Commons Sitting of 24 February 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—George Melly, esquire, for Stoke-upon-Trent.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance.
Ordered—Weights and Measures (Metric System); Sea Fisheries; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance; Court of Session (Scotland); Court of Justiciary (Scotland).
First Reading—Sea Fisheries [42]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [43]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) [44]; Court of Session (Scotland) [45]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) [46].
Second Reading—Railways (Extension of Time)* [39].
Third Reading—Public Departments (Extra Receipts)* [26].

TURKEY—APPOINTMENT OF SIR WILLIAM WISEMAN.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that Commodore Sir William Wiseman, R.N., was appointed some months ago, by the Admiralty, to proceed to Constantinople to assist in the organization of the Turkish Fleet; and if this appointment has been approved by the Secretary of State to the Turkish Government; and if it is true that this Officer is not now to proceed to Turkey, in consequence of another British Officer of the Royal Navy having accepted the appointment without the sanction of the Government; and what steps the Government have taken to recall this Officer, to allow Sir William Wiseman to take up the duties he was appointed to last summer?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the facts of the case are these: In May of last year, the Turkish Government expressed a wish that a British Naval Officer of rank should be selected to act as one member of a Council of Naval Officers, a kind of Turkish Board of Admiralty, which has been lately established at Constantinople. The English Government saw no objection to that in principle, Turkey being at peace with all nations, and Sir William Wiseman was accordingly selected by the Admiralty for the post in question. But it was thought better that the appointment should remain in abeyance until the termination of the Cretan war. The Cretan war, however, still continues, though upon a reduced scale; and therefore Sir William Wiseman's appointment has not been carried out. In December last, it was reported at
1072
the Foreign Office that Captain Hobart, of the British Navy, was about to enter the Turkish service. I communicated with the Admiralty upon the subject; they made inquiry, and Captain Hobart was informed that in the event of his taking service under the Turkish Government, without the consent of the English Government, he could not be allowed to remain in the English Navy. A letter was shortly after received from Captain Hobart, stating that he had accepted the office of member of the Turkish Admiralty Board, and offering, in consequence, to resign his commission in Her Majesty's service. That resignation has, I understand, been accepted. No communication has been made to me by the Turkish Government upon the subject of Captain Hobart. I may add, in conclusion, that the appointment is one of a civil and not of a military character, and therefore Captain Hobart, in accepting it, has not violated any Law of this Country.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.—QUESTION.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, during the present Session, he intends to introduce a Bill to prevent the pollution of rivers; or, if he does not intend to legislate on the whole subject, if he will introduce a Bill to prevent solids being deposited in rivers?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that he was not prepared to legislate upon the subject during the present Session, as he did not think the inquiry into it had been sufficiently complete. The old Commission had been dissolved, but a new one would shortly be issued, and he therefore did not think it was advisable to legislate until that was done.

POSTAL.—MR. CHURCHWARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the report that the Government are in negotiation with Mr. Churchward in respect of a new contract for the Mail Service to France?
  MR. HUNT: No, Sir, there is no intention whatever.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to the statement made

  1073
  by the then Under Secretary, on the 15th May, 1866, that a sum of £600,000 was about to be lent to the Madras Irrigation Company on debentures, he is prepared to state what sums have been so advanced; upon what terms the advance is made; what is the state of account with that Company at the present date; and whether any net revenue has accrued from the work; and whether the chairman and directors of that Company are paid for their labours; and, if so, by whom?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the arrangement referred to was that the Government should advance a sum of £600,000 to the Madras Irrigation Company, for the purpose of enabling them to execute certain specified works, the money to be issued on debentures bearing 5 per cent interest, which was to be a first charge upon the profits of the Company. And there was this stipulation, that if within five years, from the 1st July, 1866, the work was not completed to the satisfaction of the local Government, the whole of the works should be made over to the Secretary of State, in exchange for an amount of Five per cent India Government Stock, equivalent at the price of the day to the actual amount expended. The amount which had been advanced as loan was £118,000, and the works were proceeding in accordance with the arrangement made. The Company were guaranteed by the Government to the extent that the Government made up the amount of interest on the capital of the Company to 5 per cent per annum. The amount of the capital of the Company—£1,000,000—was now all paid up, with the exception of some £100 or £200, and the amount paid by the Government between 1859, when the arrangement was made, to the present time was £311,918, as guaranteed interest, and in the last year the amount paid was £49,846 15 s. 3d., or about 5 per cent upon the amount of the capital called up. It was clear from this statement that the Company had not made any net revenue at present. The directors had hitherto been remunerated out of the capital called up, but now they were paid out of the advances obtained on loan.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, To postpone the Committee on the Public Schools Bill, the Report of the
  1074
  Grammar Schools Commission not having been yet issued?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that he did not propose to take the Committee on this Bill until the Report of the Commissioners was in the hands of Members. He proposed, however, to go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ on Thursday, in order to insert some material Amendments with a view to putting the Bill into a more complete shape.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. EWART, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the introduction into this country of the Metric System of Weights and Measures, said, that a Committee of that House which had sat upon the subject had reported in favour of such a measure. All the foreign Commissions likewise which had considered the subject had been favourable to a Bill like that which he now sought to introduce. He would leave the House to determine the period when the metrical system should be adopted. He thought himself that five years would be a sufficient time to allow in order to prepare the public for its adoption.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that he should not offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the introduction of the Bill; but he wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that this was one of the points which would be brought under the consideration of the Royal Commission at present sitting on the subject of Weights and Measures, and he thought it would be as well to defer any measure of this kind until that Commission had reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to establish the Metric System of Weights and Measures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EWART, Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. BAINES, Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN SMITH, and Mr. GRAVES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

SEA FISHERIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect a Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoining the British Islands and France, and to amend the Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries, said, it would probably be in the recollec-

