§ VISCOUNT SANDONasked Mr. Attorney General, What course he intended to take as to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill? The Prime Minister had promised that no Business of a controversial character would be introduced at this late period of the Session.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he understood the promise of the Prime Minister was that there would not be introduced any Business that would give rise to any great amount of discussion. It was, however, absolutely necessary that this Bill should be passed before the 2nd of November, in some shape or other, to give jurisdiction for two Offices that had been abolished; and he did not think that went outside the pledge given by his right hon. Friend.
§ VISCOUNT SANDONasked when the Bill would be taken?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he understood that the matters in this Bill would raise very little discussion. They had struck out at present the clause dealing with patronage, as it was thought it would occasion considerable discussion. If any hon. Member suggested the postponement of any other portion of the Bill which could be postponed, the Government would be glad to entertain the suggestion. But, under the circumstances, he must bring on the Bill as early as he could.
§ MR. WARTONsuggested that the part of the measure which dealt with the Circuit arrangements and the grouping of counties should be postponed.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsupported this suggestion.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that portion of the Bill was rather in the hands of the Home Secretary; but he was aware of the feeling which existed in regard to it among certain Members, He would 38 communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, without, however, pledging himself as to the decision which might be come to upon it.