Commons Sitting of 11 June 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [June 10] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Special Bails* [162].
Second. Reading— Greenwich Hospital* [105].
Committee—Bankruptcy [97]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Park Gate Chapel Marriages, &c* [111]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [157–161]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) (re-comm.)* [158–161]; (£2,300,000) Exchequer Bonds* [l52]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Supplemental* [146]; Titles of Religious Congregations Act Extension * [156]; Public Parks (Ireland)* [147].
Third Reading—Diplomatic Salaries, &c* [118]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental* [76] and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

DIPLOMATIC PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a first-class pension of £1,700 can be awarded to a Diplomatist after a service of fifteen years; and whether a fourth-class pension of £700 cannot now be awarded after a service of twenty-five years, or an actual service of ten years, from date of first commission?
MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, as there appeared to have been some misapprehension on this subject, he would state the conditions under which diplomatic pensions were at present granted. Under
1590
the Act 2 & 3 Will, IV., c. 116, no diplomatic pension could be granted to any person until after the expiration of fifteen years from the date of the first commission, nor until after he should have actually served ton years. But, if, in the course of these ten years, he had served three years as Ambassador at some foreign Court, he would be entitled to receive a first-class pension of £1,700. A fourth-class pension, not exceeding £700 a year, might be granted fifteen years after the date of the first commission; if the person had actually served ten years at some foreign Court. In the whole diplomatic service there were but four persons enjoying a first-class pension. One of these was Lord Napier, whose pension was at present in abeyance owing to his being Governor of Madras; he had served twenty-five years, five years of which as Ambassador. Another was Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, whose service commenced in 1807, and terminated in 1858; he had been more than five years an Ambassador before his pension was granted. The third was Lord Cowley, who entered the diplomatic service in 1824, and retired in 1867, having served continuously for forty-three years, of which thirteen and a-half as Ambassador, before his pension was granted. The last was Sir Henry Bulwer, who entered the diplomatic service in 1827, and retired in 1865, after thirty-eight years' service, of which seven were passed as Ambassador. Although under the Act diplomatists were entitled to pensions for the terms he had stated, practically the length of service for which pensions were granted was much more extensive than was required by the Act. After fifteen years, according to the Act, a man became entitled to a pension; practically the time was twenty years, because during the first four years of service he received no pay, nor had he a commission.

ARMY—TROOPS AT THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether orders have been sent to the Mauritius to diminish the medical staff, although the Inspector of Hospitals has reported that in consequence of the reappearance of fever in a more virulent form than last year he needs additional

  1591
  assistance. The number of Men and Officers of the 86th Regiment fit for duty out of the total strength of the regiment on the 6th of May, when the mail left; and, whether the free Commissions for competition at Sandhurst for the half year have been reduced to twenty, and on what grounds?
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War did not contemplate any immediate reduction of the medical staff at the Mauritius. With respect to the number of men and officers fit for duty he had to stats that, on the 1st of May, 1869, there were sixteen officers and 493 men fit for duty in that place. At the Cape of Good Hope there were four officers and ninety-two men; three men were in prison, and there were two officers and twenty-one men on the sick list, making a total of twenty-two officers and 609 men. With regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, he had to state that the number of commissions to be competed for was settled by the exigencies of the service and the number of cadets who were prepared to compete. At the forthcoming examination that number would be reduced to twenty.

  ARMY—AMMUNITION FOR THE VOLUNTEERS. —QUESTION.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War. Whether he can state why no ammunition has been supplied to the Battalion of Galloway Rifle Volunteers this season,, although the usual requisition was made for it over two months ago?
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that the reason was because the whole Volunteer Force was being supplied with new ammunition, and that this required some time to accomplish. The various corps throughout the country were being supplied, as the ammunition was made, and no delay further than was absolutely necessary would occur.

INDIA—PUNJAUB TENANCY ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. DENISONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India. Whether the Secretary of State has it in contemplation to disallow the Punjaub Tenancy Act passed in October last at a Council held at Simla, the said
  1592
  Act never having been previously published in the Gazette as required by Law, so that the intention of the Legislature might become generally known; and, whether the Governor General, in Legislative Council, has it in contemplation to amend or rescind certain provisions in the said Act which, have caused dissatisfaction among the landed proprietors of the Punjaub?
  MR. GRANT DUFF, in reply, said, no resolution of any sort or kind had been come to by the Home Government with regard to the Punjaub Tenancy Act. Nor had they heard anything whatever about any intention on the part of the Governor General to amend or rescind any provisions of that Act in his Legislative Council.