  1075
  tion of the House that in the year 1866 Her Majesty the Queen and the Emperor of the French charged a Mixed Commission with the duty of preparing a revision of the Convention of the 3rd of August, 1839, and of the Regulations of June 23, 1843, relative to the fisheries in the seas between Great Britain and France. Of that Commission he had the honour of being one of the English Members. Associated with him was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), of whose unwearied assiduity he could not speak too highly, and who brought to the task the experience he had gained from having served for two years on the Royal Commission for inquiring into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom. He had also the valuable co-operation of Mr. Goulburn, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Customs, and of Captain Hore, naval attaché to the Embassy in Paris. The Commissioners on the part of France were presided over by M. Manceaux, Conseiller d'Etat, and he should be guilty of a grave omission if he failed to acknowledge the unvarying courtesy and fairness exhibited by the French Commissioners during their somewhat protracted discussions. The chief points for consideration were—first, how far the regulations respecting times and modes of fishing in the seas beyond the territorial limits of the two countries might be modified. Under the old Convention there was a vast number of minute and elaborate regulations respecting size of meshes and other particulars which had always remained a dead letter. These the Commissioners of each country immediately agreed to sweep away. But there was one point upon which there was considerable difference of opinion—namely, in reference to oyster fishing. Under the old Convention the English and French bound each other not to dredge for oysters in the common seas between the 30th of April and the 1st of September. Constant complaints had been made of the oppressive effects of this law on the oyster fishermen of England by excluding them from the oyster grounds at the most favourable period of the season. The French attached very great importance to the restriction, not for the sake of the deep sea beds, but as a means of enforcing more completely the close-time on their own shores. The English Commissioners obtained, however, the important concession of an extension of the time of open fishing for six weeks—
  1076
  namely, to the 15th of June. The next point was the conversion of the cumbrous regulations respecting the conduct of the fishermen into a short and simple police code, in order to preserve the peace of the sea, to prevent collisions between the fishermen of the two countries, and to bring offenders to justice with all possible despatch. He believed that a satisfactory settlement had been arrived at on this head, and the most effectual mode of carrying out these desirable objects was allowed to be the enforcing of a greater uniformity in the system of marking, numbering, and registering boats for the purpose of ready identification. The third point was a more precise definition of the geographical limits over which the regulations should extend. There was considerable uncertainty on this point under the old Convention; and, in consequence, there was more than once exhibited the unseemly spectacle of the fishermen defying the authorities to enforce regulations they had issued. The English Commissioners agreed that while the ordinary police regulations should extend as far as they were concerned to all the seas surrounding the British Islands, the restrictive clauses respecting oyster fishing should apply only to the Channel. He might here state that the Convention applied only to the common sea beyond the limits within which, by International usage, the territorial jurisdiction of each country prevailed; that was to say, generally speaking, at a distance of three miles from the coast, and that neither under the Convention nor by the Bill did they interfere with the coast fisheries of Ireland. The last point on which the Commissioners agreed was the permission to the fishermen of both countries to sell fish on terms of reciprocity in the ports of either country, subject only to such regulations as might be necessary for the protection of the revenue. There was a difficulty with regard to bringing this arrangement into immediate operation, in consequence of there being still a duty, though much reduced, on foreign fish in France. They found, however, a strong wish on the part of the French Commissioners that this obstacle might soon be swept away. The Bill he asked to introduce was framed chiefly for the purpose of carrying this Convention into effect. It would have been brought in earlier, but that, owing to unforeseen delays in ratification, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office was only

  1077
  able to lay the Convention on the table last Thursday. The opportunity had also been taken of consolidating and amending the laws respecting oyster fisheries in this country. As he hoped the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days, he would only say further that the copy which was distributed last Session was merely a rough draft for consideration which was circulated by the printer's mistake, and was very different from the Bill he now asked leave to introduce.
  GENERAL DUNNEhoped he had correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish fisheries would be protected by the Bill. If not, they would be thrown open by this Convention to foreign fishermen for the first time. Some of the oyster fisheries were much more distant from the coast than three miles, the limit from the shore, which had been reserved by the terms of the Convention—one of the oyster fisheries—namely, that of Arklow being nearly twenty miles from the coast. He hoped that they would not be thrown open to foreign fishermen, and that all the oyster fisheries of Ireland would be protected by the Bill. Indeed, he did not see why Ireland should have been mentioned in the Convention, seeing that while endangering her fishing interests by opening them to the French, no reciprocal advantage would be obained by her.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to carry into effect a Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoining the British Islands and France, and to amend the Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, and Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  GENERAL DUNNE, in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the illegal application of the surplus fees in the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, said, those fees which were levied for the registration of deeds in Ireland long since accumulated to a very large sum. There was a specific clause in the Act of Parliament which regulated this office, which enacted that the fees should be levied only to the extent of the requirements of the office. He contended that they had reached an amount
  1078
  beyond what was required for this purpose, and although, he believed, that for the last two years the amount of fees alone received may not have equalled the expenditure in the office; yet the actual receipts did so, and out of the large surplus which had accumulated little was required, and if the accounts were given fairly, an annual balance of receipt above expenditure would still be shown. He hoped the Committee he asked for would be agreed to by the Government, especially as its time would be taken up only for a few hours in inquiring into the subject.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that when the right hon. and gallant Member brought forward that question on two different occasions he had endeavoured to give him the only answer which the facts justified, although that answer did not seem to be satisfactory to him. He did not see what good would be attained by the appointment of the Committee now asked for. There were certain regulations for the disposal of those fees, and the Return which the right hon. and gallant Member had moved for would show how the fees had been applied. Whether they had been rightly applied or not was a question of law, and not one for a Committee. By the Act bearing on the subject the registrar had every three months to ascertain the amount obtained from the fees and the sums paid in salaries and expenses, and then by a certain day the balance or surplus remaining had to be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the credit of the Consolidated Fund. That had been done; but the Act went on to direct that certain duties were to be performed, the expense of which was to come out of the surplus fees, those duties comprising the preparation of certain indices and calendars, which it was desirable should be made out in a convenient shape. Years elapsed before the duties in question were performed. Since then, however, the indices and calendars had been prepared, extra clerks had been employed, and money had been voted to remunerate them. Therefore, what came into the Exchequer on the one hand was paid out of the Exchequer on the other; and, as a matter of equity, there was no fair ground of complaint against the present arrangement. He trusted that the Motion would not be pressed.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he must totally dissent from the statements and explanations of his hon. Friend. It was so far true that certain duties had been neglected, and

