out. As the House was probably aware, Endowed Schools were of two kinds, those with royal foundations and those founded by private individuals. A great many of those with royal foundations were founded in the reign of Edward VI. out of the spoils of the monasteries, and the principle he sought to establish with reference to those schools was that they were for the nation at large, and that no one should be excluded on account of religious belief. With regard to schools founded by private persons, he did not propose to touch them where it was distinctly proved that they were founded for any particular sect; but he proposed to make them available where there was no such restriction. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he wished to guard himself while consent. ing that the Bill be laid on the table from its being supposed that he concurred in it. Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the SIR GEORGE GREY said, that although the hour was late for a Committee on a disputed Bill, he still hoped, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee and fully investigated, the House might now proceed to a decision at once as to whether they should go into Committee or not. MR. COGAN said, that he protested against going into Committee on so important a Bill at half-past twelve o'clock at night, which seriously affected the rights of private property. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' The House divided :-Ayes 17; Noes 109 Majority 92. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, it was too late to proceed with the Bill at that hour. There were other orders on the paper waiting to be disposed of, and he therefore moved that the House do now adjourn. MR. SCULLY said, that he hoped the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to hon. Member would not persevere with his amend the Law respecting Endowed Schools. House resumed. Resolution reported. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN and Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS. Bill presented, and read 1o; to be read 20 on Wednesday 23rd July, and to be printed [Bill 167]. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL-[No. 145.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. COLONEL DICKSON moved that the House should go into Committee on this Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." MR. SCULLY said, that he objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour of the morning (half-past twelve), especially as no explanation had been given on the first or second reading of the Bill. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned. COLONEL DICKSON said, the objects of the Bill had been twice explained, and it had been sent to a Select Committee. He hoped the House would consent to go into the Bill at that comparatively early hour of the morning. COLONEL FRENCH said, that he hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill. Amendment, so that the House might be enabled to discuss a measure of that vast importance. No discussion had as yet been taken on this Bill. It was read a second time after a speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), who had charged him with wantonly obstructing his measure. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he would withdraw his Amendment. House in Committee. MR. SCULLY said, that he must resume his objections to the Bill, which he characterized as a measure of confiscation. He was, however, willing to discuss the provisions of the Bill, clause by clause. Clause 1 agreed to; as were also clauses 2 and 3. Clause 4 (Constitution of Elective Drainage Districts). MR. SCULLY said, that he objected to the words "one tenth," and proposed to substitute for them "one third," having reference to the number of proprietors that provisions of the Bill." were empowered to put in operation the Amendment negatived. Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive were also agreed to. House resumed. Committe report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS BILL. [BILL NO. 140.] SECOND READING DEFERRED. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HENNESSY said, that he proposed to defer it till the 9th of July. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday, the 9th day of July. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he would move that the order be discharged. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "That the " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for Second Reading be discharged," -instead thereof. SIR GEORGE GREY said that the hon. Member had taken a most unusual course. MR. WHALLEY begged to second the Motion, and expressed a hope that the House would at once put an end to the Bill for the present Session. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) intended to propose that the order be discharged, the proper course would be for him to make a Motion to that effect on the 9th July. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 66; Noes 26: Majority 40. Main Question put, and agreed to. Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 9th July. FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS BILL. Resolution reported. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he thought the proposed expenditure unwise because, assuming that there was danger from our neighbours, the object of the House should have been to get an iron squadron. But if £1,200,000 was to be spent, he contended that the mode of raising the money was inconvenient; and, again, there was no sufficient guarantee how the money was to be spent. There should be in the Bill not merely a schedule, but a specific estimate with every detail, and then, if hon. Members objected to a particular fort, they could discuss it with adequate information. There should also be a provision for a proper audit. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, he wished to be informed when the discussion would be taken on the subject. It was desirable that the House should have before it the results of experiments lately made, which had shown that the largest guns might be used on board Captain Coles' cupola ship without jar or detriment to the vessel, thus upsetting the theory that ships could not carry as large guns as forts. SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that he was anxious to introduce the Bill, which would be in exactly the same form as that of 1860, and he proposed to fix the second reading for the following Monday. MR. MONSELL said, the objection to in the same unsatisfactory form as the the Bill proposed was that it was exactly Bill of 1860. If the precedent were followed, for instance, the twenty-two works at Plymouth would all be classed together, account for each of the ports. and there would be no separate detailed MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, when the subject was last discussed, that it appeared to be the feeling of the House the schedule to the former Bill was a very unsatisfactory one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with a detailed estimate. of the facts and arguments upon which the | in London society, of considerable eminence measure was founded. It was necessary in literature, and deservedly popular with to give some account of the origin of the Inns of Court, because a great ignorance prevailed upon the subject. The common impression on the minds of several hon. Gentlemen with whom he had conversed on the subject was, that the Benchers of the Inns of Court were elected by the Bar. That impression was erroneous. There were four Inns of Court, namely, Lincoln's Inn, the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, and Gray's Inn. The origin of the four societies was somewhat obscure, and difficult to be traced; but of that it would be sufficient to state that, from the first, they were of the nature of voluntary societies, having never received charters of incorporation; nor, indeed, at the present day were they incorporated, their property being held through the intervention of trustees. It had, indeed, been argued that they were private societies, and that they ought therefore not to be interfered with by Parliament, being in the nature of clubs. The best answer to the argument was that they were now subject to the visitation of the judges, which would not be the case if they were merely private societies. But, moreover, they had of themselves submitted to inquiries by Royal Commissions, more especially in the year 1855. Further, they had many important public duties to perform-they held the keys to the legal profession, which was an avenue to the great offices of the State. The two Societies of the Temple stood on a peculiar ground, because their property had been confirmed to them by a charter of James I., which distinctly provided that it should be held for the benefit of the members of the legal profession, and the general advantage of those societies. The Inns of Court were governed by a sort of Committee, called "Benchers," or "Masters of the Bench.' It did not appear how the Benchers were originally chosen ; but at the present day they were self-elected, the body of the Bar having no share in their appointment. It was true that it had been usual to call to the Bench all those whom Her Majesty had made her counsel; but that practice was not invariably adhered to; and even if it were, that would not diminish the self-elected character of the governing body. He might illustrate his argument by referring to particular cases, although in doing so he had no desire to go into the merits of those cases. Some time ago a gentleman well known all those who enjoyed his acquaintance, was made a Queen's Counsel. In accordance with usage, he sent his patent to the Benchers of the Inner Temple, expecting, of course, that he should receive the usual honour of being called to the Bench. That was not done; and as one or two other persons were called to the Bench, this gentleman wrote to the treasurer, and asked the reason of his omission. To that letter he received no answer, except an acknowledg ment of its receipt and an intimation that it had been laid before the Benchers. Not satisfied, he wrote again, under the reign of a new treasurer, and as he obtained no explanation of his exclusion, which had then become notorious, he applied to the judges as visitors. The proceedings before the learned judges lasted a considerable time, and eventually those who had heard the case declared their unanimous opinion that the Benchers of the Inner Temple had a right to decide whether they would add to their number by any election, and which of the members of the Bar belonging to their society they would add to the Bench by such election. They said, however, that the mode of election by which a single black ball excluded was unreasonable, and strongly recommended the Benchers for the future to conduct their election on some more satisfactory principle. This decision fully established that the right of electing to the Bench was as arbitrary as that vested in the members of clubs. He was told that some change had been made in the mode of election in the Inner Temple, but both there and at the other Inns the power of exclusion had remained as arbitrary as at the time at which this decision was pronounced. The principles of the election were absolutely arbitrary self-election, perfect irresponsi bility, and perfect secrecy. These were principles which were not admissible according to the doctrines of constitutional liberty, and such as ought not to be acted upon by bodies having public functions such as those discharged by the Benchers of the Inns of Court, who could refuse either to call a gentleman to the Bar, or to give him, by admitting him to the Bench, the promotion which was a fair object of ambition. Such powers ought not to be exercised in the dark and without responsibility. The duties which the Benchers had to perform might be divided into two classes-first, those which related to the management of property belonging to the Inns; and secondly, others-namely the admission of students and their call to the Bar, and the maintenance of the discipline of the Bar. With regard to the management of the property, he need hardly disclaim any intention of imputing anything like dishonesty or corruption, but he was convinced that the property might have been better administered than it had been. No doubt, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), who appeared on that occasion like Cicero, pro domo sud, would quote from the Report of the Commission of 1855 an eloquent eulogium pronounced by the Commissioners upon the Benchers; but it ought to be remembered that the Commissioners were, with one or two exceptions, either Benchers or persons entirely sympathizing with them in feeling and opinion. In the year 1854 the rents of the Inner Temple amounted to £15,227, that Inn not being in the receipt of any dividends; while in the Middle Temple there were dividends to the extent of £1,644 a year. In the Inner Temple the payments from members amounted to £5,941; and in the Middle Temple to £2,875. At that time it appeared that the total annual income of the Inner Temple was £21,168, of the Middle Temple £10,192, of Lincoln's Inn £18,242, and of Gray's Inn £8,343. Now, all that property, though honestly managed, was not managed to the greatest advantage, and to that opinion the Commissioners themselves leant; for they said "It is impossible not to feel some disappointment that such a large amount of gross revenue as arises from the other three Inns of Court should leave so small an available net revenue; and having regard to the great value of the site of these institutions, a doubt arises whether some mode might not be devised of rendering their property more productive, without departing from the purposes for which these societies were formed." That was a clear intimation that there was room for improvement. The new buildings of the Temple had been erected in a manner which to some persons appeared to be very extravagant and quite unnecessary for the purposes of the society. The Temple Church had been so renovated, and so bedizened and bedecked that it had now very little interest for persons who were fond of historical, antiquarian, and artistic researches. The paintings inside contained most monstrous errors in history, because in them certain Kings of England were represented as the protectors of the Church and of the Templars, whom every one knew to have been the greatest antagonists of both Church and Templars. The tiles on the floor of the church represented what was supposed to be a Knight Templar, but the figure was holding his bridle in his right hand and flourishing his sword in his left. It seemed almost impossible that on such a small building the sum of £70,000 could have been expended. [Mr. BOVILL dissented.] Well, he should be very glad to hear that was not so; but certainly, at the period of the alterations, it was generally believed that that amount had been expended. At any rate, it was quite clear, that had the church been allowed to remain as it was, it would have been an interesting monument of antiquity instead of a specimen of the modern antique. Under the charter of King James the property was intended for the general benefit of the society, but the Benchers were the only persons who benefited by it. The barristers, it was true, might dine in the hall, but that privilege was not in any way an incident of residence in the Temple, and, practically, they were as much strangers as any shopkeepers in Fleet Street who might come in and take chambers. The Commissioners had recommended that the Inns of Court should be converted into a legal university; but that had not been done. Ordinary members of the Inns knew nothing as to their management. They saw buildings arise, and a vast expenditure going on; but if they asked any questions on the subject, they would be told to mind their own business. A very costly library had been lately erected in the Middle Temple, notwithstanding the declaration of the Benchers that they had very little money at their disposal; and that library, though much larger than the old one, did not afford accommodation for the books which the former edifice had contained. Hon. Members as they passed up or down the river must have noticed the building, which was a very tall one, entirely out of proportion, with an angel standing on its front holding a paper. Opinions were divided as to whether the figure was reading a brief or consulting an Act of Parliament; but some of the public had expressed an opinion, that regard being had to the site, the angel ought to be one of a different description. In honour of its principal promoter, the new library had acquired the name of "Little Bethel." It appeared to him that the great body of barristers from whom the principal resources of those the question. That Committee unani. mously arrived at conclusions opposed to those of the Benchers, and attributed the decision of that learned body to imperfect information, consequent on their inability to compel the attendance of necessary witnesses. That Report was signed by men in the position of Sir Lytton Bulwer, Mr. D'Eyncourt, General Peel, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hume, and other well-known Members. Sir De Lacy Evans, in a letter to Mr. Parkes, said— "The result, as far as I can recollect, was an unequivocal, unanimous opinion that the plea on which the Benchers had refused the admission of utterly unjust; and that the learned body had Mr. Harvey to the Bar was utterly unfounded, most grievously erred in their conduct to that Gentleman." societies came in the shape of rents and other ways had a fair right to some control over the expenditure, and one of the objects of his Bill was to give them that control, by enabling them to elect a certain number of Benchers, and to elect auditors, who should make a public audit of the accounts, and publish a balance-sheet showing the receipts and expenditure for the year; and he also proposed that the balancesheet should be suspended in the hall for the information of all the members of the society. With regard to the preliminary education for the profession, he believed that the Benchers were entitled to credit for the measures they had already taken, but a great deal still remained to be done. There was, moreover, a want of unity in the system which could not be remedied And General Peel wrote to Mr. Harveytill the Benchers agreed among themselves That he had great pleasure in stating, as a upon making the examinations on a call to member of that Committee, that the result of the Bar compulsory. Of course, if one Inn that inquiry exonerated him completely from the made examinations compulsory, and the charges that had been brought against him." others did not, loss of income must accrue It was manifest that those who made a to the Inn which did. Having disposed of charge would always be prepared with evithat part of the subject, he begged in the dence to support it; but a defendant was next place to call attention to the other placed in a different position, unless the duties belonging to the Benchers-namely, court could assist him. The jurisdiction of the admission of students, the power to call the Benchers was further objectionable, beto the Bar, and to refuse to call, the dis- cause they had not the power of taking cipline of the Bar, and especially the power evidence upon oath nor of punishing conof disbarring. He was convinced that the tempts. The hon. and learned Member time had arrived when a change should for Guildford would remember the incontake place, and it was for the House to veniences which had arisen in a recent determine whether the plan proposed by case, where a witness was actually collared him was satisfactory. In the first place in the most undignified manner by the the Benchers, having an important jurisdic- Benchers, and carried to a police station. tion, had not powers necessary to exercise [Mr. BoVILL: No, no.] Well, at least he it by summoning witnesses and compelling was given into the custody of a policeman, the production of documents. The Com- and as none of the Benchers knew what missioners of 1855, in their Report, said- charge to bring against him, he was of "It may be well worthy of consideration, how-necessity released. And yet, without the ever, whether greater powers should not be given powers which every court of justice ought to the Inns for conducting their inquiries, when to possess, this irresponsible tribunal exproceeding to determine judicially as to the admission of students to the Bar, or the disbarring of a barrister. Great hardship may arise to the party whose conduct is in question for want of any power to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of documents." The case of Mr. D. W. Harvey, for many years a member of that House, and now Chief Commissioner of the City Police, illustrated the defects in the jurisdiction of the Benchers. That gentleman entered as a student at the Inner Temple, kept all his terms, and fulfilled all the requirements essential to a call to the Bar. But as the Benchers, after a lengthened examination, refused to call him, a Parliamentary Committee was appointed in 1834 to investigate ercised authority and gave decisions af- |