BANKRUPTCY (recommitted) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
BANKRUPTCY (recommitted) BILL.

  [BILL. 97.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 53 (Status of undischarged bankrupt).
  MR. PEEKsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper with reference to the third sub-section, which provided that if a bankrupt should not at the close of five years have obtained an order of discharge, any balance of his debts remaining unpaid should be deemed a debt for which he would be liable. He begged to move to leave out lines 9 to 20 inclusive, and insert—
  "3. At anytime within six years from the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy any creditor having reason to believe that the bankrupt has acquired any property may apply to the Court, and the Court may require the bankrupt to file such accounts as it may deem necessary, and may order that the whole or a portion of such after-acquired property may be divided amongst the creditors; but in making such order the Court shall also take into consideration any liabilities incurred by the bankrupt since the date of his bankruptcy."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, this matter had been already settled, and to adopt the Amendment would conflict with the provisions of the Bill already agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MORLEY MR. MORLEY moved that three years be the term mentioned in this subsection instead of five.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Audit by Comptroller in Bankruptcy).
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 20. line 25, to leave out, "The accounts of the trustee shall be audited by," and insert—
  " The trustee having had his accounts audited by the committee of inspection shall, within ten days thereafter, forward the certified statement to—"
  His object was still further to assimilate the measure to the Scottish system.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the point had been well considered. If this plan of auditing were found advisable, the change could be made by the operation of the Court. There would be difficulty in the rural districts of obtaining an efficient audit. The advantages in favour of an independent audit were so great that he must press the provision of the Bill.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he thought the commercial community would find the hurry of business so great in many cases, that creditors would not look after estates in the way they did in Scotland. Under these circumstances it would be desirable to have an officer to look after the auditing of the accounts, and the Lord Chancellor might have power to appoint one or two auditors for the country, in addition to the auditor resident in London.
  MR. WESTsaid, he was afraid that Clause 54, as it stood, could hardly be worked. In order to have an efficient audit, it would be necessary to send all the books to the auditor, and that would be utterly impracticable. It might be a proper suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should have power to appoint other auditors; but he hoped the Committee would be careful not to fall into the evils they were trying to get rid of.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, it was quite right there should be an independent audit, but that involved personal attendance as well as the bringing of books, and those things Mould be very trouble- some in large bankruptcies, and ex-pensive in small ones. He suggested that, in the present registrars and treasurers of the County Courts there was the machinery for auditing accounts ready to hand, and they were persons far removed from collusion with trustees or inspectors.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he would
  1594
  point out that the Amendment, in providing that accounts should be first audited by the committee of inspection and a statement then sent to the Comptroller, did not interfere with the independence of that officer, who would still have full powers to call the trustee to account. The introduction of the Amendment would make the Bill work conformably with the Scotch system, which had been found very satisfactory in its operation in this respect.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had been fully considered by the Bankruptcy Committee, who started with a strong feeling in favour of local audit, but after long and anxious inquiry came to the conclusion that this would be impracticable. A person could not be appointed to a responsible duty unless he was separated from personal relations with those about him. The County Court treasurers were not in very great favour with the Treasury, which was abolishing them as fast as it could, because they did not perform their work to its satisfaction. The registrars could not be charged with, the business of auditing, which would be entirely foreign to their duties. There must be some one who would systematically bring every trustee to account, and see that his statements were rendered at certain times. When assignees managed estates they seemed to think it their duty to keep as much in their hands as possible and pay as little to the creditors; and throughout the country it was found that these gentlemen retained an enormous sum in their possession. A recurrence of that evil must be prevented, and the only way to prevent it was to have times appointed when the trustees should deliver a balance-sheet to a responsible officer, who should see whether the trustee improperly retained any funds in his own hands. The advantage of having one person who would receive all the accounts, be able to examine and compare them, and report upon any impropriety was extremely great. Every account that he received would enable him to deal more efficiently with every other, so that he would be able by the knowledge he thus acquired to detect improprieties even without receiving any particular information, it was not to be supposed that every trustee should come to London with the bankrupt's

