to their removal; fourthly, a proposal upon the important subject of education, which would tend to effect great improvement. The Government would likewise state the course they intended to adopt with reference to the reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and a Bill would be introduced upon the subject of education in Scotland. With respect to the transportation of criminals, it was the determination of Government to adhere to the intention of the late Ministry, and to send no more convicts to Australia; but in putting an end to this system it was necessary to look most attentively to the question of secondary punishments, respecting which the Government would have a proposal to make. Immediately after the Easter recess the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward his financial statement. The Lord Chancellor would, in a few days, state the measures contemplated for the improvement of the law; and the landlord and tenant questions in Ireland would be con

sidered in a Select Committee, to be so constituted as to afford a prospect of arriving at a final settlement of this much-agitated question. With regard to another important question-that of the representation of the people-he said, that an amendment of the present system was one of the measures in contemplation. Referring to his attempts to extend the franchise in 1845, 1850, and 1851, Lord John Russell took occasion to correct an erroneous impression which seemed to exist in some quarters, that he meditated a more comprehensive measure than those which he had then proposed. At present it was the opinion of the Government that the question required the most careful consideration and inquiry, and that it would be premature to legislate upon it during the present session of Parliament. While himself believing this course to be wise, he should consider it to be the duty of the Government, immediately after the commencement of the next session, to bring forward a measure upon the subject. Alluding, before sitting down, to the numerous complaints of bribery and corruption during the late elections, he expressed the desire of the Government to prevent such complaints for the future; but considered it advisable to await the reports of the several Committees now inquiring into those abuses, before taking any steps for their remedy.

On the 17th of February, Mr. Kinnaird moved an Address to the Queen on the subject of the persecution of the Protestants in Tuscany. The case of the Madiais, he observed, was not an isolated one. It indicated a religious reaction and a determination on the

part of the hierarchy of the Church of Rome to put down Protestantism by force, wherever the civil power enabled them to do so, and on this ground he asked the House to call upon Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the governments of Prussia and Holland, to remonstrate, not dictatorially or menacingly, but in the name of religion and humanity, with the Grand Duke. He gave the details of the arrest of several Florentines, for no other offence than reading the Bible, to show that the persecution was systematic; thousands, he said, were living in Tuscany under a reign of terror. The objection that, this being a matter between a government and its own subjects, we had no right to interfere, had been disposed of in the admirable despatch of Lord J. Russell, and precedents were not wanting for such interference.

Lord D. Stuart seconded the motion, and justified the peaceable interference of this country, which ought, he said, as a Protestant nation, to raise its voice against the persecution of Pro

testants.

Mr. Lucas could not agree with the resolution, because, according to the papers laid before the House, it did not state the facts of the case correctly. It appeared from those papers, that the Madiais had engaged in a system of proselytism at the bidding and instigation of foreign emissaries and agents. The sentence against them declared, that they had not disproved the facts alleged against them; that they had been guilty of the crime of proselytism by the instrumentality of money supplied from abroad-that was, from England. But, admitting, for the sake

of argument, that the Tuscan Government were to be blamed for punishing the Madiais for the crime of proselytism, what had been the conduct of this country in respect to Roman Catholics persecuted in different parts of the world? Who ever heard of our Secretary of State remonstrating with the Emperor of Russia for persecuting and torturing Roman Catholic nuns? Had not Lord Palmerston actually recommended the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland? The conduct of that noble Lord in the case of Tahiti was, he contended, exactly parallel with that of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. If he believed that the resolution expressed the facts of the case, he could not adopt it, because he never could recognise the doctrine that the exercise of humanity and philanthropy was to be all on one side. At this moment, acts of persecution were going on against Roman Catholics in Protestant countries quite as deserving of our interference as the case of the Madiais, and he should bring some of them before the House. The system of law in Sweden was quite as persecuting as that of Tuscany, and in Mecklenburgh Catholic priests had been conducted by the police across the frontier, for the crime of saying mass in private.

Lord J. Russell professed himself totally at a loss to know whether Mr. Lucas approved or not of persecution for religious opinions. His (Lord John's) conclusion was, that if a Protestant State should condemn persons because they had become Roman Catholics, or taught others to become so, such conduct was morally wrong. Mr. Lucas alleged, that the Madiais were punished, not

because they had become Protestants, but that, being Protestants, they endeavoured to convert others to Protestantism at the instigation of a foreign agent; whereas the foreign agent had left the country, and the Madiais had followed their own convictions. But, be it as the Tuscan tribunals said, that those individuals had endeavoured to induce Roman Catholics to read the Bible, and to believe that certain doctrines were not authorised by the Bible, he still said it was a moral crime to punish them. Mr. Lucas had said we were not justified in considering ourselves friends of religious liberty while we were indifferent to persecutions against Roman Catholics. But it could not be maintained that such was our general conduct; in no part of our dominions were persons punished for endeavouring to induce Protestants to become Roman Catholics. Having vindicated Lord Palmerston from the charge of countenancing religious persecution in Switzerland, the South Seas, and Sweden, he insisted that the Government of this country had done nothing which misbecame it, in the representations it had addressed to that of Tuscany. Persecution for religious opinions was odious and detestable, and the Government of England was justified in raising its voice against it. Holding this opinion, he recommended the House to leave this case in the hands of the Government. Its voice had been heard, and he trusted that, although the Madiais and others might suffer, the general opinion of the world would secure religious liberty.

Mr. Bowyer entered into the details of the case, and contended

that the Madiais had been convicted, not of a spiritual, but of a civil offence; he complained of the attacks which had been made in this country upon the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and deprecated discussions of this nature, which he said were calculated to give offence to foreign States, and disturb the harmony of nations.

Mr. Drummond observed that religious persecution, even by the Inquisition, was always justified by the plea that the offence was against civil society. Before the Roman Catholics were condemned, however, he recommended that we should look to our own conduct.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald regretted that the Roman Catholic clergy had been dragged into this discussion. So far from the law applied to the Madiais being that of the church, it was a law which had destroyed the power of the ecclesiastical tribunals. As a Roman Catholic, he disapproved of the punishment of these persons, and he should ever raise his voice against persecution of every kind.

Lord Stanley explained, and justified the course of proceeding adopted in this matter by the late Government.

Sir R. Inglis maintained that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, expressing the sentiments of a Protestant people, and armed with the moral force of a Protestant country, to represent peaceably, but firmly, the wrongs of our Protestant brethren, inflicted by a foreign sovereign.

Mr. Kennedy spoke shortly in opposition to the motion.

Lord Palmerston repelled the imputations cast upon him by Mr. Lucas, in respect to the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland,