MR. GLADSTONEI rise, Sir, for the purpose of answering a Question put to me last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and by other hon. Members, with regard to the course the Government propose to take with reference to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill. I have to say that it is not our intention to move the re-committal of the Bill in order to insert the clauses relating to Scotland and Ireland. The motive I will not state in detail. It is a very simple one and—though this is a sort of matter to which I am not accustomed to refer—was stated in very few words and very fairly in a leading article in one of the public journals this morning—namely, that it was better to have the greater certainty of an imperfect Bill than to run extended risks for the sake of a better and more complete Bill. I may say, with respect to that apprehension; I do not refer 400 solely, or indeed principally, to the risks which the Bill might run in the House of Lords. These risks I am not well able to appreciate. They might exist or they might not; but what I do refer to is this: it is quite evident, from the declarations of opinion we have already heard in this House, that if the re-commitment were proposed, it would be the subject of serious and probably lengthened debates, which, quite irrespectively of what the House of Lords might or might not do, would, I am afraid, on the question of time, be fatal to the Bill during the present Session. From these prudential motives we have thought it our duty to abandon our intention of re-committing the Bill.