  1595
  books and accounts; all he would have to do would be to prepare a balance- sheet with such vouchers as the Lord Chancellor might from time to time direct, to show that he had collected and paid away all the moneys that fairly belonged to the bankrupt's estate, just as was already done in reference to the estates of deceased persons.
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he trusted the clause would be allowed to stand. He very much preferred to have one central authority, who should have the control of this department, with an undivided responsibility resting upon him. He saw no difficulty whatever in a central authority carrying on the audit of the accounts, either by having them transmitted to London, or, if necessary, by sending down one of his assistants to inspect the accounts whenever any difficulty might arise.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he could not understand the jealousy which seemed to be shown of the committee of inspection, winch was a committee of creditors. What objection could there be to their examining the accounts of their own servant, the trustee? The inspectors would understand the local bearings of the case, and should they differ from the trustee, the Comptroller in Bankruptcy would have to decide between them. The committee of inspection would positively be an assistance to the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. Were hon. Gentlemen aware that there had been more than 8,000 bankruptcies last year? There was no wish to do away with the proposed Comptroller, but let them assist him and save him from a great amount of unnecessary labour.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if that was the object, the Amendment was unfortunately worded. The clause was that the accounts of the trustee should be audited by an officer to be called the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. But the hon. Member proposed, instead, that the trustee, having had his accounts audited by the committee of inspection, should within ten days thereafter forward a statement to an officer to be called the Comptroller in Bankruptcy. As he understood the Amendment it amounted to this—that the accounts should be audited by the committee of inspection and afterwards re audited by the Comptroller. What the clause proposed to secure was an independent
  1596
  audit, but the Amendment struck at an. independent audit altogether.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he could not help thinking the Amendment very useful. He understood it to mean that the auditor in London should act something like an Appellate Court, to decide in cases whore disputes might arise. It was not meant that there should be a double audit. As to the suggestion that there might be collusion between the committee of inspection and the trustee, it had been a prominent point in the measure that the committee of inspection were to be a controlling body, and it was too much to suppose that in auditing the accounts they would be guilty of any collusion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he considered that the object of an efficient audit would be best secured by the clause as it stood. section 19 gave the committee of inspection full power over the trustee, who would be bound to submit his accounts for their inspection; but it was important that there should be undivided responsibility with regard to the audit, and therefore it was proposed to entrust that duty to the Comptroller in London.
  MR. WESTsaid, he thought it absolutely necessary that an auditor should have all the original documents before him. If they were to be sent to and from London at each declaration of dividend, much inconvenience would arise, and, indeed, he did not believe that, in this respect, the Bill would be workable.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was undesirable to decide hastily on this clause, and he thought it would be better to postpone its consideration, unless the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow would work at all well; but. at the same time, it was a question whether the Attorney General might not put more in detail the particulars relating to the audit. The appointment of an officer in Scotland corresponding to the Comptroller to be appointed under this Bill had had the most beneficial results. He would suggest that it might be desirable to add to the clause words giving power to the Court to regulate, by general orders, the

  1597
  audit by the committee of inspection as well as by the Comptroller.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the primary jurisdiction, would be given to Courts sitting in the country, as it would be most inconvenient to have all books and papers sent up to London.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment before them, but he was willing to postpone the present clause, and the subsequent clauses down to Clause 58, in order to bring up new clauses giving effect to the wish of the Committee.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought that Clauses 19 and 54. as amended by him, would meet all that the representatives of the commercial community could desire in that matter.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would consider the expediency of having, in addition to the audit by the committee of inspection, some further supervision of the accounts by an independent local officer. There would be a difficulty in sending up all books aud papers to a Comptroller in London, who, moreover, would have an enormous number of cases to deal with.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that he was executor twelve years ago to a large mercantile estate, and the books and papers of that estate, which were afterwards sold for waste paper, weighed thirteen tons.
  ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought the central authority must be placed some-where, and where better than in London, and he felt that the appointment of the Comptroller in Bankruptcy would be a most useful one.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that new clauses should be brought up carrying out what was desired.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would assent to this arrangement.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 54 struck out.
  Clauses 55 to 58 postponed.
  Clause 59 (Court to consist of London Court and County Courts).
  MR. NORWOODsaid, the clause provided that the County Courts throughout the kingdom should have jurisdiction in Bankruptcy matters, except in London. He thought that the County Courts in
  1598
  London should have concurrent jurisdiction in these matters. He proposed to omit the clause with the view of bringing up a new one.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he entertained a strong objection to the constitution of the Court as proposed by the Bill. In Mr. Commissioner Bacon they had, as one of the London Commissioners in Bankruptcy, a gentleman of very long experience and practice, whose knowledge on the subject was, perhaps, greater than that possessed by any other man living. Having been so fortunate as to secure the services of such a gentleman, it was now proposed by this Bill to pension him off, he presumed on his full salary, for the purpose of appointing a Common Law Judge as Chief judge in Bankruptcy. This arrangement was the more unintelligible because the business in Bankruptcy had hitherto been transacted much more in the Court of Chancery than in the Courts of Common Law. The Bill, too, proposed that the Judge appointed to this office should be relieved from the duties which he usually performed in his own Court, although the duties required from the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy might be very light. He should propose certain Amendments in the clause, which would have the effect of enabling the Government, without pensioning the best man they could find, to avail themselves of his services; and, on a vacancy arising, to assign to one of the existing Judges, either at Common Law or at Equity, the duties of this office without at the same time removing him from his own Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would accept that portion of his hon. and learned Friend's (Sir Roundell Palmer's) Amendment which permitted the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy still to perform the duties attaching to his present office. The question of appointing Equity as well as Common Law Judges had received much consideration. It was now admitted that the evil of our judicial system was that separation of jurisdictions which had led to the hard line of demarcation between the Courts of Common Law and Chancery, and between those Courts again and the Ecclesiastical Courts. The object of all law reformers was therefore to fuse jurisdictions, and the Government had, in consequence, come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to appoint any-