  1079
  an arrear of business had some time since occurred in the Registry of Deeds Office, but only because the Government, having a surplus of fees in their own hands, would not pay the clerks to do the work; and it had been a difficult matter to get a grant from them for the keeping up of the indices. He had himself at that time pressed it on the then Government, and in the end succeeded in obtaining from that large surplus a grant, which had enabled the clerks in the office to bring up the arrear of business. He denied that there was any right under the Act of Parliament to take more fees than were necessary for the requirements of the Registry Office, and it was expressly stated in the Act that no part of these fees should be considered part of the revenue of the country. Both the present and former Governments had very much neglected their duty in reference to this office, and the practice which had obtained was unjust and inequitable towards the people of Ireland. Any changes which the Treasury made, by the powers vested in it, for regulating the fees or personnel of this office, were to be stated to the House, and a Paper laid on the table explaining them in fourteen days after the meeting of the House, but no such statement has been made; yet his hon. Friend stated he had increased the staff and expense of the office. He saw, however, it would be useless to divide the House upon his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to 'inquire into the legal application of the surplus fines in the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Ireland,'"—(General Dunne,)
  —put, and negatived.

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE.—COMMITTEE.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee, referred to observations made on a previous evening by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who had stated, in the course of the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), that the proper course to adopt in matters of metropolitan finance was, that the Government should advise the House as to the mode in which the necessary funds should be obtained, and that then the management of the works should be allowed to devolve upon
  1080
  the local authorities. He (Lord John Maners) was ready to adopt that principle, and it was embodied in the Bill he was about to ask leave to bring in. He had, however, in the first place, to move that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order that the question might be submitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether the measure he proposed was identical with that which he brought forward last year, because the policy then attempted was most nequitable—it would enable the borrowing of money upon the securities of the Coal and Wine duties levied from the Metropolitan police area until the year 1888, and such a scheme ought not to be permitted. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) called attention to the principle, and said that, in his opinion, it was a financial system that would not be tolerated if embodied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. Last year he (Mr. Labouchere) gave notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, and he would certainly persevere in that course unless the area were limited, for the Metropolitan police area was one established for an entirely different purpose. The Bill would press very hard upon manufacturers and others within this area, and therefore he was determined to oppose it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to further continue and appropriate the London Coal and Wine Duties.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

METROPOLIS GAS BILLS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed that inquiries with reference to the Gas Companies of the Metropolis had been conducted with great advantage to the public, and moved that all the Bills relating to Gas Companies in the Metropolis be referred to a Select Committee of ten Members, five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Motion agreed to.

  1081
  Ordered, That all Bills relating to Gas Companies in the Metropolis be referred to a Select Committee of Five Members.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Session, and the judicial arrangements in the Superior Court of Scotland, said, Mr. Speaker: I propose to explain to the House shortly the provisions of the Bill; but it would be improper for me to go into details, because many of them are technical. My object in bringing the Bill so soon before the House is that the country generally may have an opportunity of considering the alterations which are proposed by the measure. The Court of Session consists of thirteen Judges, five of whom discharge the duties which are performed by the English Judges at Nisi Prius and Chambers, and there are two Divisions which constitute Courts of Appeal for judgments of a single Judge. Now, complaints have been made that delay has existed in the disposal of cases in the Court of Session. I admit that in the Divisions to which most of the cases are sent there has been delay, which results in this—that nearly twelve months of late have elapsed before the cases are disposed of. That is an amount of delay which I believe is not peculiar to the Courts in Scotland, but which also exists in the Common Law Courts here. It is, of course, very desirable to expedite the decision of cases, and the object of the measure which I now ask leave to bring in is to effect that desirable result. Now, what is proposed to be done is to extend the sittings of the Courts to some extent, and also to make certain arrangements which will enable the Courts to dispose of cases at times when they do not at present come before them. One of the ways in which this contemplated improvement is to be effected is, that instead of taking up what are called teind cases, with reference to teinds and stipends to be paid to ministers as at present on alternate Wednesdays, and which have the effect of occupying the Court and interrupting the proceedings of the day; instead of this, the Bill provides that no such cases shall be taken up on Wednesdays. It provides that on Mondays—on which days the Criminal Court at present sits—teind cases shall be taken up by the Court; and to enable the Courts to effect this, and also to get
  1082
  throuh other business, it is proposed that there shall sit in the High Court of Justiciary only one Judge, as in criminal trials on circuit, thus setting free two Judges, who are now occupied in trying cases which are very often of very trifling importance. Liberty, however, is reserved for the bringing in other Judges in cases of great importance. It is further proposed that there shall be a Court of Appeal or Review, which shall review the judgments of the Sheriffs upon matters of proof. There are matters of such general importance, involving points of law, that it is proposed that all such cases—cases depending upon proof—may be sent to this Court of Appeal. It is believed that this will tend to relieve very much the Court from the restriction which it very frequently finds in the disposing of cases which are caused by the long arguments upon proofs; and it is thought that by removing these from the general roll, and by sending them to a new court to be constituted, and to sit on Mondays, a considerable portion of arrears will be got rid rid of. I think that these provisions will afford considerable facilities for the disposing of cases before the Court. There is also a provision in the Bill which has been acted upon to a considerable extent already—namely, that whenever cases are in arrear to the extent of two months—that it to say, when cases which have been brought in at the commencement of May are not disposed of at the beginning of July—that then the Court shall have extra sittings to reduce the arrear, or to dispose of it, so that there shall not be cases in arrear more than two months. I hope that there will not be even that arrear in a short time. This provision, I have no doubt, will give satisfaction to the country; and I know that the Judges are very anxious to bring about such a result as I have stated. So much in reference to the arrangements of the Courts. Now, a few words in reference to the changes in procedure. The following matters are contemplated:—The period within which a party must come into Court and plead will be shortened considerably; the improved facilities of communication between one part of the country and another by railway will enable us to do that with safety. Then, in addition, it is proposed that decrees in absence may be taken by the agent or solicitor and the party without the intervention of counsel; that where the party has not within the proper time given in a defence,

  1083
  that then by application to the Judge a decree may be obtained without any further expense. It is also proposed that decrees in absence, which at present are liable to be opened up and reviewed within a period of forty years, shall be made final within a much shorter time, that is to say if personal service has been made upon the party, and notice been given to him after judgment has been had, that it will be enforced. I think that this is a remedy which will be considered of importance, for I venture to say that no one will contend that a decree should be subject to be reviewed for a period of forty years. It is also proposed, with a view to expedite cases, that pleading shall be given in, according to statutory terms provided in the Act, and that there shall not be an extension of the period for pleading, except on cause shown to the satisfaction of the Judge. The next provision is one which I regard as of very great importance. It is one for the bringing of the parties together, in order that they may come to the point at once, and decide whether there is to be proof in the case, and, if so, whether the proof is to be taken before a jury or before a Judge. Our Courts differ from the Common Law Courts of England in this respect—that it is not necessary in all cases, though it is in certain cases, to have them tried by jury. Our Courts rather partake of the nature of Equity Courts, and we are in this position, that the Court of Session exercises both a common law and equity jurisdiction. I think that this has given satisfaction, and there is no desire whatever for a separation of the two branches of the law. Well, then, there is to be a meeting before the Lord Ordinary for the purpose of agreeing as to whether the parties shall renounce proof. I should hope it will be in the power of the Judge to dispose of the case there. If it is to be tried by jury, he shall give instructions to that effect; or, if it it is to be tried before himself, he shall direct that it shall so take place. I cannot but think that the parties coming together in this way, will tend to bring to a point an important question, and thus shorten the case. The greater part of the delay in the preparation of a cause is owing to the absence of such a proceeding The next matter provided for is, that it will be in the power of the Judge to allow of an amendment of the record. In on Act passed in the year 1825, after taking the best advice that could be offered,
  1084
  including some of the most eminent English lawyers, provision was made that what is called the record should be closed, and that no amendment should be allowed. It is proposed in this Act that power shall be given to the Court, whenever sufficient cause shall be shown, to allow an amendment of the record up to the last moment, so that justice may not be defeated by a technicality; care, however, being taken that no improper advantage shall be taken by the party in fault, and that he shall pay such costs as the Court may think proper. This provision will, I think, be found of advantage; it is copied from some recent provisions made for England, and which, I understand, have been found to work well. At present it is necessary to appeal against any judgment of a single Judge, to one of the Inner Divisions within twenty-one days after judgment has been pronounced; and yet if the party allows twenty-one days to elapse, he would run great risk of it being afterwards held that he was foreclosed from bringing the case under review at all. This rule has not been very much abused for the purpose of delay, but parties are frequently driven to the Inner House, in order to avoid the risk of being foreclosed, and some delay does occur in those cases. What is proposed now is, that it shall not be necesssary to appeal from any judgment of a single Judge until the whole cause has been finally disposed of; but at the same time power is given to a single Judge, when he thinks it would be of importance to have a decision of the Inner House upon any judgment of his. If he gives leave, the interim Judge's opinion may be submitted for review by the Inner House. Another provision which is made to relieve the Judges to some extent, is that it shall be competent for the clerk of the Judge to dispose of what are called unopposed motions without the intervention of counsel, and without going to the Judge. If the motion be opposed, then the Judge will be appealed to, and whoever is found to be in the wrong will be liable to costs. There is also power given to abandon before a jury, equivalent to the right of non-suit in England. That is a power, which, I think, ought to exist in Scotland; and we propose that the Bill should contain provision to that effect. I now come to a question which I regard as one of general importance, and the proposition which I have embodied in the Bill is somewhat of a bold character. I allude to

  1085
  a matter relative to jury trials. I may explain to the House that according to the old law of Scotland, in criminal cases, which still subsists, the case is always submitted to a jury consisting of fifteen, one-third of whom must be special jurors, and the other ten what are called common jurors. Now, I do not propose to interfere with that arrangement so far as the Criminal Courts are concerned; I do not propose to interfere with the constitution of the juries in the Criminal Court, although the number of jurymen in that class of cases in Scotland is larger than in England. Trial by jury in the Criminal Courts has hitherto worked so well that I am unwilling to disturb a system of such long standing. There is a great difference, however, in the case of trial by jury in the Civil Courts. The plan of jury trial in these Courts was instituted under a statute passed in the year 1815; but I do not know how it is, but it is the fact, that that mode of trial has not flourished in the estimation of the people. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable amount of the unpopularity attaching to the Civil Court generally arising from the existence of trial by jury. Indeed, until I had conferred with persons interested in the subject, and who gave me suggestions as to the framing of the present measure, I had no idea that the public feeling against this mode of trial was so strong. Many gentlemen who are amongst the most successful practitioners before the Court of Session, and gentlemen connected with the legal profession in Glasgow, expressed their desire to see jury trial in civil cases abolished altogether in Scotland. I am not prepared to go that length. I could not say that it would be right to abolish the system absolutely; but it is essential that some modification of it should be introduced. An Act was passed in the year 1866 which gave the Court a discretion to withdraw a case from the decision of a jury, and allow the judges to take evidence in a certain class of cases which were formerly handed over to a jury. That Act has worked very well. There are, however, a class of cases—such as cases of libel—which I very much doubt whether it would be proper to remove from the cognizance of juries. Admitting, therefore, that the system of trial by jury in civil cases is in an unsatisfactory state, and that the existence of such a system deters many persons from appealing to the Court of Session for settlement of disputes, still I am not, as I
  1086
  have already stated, prepared to go the length of abandoning the system altogether. I propose rather to amend in some respects the number of jurymen who sit upon cases. In the Civil Court there are at present twelve. This number I propose to reduce to seven. I am of opinion that twelve is too large a number to deal properly with such complicated cases as frequently came before them, and that owing to this reason the jurymen are not so well able to consult together, nor are they so manageable as they would be if the number were reduced to seven. I am confident that if this alteration be effected, the result will, in the generality of cases, be much more satisfactory. I further propose, in accordance with the old law of Scotland, which divided jurymen into special and common—that of these seven two should be special jurymen and the remaining five common jurymen. This method has been found to work well in the Criminal Courts of Scotland, and I think it should be extended to the Civil Courts. There are, I regret to say, a great number of exemptions from serving on juries, established in favour of gentlemen who would otherwise form part of the special jury list; and the result is that there is a very small jury list from which to select. Now, I venture to think that it is both for the interest of the public and of these gentlemen themselves that there should be a large and fair selection of persons who have hitherto been exempted from serving upon juries. I therefore propose to abolish all exemptions, except in the cases of ministers of religion and medical men. I would not even exempt the members of my own profession, unless it should be thought by the public that they would make the worst jurymen possible. The public have the power to challenge lawyers from serving on juries if they see fit to do so; but if the public desire to exempt the profession altogether, I am sure those who would then be exempted would not be disposed to quarrel over the matter. All I desire is that the matter shall be fairly considered by the country. Passing to another portion of the measure, I must acknowledge that a great deal of delay arises from the system of remitting cases to accountants, who, however, have not the power of enforcing their orders. Now I propose to give them the power of enforcing their orders, which should be peremptory. The result will be to expedite this class of cases before the account-

  1087
  ants, which at present occupy such a long time, owing to the parties themselves causing delay by not obeying the orders of the accountants, who, as I have intimated, have no power to enforce them. Then, again, there is what is called the Bill Chamber branch of the Court of Session, in which there is only one Judge who has the power of granting injunctions in certain cases; but it sometimes happens that before the injunction can be issued, the act threatened is done, and there is no remedy. I accordingly propose that the Chamber Judge shall have the power of ordering restoration against the act so done. There are certain further facilities given in the Bill for a more economical reviewing of proceedings in consequence of death or otherwise, and provision is made for affording facilities with regard to the payments that are to be made upon pleadings called fee-fund dues. The Bill of course contains a large number of details, all of which, I believe, will tend to improve the mode of procedure in the Court of Session. I feel confident that the measure will be recognized as conferring a benefit upon the legal profession as well as upon the public, because the profession can have but one interest, and that is, to make the Court of Session as popular and as accessible as possible. The interests of the public and the legal profession are in this respect coincident with it. It is not my intention to hurry the Bill through the House. I have brought it in at this early period of the Session in order that its provisions be carefully considered by the legal bodies before the commencement of the vacation of the Scotch Court. The custom has always been to submit such Bills to the consideration of the advocates and solicitors practising before the Court. It is quite possible that I may receive suggestions from these bodies which I may be able to incorporate with the measure when the Bill goes into Committee. As it is, I believe that the Bill will remedy almost all the grievances that at present exist. I beg to be understood that it will give me the greatest pleasure to receive any suggestion with the view of making the measure more efficient. I will not detain the House with any further remarks, but will simply move for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that some time ago a Committee of the House had recommended that the number of Scotch Judges, which was at present thir-
  1088
  teen, should be reduced to eleven. He would like to know whether the Bill contained any provision for carrying this recommendation into effect? His own opinion was that they might very easily take two Judges away from Scotland and add them to England, more especially in consideration of the recent proposal to increase the work of the English Judges by adding to the functions which they already discharged.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he had not the advantage of hearing all that fell from the lips of the learned Lord just now; but he had been previously put in possession of the particulars of the Bill which his right hon. and learned Friend proposed to produce; and he had given it the fullest consideration, and could say without hesitation that he considered it to be a great improvement upon the existing state of things. Whether in some respects his right hon. and learned Friend had not gone further than might seem well to some persons, it was not necessary that he should say. He proposed among other things, what he (Mr. Moncreiff) thought would be an exceedingly valuable change. He meant that he proposed to use the Lords Ordinary, by forming them into a new and separate Court, for the purpose of hearing appeals from the Sheriffs. He thought that a very desirable arrangement, and he hoped he would make the Court so constituted an independent Court in the proper sense of the term. He thought it would be extremely undesirable that the calling of such a Court into existence should be made dependent upon the heads of the Court in the Inner House. It was not desirable that Lords Ordinary should be in a subordinate position in any sense, and he felt quite satisfied that if he constituted that Court for the purpose of hearing appeals from the Sheriff Court, with an independent jurisdiction, he would confer an immense boon, and a great despatch of the pleas of the Sheriff Court. The delay that at present took place in the Court of Session acted as a discouragement, and prevented people appealing from the decision of the Sheriffs. That was one observation upon the Bill. A second was—and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give it serious attention—with regard to the trials by jury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some observations with reference to the unpopularity of jury trials in civil causes. It was quite true that the system

  1089
  had not achieved all the success which was expected. There might be many reasons for that. When the jury trial was first introduced into the Civil Courts of Scotland, before the case went to the jury the proposition would be simplified and put into a single question or more questions than the jury were to decide. Eventually, however, from this state of things arose one of the great incumberances of the system. There were many reasons why he should ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bestow his serious consideration on this matter—quite certain that his proposal to create a Court of Appeal was a step in the right direction. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), it might be quite true that the nominal judicial staff of England did not bear the same proportion to the population as did that of Scotland; but in England the Judges were assisted by an immense staff of Law Officers, and the salaries of those officers in the Supreme Courts amounted to more than the salaries of the Judges in Scotland. They had chief-clerks in England who did a great deal of the work done by the Judges themselves in Scotland, and therefore they could not compare the mere number of Judges in the one country with that in the other. A good deal had been said lately about the falling off in the business of the Scotch Courts. It was true, he believed, that the number of cases introduced into the Court of Session was smaller than it was some years ago; but, in the first instance, his own experience led him to say—and he thought his right hon. and learned Friend would agree with him—that the class of cases were far higher and more important than they were when they first joined the bar. The reason of that had been the establishment of minor Courts, which had absorbed and swallowed up the cases of smaller importance. The Sheriffs' Courts not being like the English County Courts, they were competent in all questions, whatever their amount; and they had consequently absorbed a good deal of the minor business which in former days went before the higher Courts. Some hon. Gentlemen were, he knew, anxious to disturb that jurisdiction, but he trusted that it would not be disturbed. In regard to the complaints of delay which had so frequently been made, there were no doubt matters which had created a good deal of delay in isolated cases. That there were great delays in many cases was true; but
  1090
  when you came to represent that as the normal state of the Court, it was a totally different matter. There were, however, two matters in the administration of the Judicature Act which might very well be changed. The first was the practice of holding that the Inner House ought not to decide any question which had not been previously decided by the Outer. That, he thought, was a mistake. He did not think that the intention of the Judicature Act ever was that the Inner House should only act as a court of review upon the cases decided by the Lords Ordinary. The other matter was the principle which had been acted upon, he thought too closely, of refusing to decide the law until the facts of the case had been established. He thought that was unfortunate. It was more a practice than a principle; but he knew many cases in which the Court had refused to go into the law of the case until the facts had been proved, when it might well have done so. With these few observations he felt bound to give his right hon. and learned Friend his support in the Bill which he asked leave bring in.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he must tender his thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having undertaken the difficult task of reforming the Court of Session, both in its expense and procedure. Certainly, he was not disposed to complain that he had not adopted a bolder or more decided course. The proposals made had the appearance of meeting many of the complaints as to the practical working of the system. One complaint of the public was that the Court sat only half the year, that its sittings were so short, that certain days in the week were blank, that a considerable portion of its time was taken up with formal business which might be disposed of by clerks, and this evil was proposed to be got rid of by continued sittings at the end of each session. He thought the efficient business of the Court might be disposed of by a smaller number of Judges; and the question having been raised, he believed public opinion would support some such reform. He did not, however, say that any great saving would arise to the public; for if higher duties were thrown on the Court of Session salaries must be raised, and the result would very probaby be the number of appeals would be diminished. With regard to the juries, he doubted very much whether a reduction in the number of jurymen would be attended with any advantage. The system

  1091
  was, in fact, altogether condemned by public opinion. As far as he himself was concerned, he should be reluctant to see trial by jury abolished; but the subject was one that demanded the most serious inquiry. It was certainly worth inquiring how a system which had worked so well in England had so signally failed in Scotland. He doubted whether the best way to ascertain the difficulties of the case, or to satisfy the public mind, was to lay the provisions of the Bill before the legal profession, and suggested that the subject should be referred to a Commission or a Committee.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that since the Lord Advocate was inviting suggestions, he should take leave to make one, and commence with the subject which had been touched upon by his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke)—namely, the time of the Judges. There was a general opinion in Edinburgh, and, indeed, all over Scotland, that the time of the Judges was not fully employed. For example, the Criminal Courts sat on Monday but only occasionally, and that day was therefore declared a blank day for all the Courts. The Inner House Judges remained at home, and the Judge Ordinaries remained at home, and this in itself constituted an abuse that ought to be remedied in any new Bill. Another point was that in 1828 a rule was made for the convenience of the senior counsel employed at the bar—and he might say the senior counsel were in number (according to an article in the Journal of Jurisprudence of last month) just about equal to, or, in fact, rather fewer than, the number of the Judges—that the Courts of the single Judges should sit at ten o'clock in the morning, and the Supreme Courts should sit at eleven o'clock, or practically a quarter past eleven, in order that these counsel might be able to attend to their briefs in both Courts; and the practice of these Courts was to adjourn for half-an-hour for lunch in the course of the day, and to rise finally at four o'clock, the Courts of the single Judges rising at three o'clock. It was clearly impossible to do much business in the course of so short a a time. He would, therefore, suggest that all the Courts should sit at ten o'clock; and this would, in his opinion, be a great advantage to the suitors and all parties interested. The present was not a right state of things, according to the general opinion of Scotland; he did not speak of the legal profession, but of the general public, which
  1092
  included poor litigants, who got into court, and had to pay largely in order to get out again. He would recommend the learned Lord not to be so solicitous about the opinion of the legal profession, who had opposed nearly all legal reforms in their Courts. He would rather appeal to the general good feeling of the public, and the good sense of the Lord Advocate to frame a good Bill. There was another matter he begged leave to suggest. Reference had been made to accounts. A great grievance in Scotland was, that the Courts, in place of doing something themselves, or by their chief clerks, in reference to matters of account, as was the case in England, remitted the business to Professional Accountants, who had in many cases to decide, not only as to the form of the accounts, but of the principle of law upon which they should be founded—becoming in fact accountant and Judge in one. The effect of this frequently was, that when an account was produced it was objected, not that it was a bad account as such, but that it was bad in regard to the principle on which it was constructed; and then the Court frequently ordered other accounts. The expense of doing this was something enormous. He (Mr. M'Laren) knew a case in which the accountants' bills amounted to nearly £3,000. Exceptions were often taken to the principle on which the account was made out—in other words, to the accountant's view of the law. The Court might find that the objection was well founded, and the subject was remitted to another accountant to make a report, and in that way an enormous expense was incurred. He therefore hoped that some provision would be introduced into the Bill, which would provide for the accountants being instructed at any rate as to the law which they had to frame their report upon before their account was prepared.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: A question has been put to me as to whether it is purposed to reduce the number of Judges according to the terms of the recommendations made by a Committee which sat upon this subject, I presume in 1840. That, I think, is the last Committee which sat. Now, I will read the following extract which I find in the Report of that Committee. It is to this effect, that any reduction in the number of the Lords Ordinary seems at present impossible. The Committee state, further, that they had considered the administration of justice with the view of ascertaining whether the num-

  1093
  ber of Judges could be reduced, and that they were not prepared to recommend such a reduction. It is plain, therefore, that the Committee of the House of Commons did not recommend any diminution in the number. [Mr. M'LAREN: I think there has been a Report since that time.] I think not. So far as I am personally concerned, I really do not care about the matter; and if it should be found necessary hereafter to reduce the number of Judges, they can be reduced; but I scarcely think that it would be proper to reduce the number when the complaint is that they do not get through their work. It is said that a good deal of litigation is kept out of the Court in consequence of there not being that rapidity of discussion which there ought to be; and we must expect a considerable increase in the business if a satisfactory result is arrived at. I am not prepared to say that the number of Judges ought to be diminished. It is impossible on an occasion like this to go into all the details of a Bill which embraces upwards of 100 clauses, without subjecting the House to inconvenience; but I may say that many of the objections which have been raised this evening are provided for in the Bill itself. For instance, it is said that the Court ought to meet at ten o'clock. There is a provision in the Bill to that effect. As to the remark that delay arises in consequence of consulting the convenience of senior counsel, I can only say that in 1865 I brought that question before the Faculty, when a proposition was agreed to that no case should be adjourned for the convenience of counsel engaged in another Court. My hon. Friend opposite, who is at the head of our bar, gave me every assistance in the matter, and when the proposition was submitted to the Court it was agreed to; and from that day there has been considerable improvement in the administration of the Courts—the cases being better disposed of than they were before, and with less delay. I hope, therefore, it will be understood that I have no desire to protect the interests of the senior counsel at the expense of the public; nor do I wish to limit consideration of the Bill to legal bodies, because I know that commercial bodies also take great interest in the measure The Bill contains a provision, that on what are called their blank days the Lords Ordinary shall not dispose of motions or hear argumentative discussions, but sit for taking proofs on trials by jury. I have had conversation with one of the learned Judges,
  1094
  who devotes the greatest energy to the discharge of his duties, and he says that these blank days are frequently the busiest for judicial work, and for this reason, that he then considers the arguments which came before him during the hearing of a cause, before giving the decision which it is his duty to pronounce. The Equity Courts of England, which more nearly approach the Courts of Scotland, meet for three weeks, and then adjourn for a week, and have sittings after term. The Scotch Courts sit for two sessions without interruption, and have only a fortnight's recess at Christmas. These weeks of vacation have provided means by which the Equity Judges are enabled to prepare their judgments, frequently requiring a great deal of consideration before they are pronounced. I have, however, put in a proviso—although I have done so with some hesitation—that in their blank day the Outer House Judges shall make use of that day for the purpose of taking proofs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Session and the Judicial Arrangements in the Superior Courts of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]

COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, said, the object of it was to lessen the expense of conducting criminal prosecutions, and also to diminish the inconvenience of requiring witnesses to attend in certain cases. He might inform the House that a system had existed for some time in Scotland of having what were called two diets, or two days of appearance, on the first of which the accused was asked whether he pleaded guilty or not. If he pleaded guilty he received his punishment, and then there was no necessity for summoning witnesses. If he did not plead guilty, then he had to appear on the second day and witnesses were summoned to attend. That had effected a considerable saving; and he proposed that the same system should be established in the Justiciary Court, so that probably in one-half the cases it would not be necessary to have the witnesses present. They hoped to save in that way about £3,000

  1095
  a year. Another provision of the Bill was that the jury instead of being cited as at present by an officer called the Messenger at Arms, which involved considerable expense, should be summoned by registered letter through the Post Office—a system which would be equally effective and much more economical. It was also proposed that, instead of three or more Judges sitting in a Criminal Court on a Monday to dispose of cases, one would be sufficient, as was the case on Circuit. If any important matter were to arise, it would be in the power of the Court to call in assistance. In this way the Judges would be made more available for the work it was proposed to give them.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. ATTORNRY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Members holding Contracts (Sir Sydney Waterlow), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Annuity Tax (Edinburgh; Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment*.
First Reading—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment* [18].

ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH) BILL.

  LEAVE.
  MR. M'LAREN, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax, or Ministers' Money, in the parish of Canongate, within Edinburgh, and to make other provisions respecting the stipend of the Minister in that parish, I and of the Ministers in the city parishes said, he understood that the usual courtesy would be extended to him on that occasion, and that no opposition would be offered to the introduction of the Bill. He would not therefore take up the time of the House by making any statement in reference to the details of the measure he introduced. He would merely take that opportunity of saying, in one sentence, that the Bill he now asked leave to bring in had been modified considerably from that of last year; and that he hoped that when the Bill was printed, and hon. Members had made themselves acquainted with its contents, those who opposed the Bill of last year would be induced to give the present Bill their hearty support. The Bill had now been approved by twenty-eight members of the Magistracy and Town Council of Edinburgh—only six having voted against it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  ME. MILLERseconded the Motion.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he must express his astonishment, after what took place last Session, when the Bill introduced by the hon. Member was thrown out, after considerable debate in the House, that he should now propose to bring in a measure nearly identical in character with that which he formerly proposed. Last year, immediately after the rejection of that Bill, the hon. Member for Edinburgh introduced a second measure to abolish the municipal rate of a Id. in the pound, imposed by the Act of 1860, as a compensation to the city creditors in lieu of seat rents handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was a right and proper thing to do, if it were generally admitted that the city's funds were in such a state that they could well afford to do without the Id., but he (Sir Graham Montgomery) contended that the proper course for the hon. Member to pursue now was to bring in a Bill to

  281
  abolish the 3d. police rate or clerieopolice tax as it was sometimes called, which was very much complained of in regard to the city of Edinburgh, and more especially as he thought it would be found on inquiry that they already had a surplus fund, which could be devoted to the purpose to which the 3d.. tax was at present applied. He did think it would be much fairer to all parties if, instead of attempting to upset the settlement come to in 1860 by an Act to be passed this Session, the hon. Member would propose to abolish the rate which was so much objected to; and he understood the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh were quite in a position to do without it. He did trust the House would not consent to any meddling with the Bonds of Annuity which were imposed by the Act of 1860 upon the city of Edinburgh, and which Bonds of Annuity were a security to the ministers of the Church for the payment of their stipends. Considering everything that took place on the last occasion on which the Bill was introduced, he trusted the House would not consent to any proposition of that nature. With regard to the Annuity Tax on the Canongate, which he admitted at that moment might be considered as a small grievance, it was to be remembered that the whole amount of that tax was only £250 a year. It used to be levied at the rate of 10 d.. in the pound. It was now only levied at the rate of 3d.. The Session before last, a Bill, which lie had the honour of introducing, was passed reducing that tax from 10 d. to 3d., and in passing which, he must confess, he was to a great extent assisted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and was much indebted to him for that assistance. Having, however, had the honour of carrying that Bill through Parliament, and constituting, as it did in his opinion, a settlement of the question as regarded the Canongate, he must confess he should be very much opposed to disturbing the two settlements to which he had alluded—namely, the settlement under the Act of 1860, and that of the Session before last with respect to the Canongate; for he believed that most, if not all, of the parties who were concerned in the matter generally understood that that measure was to be a settlement of the question. He did say, then, that it was not right that the hon. Member should attempt, Session after Session, to legislate in the
  282
  manner he now proposed in regard to that question.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he might, perhaps, be permitted to say a word in explanation of the objection made by the hon. Baronet. His speech had shown the inconvenience of discussing a Bill with the provisions of which he must be necessarily unacquainted, since it had not yet been printed. If the hon. Baronet had waited until the Bill had been printed and in the hands of Members, he would have found that one of the clauses proposed to reduce the 3d.. rate, to effect which object the hon. Baronet had recommended him to ask for leave to introduce a Bill. The hon. Baronet was in error in supposing that lie (Mr. M'Laren) was at all instrumental in having laid on the 1d.. municipal rate in 1860. On the contrary, he was one of the 14,000 petitioners against that rate being laid on; and it was carried through the House in spite of the strenuous opposition of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, whom he had now the honour to represent. Again, as to the Annuity Tax Bill of last year, the hon. Baronet had himself furnished the strongest argument for its repeal; for, if a direct tax, levied in a parish containing 12,000 inhabitants, produced only £250 a-year, surely no better reason could be advanced for abolishing so pitiful a tax for the support of the Church, and which was the cause of much annoyance to persons who did not belong to the Church: for in that parish a very large proportion of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics. It was one of the poorest parishes in the city, and he said it was as unjust to levy £300 as it was to levy £3,000, so far as the principle was concerned. No doubt he was very willing the Session before last to assist in reducing the rate from l0 d.. to 3d.; but, at the same time, he informed the right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) who had charge of the Bill, that although he assented to that measure as an instalment, it should not prevent him from endeavouring to obtain the repeal of the whole tax during the present or any future Session; and the Lord Advocate said that he quite understood that to be his (Mr. M'Laren's) position. He thought those facts were all that it was necessary for him to state until he asked the House to read the Bill a second time; and he hoped meanwhile that the hon. Baronet,

  283
  when he had seen the clauses of the measure, would be much better pleased with it than he now seemed to be. He would tell him that if he should feel disposed to appeal to the Town Council of Edinburgh for information in regard to the question of finance, he would find that his information was altogether erroneous, and that no such adequate surplus as he had referred to, at the present moment, existed.
  COLONEL SYKESremarked that this was another instance of the evil from which they had suffered on the preceding evening, by which the time of the House was taken up in prematurely discussing measures with the particulars of which they were unacquainted.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax, or Ministers' Money, in the parish of Canongate, within Edinburgh, and to make other provisions respecting the stipend of the Minister in that parish, and of the Ministers in the city parishes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAREN, Mr. MILLER, and Mr. CRUM EWING.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'MAHON, Bill for the assimilation of the Law for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland to that of England, by substituting a Union Rating for the present system of Rating by Electoral Divisions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'MAHON, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. DOWNING, and Mr. STACPOOLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.