  1599
  one to this office who was not attached to one of the Courts either of Common Law or Equity. The Lord Chancellor had considered whether the Vice Chancellors could perform this work, but he came to the conclusion that they were too much occupied already to allow of their undertaking these duties, while there did not appear to him to be sufficient reason for the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor. In connection, however, with the Election Petitions three new Judges had been recently appointed, and their time, with the exception of those periods when Election Petitions required to be tried, was comparatively unoccupied. It was therefore thought advisable to make this appointment from among the Common Law Judges, a plan which would be attended by saving to the country. Power was taken to appoint another Judge if it was found necessary, but he hoped it would not be required. Again, it was proposed, for the first time, to introduce into the Court of Bankruptcy the principle of trial by jury. In order to prevent delay, if upon a trader debtor summons the debt was disputed, the Bankruptcy Judge might immediately summon a special or common jury and proceed to try the case. Somehow or another, though the system of trial by jury was not entirely unknown in Courts of Chancery, it had never flourished there. In fact, he was told that one of the Vice Chancellors had lately ordered the jury-box to be removed from his Court as a nuisance. It would not be fair to call upon Mr. Commissioner Bacon—though the Government did not fail to recognize his abilities and talents—at his advanced age, to inaugurate an entirely new system, of practice.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Government appeared to be animated by extravagance on the one hand and severe economy on the other, for, while they rejected the services of existing Commissioners in London, they proposed to relegate the management of Bankruptcy business in the country to the County Court Judges, without making any addition to their salaries. He thought that the case of the County Court Judges required to be reviewed, as the position they now occupied was not what it should be, considering the important business they now had to perform, having Equity and Admiralty jurisdiction. He thought
  1600
  the Bankruptcy business of the metropolis might be given to the County Courts, and the appellate jurisdiction to the Common Law Courts.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he did not see the necessity for appointing a new Judge at all. There was little appellate business now, and he doubted whether it would be increased by the Bill. The Chief Judge would therefore be a mere Commissioner in Bankruptcy under another name, and the Judges of the Superior Courts would not thank the Government for putting one of their number in such a position. The present tribunal for purposes of appeal could not be improved, and as to the framing of new rules and orders, no one could do that better than the present appellate Judges—the Lords Justices. To appoint a Chief Judge in Bankruptcy was a waste of judicial power as well as of money, but if such an appointment were made—though himself a practitioner in the Common Law Courts—he thought if any preference was shown in the matter, the Judge in Bankruptcy should be taken from the Chancery Bar. He should not, however, oppose the clause, because he should be reluctant to do anything to impede the progress of the Bill.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he considered that Mr. Commissioner Bacon was the fittest person for the new office, and that learned Gentleman was certainly not unversed in trial by jury, as he had had at one time a large business at some of the most important sessions in the country. There was considerable danger of overworking the County Court Judges, and thus depriving their Courts of the character of being the poor man's Courts, where speedy justice could be had. He could not help thinking it far bettor to increase the number of County Court Judges than to increase the salaries of the present County Court Judges. Registrars and other officers would have to be pensioned, and their services and experience might be retained and a saving secured by making them Assistant Judges.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he must protest against the restriction in the selection of the Chief Judge as an unfair exclusion of the Chancery Bar, which amounted to a stigma upon those who were by legal training and experience quite as qualified to administer

  1601
  Bankruptcy Law as the members of the Common Law Bar.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must remind the Committee that they were really discussing the 61st clause on the 59th clause. The creation and constitution of these Courts was the point under discussion. But referring to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), the question was whether one of the existing Common Law Judges or a Commissioner in Bankruptcy should be made the Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court. There was no intention to cast any slight on Mr. Bacon. He had no doubt the learned Commissioner would be able to discharge the duties with satisfaction to everyone, but the question was, how they could make the best use of the present judicial force of the country. The Government would have no objection to say the Lord Chancellor might appoint a Vice Chancellor as the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy; but the time of the Vice Chancellors was fully ococcupied, while there were three Common Law Judges who had practically nothing to do. The election petitions having been disposed of, they were enjoying leisure; and surely it was better to avail ourselves of their services than to appoint a new Judge. It was now deemed unadvisable to invest Judges with exclusive jurisdiction, as tending to narrowness, and it was generally held that the administration of the whole law ought to be committed to all the Judges equally. It was a question between the appointment of a new superior Judge and the utilization of the existing superior Judges.
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, the issue raised was wider than that; it was a question whether an able man should be turned loose with a pension or his services should be utilized?
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it was unnecessary for the Government to disclaim intending any slight upon the Court of Chancery or on Mr. Commissioner Bacon, who was not so superhuman that he would be indignant at having his full salary forced upon him with nothing to do. Indeed, Mr. Bacon would, no doubt, as far as he was personally concerned, feel his one year's services very highly appreciated by the handsome proposals made by the Government. It was in the public interest alone that
  1602
  he (Sir Roundell Palmer) objected to the proposed arrangement. With regard to the three unoccupied Judges in the Common Law Courts, it was a poor excuse for paying off the best man at the county's command, without getting the benefit of his services, to say that there were three Common Law Judges who had nothing to do now that the election petitions were over. It would be some comfort to the Solicitor General, however cold, that if the recommendations of the Judicature Commission were carried out these three Judges would have work to fill up their spare time.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, the London traders would prefer having the clause as it stood at present. They did not wish to be sent to the County Courts in the various metropolitan districts. He hoped the Government would not be induced to give up in any degree the principle of appointing a Chief Judge. With reference to the appeals to the Lords Justices, it was impossible to make one under a cost of about £60.
  MR. JESSELsaid, he thought it right, from his long professional acquaintance with Mr. Commissioner Bacon, that he should bear his humble testimony to the great qualifications of that gentleman for the office of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, qualifications greater than almost any man at the Bar could be expected to possess, owing to his long career in the practice of the Law of Bankruptcy, and to the fact that he was acquainted with jury cases as well as with equity. Now, to put such a man on the shelf after one year, and give him his full salary, was the very reverse of economy, while, on the other hand, by securing him at his present salary we might secure the services of the best man, without its costing the country a single farthing. It would be most desirable that he should act as a Judge of the First Instance. If we were to have a Court of Appeal it would be better not to part with the present Court. The members of the Court of Appeal in Chancery had not sufficient occupation to employ them during the ordinary sittings of the Court, and, not wishing to be idle, they filled up their time by attending the judicial proceedings of the Privy Council. The number of bankruptcies was about 9,000 a year, of which 6,000 were pauper bankruptcies, from which no dividend whatever was paid. Now, these pauper bankruptcies were caused

  1603
  by allowing men to make themselves bankrupt, and as that power would be taken away the bankruptcies would be reduced to 3,000, or even much less, because a vast number of' the latter class paid so small a dividend that no hostile creditor would ever present a petition of adjudication. The amount of business, therefore, thrown on the Chief Judge. instead of being too large for one man, would, he believed, be less than an ordinary Judge would be able to go through.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to what fell from the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney). Was there not some danger, if we put this extra business on the County Courts—if they were, to have an equity jurisdiction, an Admiralty jurisdiction, and a Bankruptcy jurisdiction—that their functions as tribunals for dealing with small debts would be materially interfered with? It seemed to him also to be a matter of much importance whether the Government meant to take in hand the Report of the Judicature Commission, and, if so, whether such a change might not be made in the whole judicial arrangements of the country—which he believed were radically wrong—that this Court might have to be remodelled again? He would suggest that as another reason for not dispensing with the services of Mr. Commissioner Bacon.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that we must have this jurisdiction administered locally, and. if locally, in what other Courts than the County Courts? It was proposed originally to retain the district Bankruptcy Courts, but he had received several remonstrances against it, and, therefore, he adopted the County Courts. In regard to the salaries of County Court Judges, it was better to wait until it was seen whether they would have more work before raising them; for one of the advantages of this Bill was that iv would transfer a good deal of the Judge's present work to the creditor. He did not think that this question could wail for the Report of the Judicature Commission. There was, he believed, a general concurrence of opinion that it was desirable to have a superior Judge, and they were all agreed that they must get the best Judge they could. Her Majesty's Government, on economical
  1604
  grounds, had proposed one of the Common Law Judges for the office, and he had no doubt that any one of them that might be selected would discharge the duties with eminent ability. But he never meant to say that Commissioner Bacon was not a very eminent Judge, and he felt that the general impression of the Committee was more in favour of Mr. Bacon than of a Common Law Judge. He entirely concurred in the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friends the Members for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) and Dover (Mr. Jessel); and it appeared to him that they could not do better than make Mr. Bacon the first Judge. If his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond would permit him to postpone that clause to which he referred, he would consider what arrangements should be made. With regard to the proposal to make every County Court in London a Bankruptcy Court, there were several fatal objections to that; and among those objections was the fact that the London County Courts were too much occupied already. What was wanted in London was a large Court of Bankruptcy with a considerable area of jurisdiction, and also with, he hoped, a considerable degree of authority, in order to give the tone, if he might so express himself, to the Courts dealing with Bankruptcy business in the country. Uniformity of practice in regard to Bankruptcy law was required; and, to what tribunal were the Courts in the country to look for guidance and authority, unless it was to the chief Court in London? That appeared, to him, to be a very essential provision of the Bill, which he could not consent to part with, and he trusted that his lion. Friend (Mr. Norwood) would not press the omission of the clause.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he rejoiced to think that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was in a position to do what no one else in that House could so well have done—namely, to bring before the. Committee the name of a learned Friend of his, whom he had known long, and who was a man of distinguished ability and great experience in the branch of legal jurisdiction to which the Bill referred. With regard to the Amendment immediately before them, he hoped it would be withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he had not received sufficient encouragement to induce him to press his Amendment, and he would leave the responsibility connected with that matter with the Government.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he could not assent to what had fallen from the Solicitor General, who seemed to assume that it was generally agreed that three of the eighteen superior Judges were not practically useful, and that therefore it would be a great saving if one of them were appointed temporarily or permanently—while continuing a member of the superior Court to which he belonged—to be the superior Judge in Bankruptcy. He denied altogether that any of those Judges were practically useless, and maintained that, if their judicial duties were re-arranged so that the eighteen Judges could devote their attention to the business which was required to be done in all the superior Courts, there would not be too many. Let them look at the Probate and Divorce Court, and why did not the Government propose, if they thought any of the Judges had not sufficient, employment, that some assistance should be rendered to the Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court—where there was a great arrear of cases—by the Judges of the superior Courts? His own clients had complained of it as most unsatisfactory that in what ought to have been the full Court—Common Law Courts, sitting in Banco—only two Judges were present; and the answer usually given to that was that they could not have the full Court constituted with four Judges, because the other Judges were otherwise engaged. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) in thinking that it would be desirable to have the highly competent gentleman who had been referred to at the head of the chief Court of Bankruptcy in London; and he believed that a slight addition to that gentleman's present salary would satisfy him.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the Judges who had been engaged in trying election petitions during the last six months would have little or no corresponding work to do until another General Election was held. We should consequently have a surplus staff, and it would be a question whether the staff of the superior Courts ought not to be reduced.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
  Clauses 62, 72 postponed.
  Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 struck out.
  Clauses 66 to 71, 73 to 87 agreed to.
  Clause 88 (Sequestration of ecclesiastical benefice.)
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 33, line 15, after "as the," to leave out to end of clause, and insert "Court may direct."
  MR. MORLEYsaid, it had been suggested that a clergyman becoming bankrupt should vacate his living.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEthought that would be a great hardship, especially a clergyman who had become bankrupt through misfortune. It would be punishing both their families and their creditors. The Bishop was a better judge than the Court could be of the wants of a parish.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would give his support to the Amendment.
  MR. WESTsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he thought that the law of sequestration should be revised; but until that was done the clause ought to remain as it stood.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that his Amendment merely empowered the Court, instead of the Bishop, to say what portion of a bankrupt clergyman's emoluments should go to his creditors.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed that Bishops were anxious to be rid of the power they at present possessed in case of bankrupt clergymen; but, until the House could deal with the law of sequestration, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEreminded the Committee that bankruptcy, especially when not caused by extravagance, did not necessarily unfit a clergyman for the performance of his duty.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was glad to sec that the Committee had some commiseration for a bankrupt clergyman, although the Bill was one of Pains and Penalties from the beginning to the end. On the Report he hoped some move com-passion would be shown towards those of the laity who had become bankrupt through misfortune.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was of opinion that the Bishops would be the best

  1607
  judges of the amount which a bankrupt clergyman could spare; out of his living: to meet the demands of his creditors.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.
  Clause 91 (Avoidance of voluntary settlement).
  MR. MORLEY MR. MORLEY moved, in line 38, after "settlement," to leave out "made before and in consideration of marriage, or." His object was to prevent a man making a settlement on his wife out of property not belonging to him.
  MR. JESSELsaid he did not often differ from the hon. Member (Mr. Morley) but be really thought that this Amendment would be unjust. Marriage had always been hold to be a valuable consideration; and, in point of fact, a woman gave what far transcended in value any amount of goods delivered. It would therefore be most unfair to say that after she had made a bargain which could not possibly be undone she should be deprived of her settlement because her husband had become bankrupt within two years after the marriage. The wife was as much entitled to consideration as any creditor. But though he (Mr. Jessel) maintained that property actually settled ought to be held sacred, he agreed that the same respect ought not to be shown to mere covenants to pay money.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he entirely agreed in what had been said by his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Morley). There were cases where men made large fortunes out of the last crisis by this process of making settlements. He therefore intended to move a similar Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. MORLEYsaid he thought that a bankrupt's creditors ought, at any rate, to have the power of investigating his solvency at the time he made the settlement. He knew a man who was indebted £10,000. and had assets worth £8,000; he settled upwards of £2,000 on his wife, and to that extent injured and robbed his creditors.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. It would not be at all for the benefit of the community if unreasonable impediments were thrown in the way of bachelors engaged in trade contracting marriage. If a man made a marriage settlement in
  1608
  contemplation of bankruptcy, if he contracted marriage in order to make a settlement, it would be fraudulent under the statute of Elizabeth.
  MR MORLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RATHBONE MR. RATHBONE moved an Amendment respecting post-nuptial settlements which, he said, was not open to the objections raised against the previous Amendment.
  Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Hermon.)
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SALISBURY MAGISTRATES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I rise, Sir, to ask the kind attention of the House while I bring before it a magisterial decision which, from its extraordinary and unusual harshness and severity, has excited feelings of great surprise wherever it has been read or heard of, and has naturally produced a much greater feeling of bitterness in the country side where it took place. Circumstances, which I need not now advert to, have prevented me from bringing this subject previously before the House. I am quite aware a long time has elapsed since the occurrence of this case; and I should not, perhaps, have brought this matter forward now, after so great a lapse of time, but for the answer given me by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department to a question which I put to him on this very subject. There is one element in this affair which makes my task a peculiarly irksome one, and that is that, although my object is to point to a system of summary judicature which I think an absurd one, I have to point by way of illustration to a particular case and a particular individual, and in criticizing his conduct before the House I may expose myself to the suspicion of introducing an element of personality. But nothing, Sir, could be

  1609
  further from my wishes than to do that, and I can with confidence assure the Mouse that this is a matter about which I could not possibly have the slightest personal feeling. There is another consideration somewhat of the same kind in which, I have no doubt, the House will go with me, and that is, that the noble Lord whose conduct I am about to criticize bears a name which belonged to one, whose death, since I put this Notice on the Paper, has been a national loss—one who will ever be regarded by the House and this country with respect and admiration as the consistent advocate of Liberal principles and political progress through a long life that was above suspicion—I mean the late Karl of Radnor. I am quite aware, Sir, that, on account of the course I took some two years ago, with reference to magisterial decisions, caused the hon. Member for Oxfordshire to say I was going to occupy the place of the late Mr. Duncombe, and that I was the grievance monger" of the House. But if there were no grievance to amend, no grievance could be spoken of; and perhaps the only reason why I am pointed out as a "grievance monger" is that the grievances I have pointed out are the grievances of humble persons who are not too largely represented. The story I have to tell is this—On the 27th of March, last three children, Ann Hay, aged fourteen, her brother, George Hay, aged eight, and Lydia Grove, aged eleven, were brought before the magistrates at Salisbury, charged with stealing rape greens, of the value of 1s. Viscount Folkstone presided on the bench. Mr. Good did not press for a severe punishment. The father of the Hays said he had only been in the city four months. He knew nothing of his children getting greens. Lydia Grove said a man told them they might pick the greens. The bench considered the guilt of the children proved, and the two oldest were sentenced to pay a fine of £1 and costs, or go to prison for a month. Still the majority of the magistrates could not stomach sending the youngest-child to prison. Lord Folkestone expressed his sorrow at having to withdraw the little boy's sentence, adding that he thought it would do the little child good to go to gaol with the rest. The severity of the magistrates at Salisbury excited considerable indignation in the public mind, and sonic person wrote a
  1610
  letter to the Daily Telegraph, inclosing a cheque for £1 to defray the fines and costs awarded against the children. The cheque was sent to Salisbury, but it was then found that a Mr. Green, of Wilton, had paid the fines and costs, and the children were liberated. Lord Folkestone said that the superintendent of the city police, when sent for and questioned, gave the defendant Grove a very bad character. But, so far from this being the case, it was distinctly stated that the boy and his sister were unknown to the police at all, and that their parents had only been residing in Salisbury for five months. Of the other girl, Mr. Superintendent White said her character was indifferent; but the only allegation in support of that was that she had been seen begging about the streets, but even, she had never been in the custody of the police upon any charge whatever. It seemed, therefore, to me, Sir, that this was a case so extravagantly severe that I should be fully justified in asking a question with respect to it of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Well, Sir, I did not expect a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman, but I certainly thought he might say—"It does seem a little hard"—I did think he might say— "I will make an inquiry"—I did think he might say, "On the whole the thing was quite right, but we hope it will not occur again." But not one word did he say in alleviation of the matter, and, having taken it up once, I felt bound to bring the whole subject under the notice of the House. Well, Sir, what did the right hon. Gentleman say? I must say he used that sort of phrase which is common enough upon the Treasury Bench, and which scarcely conveys any meaning—that kind of phrase which keeps away altogether from the real point at issue. The right hon. Gentleman said he had received—
  "No representations on the subject. It was neither the custom nor the duty of the Homo Secretary to animadvert on the decisions of Judges or magistrates, unless representations were made with respect to them, and then, if the representations appeared worthy of attention, inquiries were instituted. In the present case no representations whatever had been made."
  Now, it could hardly be necessary for a Cabinet Minister to rise from the Treasury Bench to toll that House that—
  "It was neither the custom nor the duty of the Home Secretary to animadvert on the decisions

  1611
  of the Judges or magistrates, unless representations were made with respect to them."
  Now, it had been presented to them and to the House, even by so humble an individual as I am. But did the right hon. Gentleman think he was likely to hear of the matter from the parties who had been injured? Was it likely that the friends of the wretched peasant children who had been imprisoned for stealing a handful of greens would appeal against the decision of the majestic Salisbury bench of magistrates who had become the terror of the country side? Will the right hon. Gentleman say there was nothing wrong in sending children of that tender age to prison? The noble Lord said he thought the excuse made for not sending the boy to gaol would only tend to increase the number and decrease the age of the green stealers in the neighbourhood. I declare that, if such a view be right, there is no reason why babies in the arms should not be committed for aiding and abetting their mothers for stealing a handful of greens. I appeal to this House and to the country, whether the mere fact of sending children of such an age, for such a crime, to gaol, is not an infamy and a disgrace to our civilization? I believe that in no other civilized country—indeed, I might add, a fortiori, in no uncivilized country —could such a thing have, taken place; and I feel confident that in any other part of Christendom the greatest astonishment would be felt at this exhibition of "Justices' justice." We are living in times now, Sir, when men profess to wish to see the country governed on what may be called the flesh and blood principle, and that every Englishman must be regarded equally as our fellow-creatures. Let me ask how hon. Members of this House would feel if this matter personally concerned them? Let me put such a ease as this—There are many Members who have at home lads of eight or ten years of age, and are those little curled darlings immaculate? Are not many of them full of fun and mischief? Did they never break down a hedge, or takes a bird's nest? Did they never take an apple from an orchard, or take an egg from a nest? What would their feelings be if they found their little ones taken up for such offences? How would they feel if some Salisbury Rhadamanthus had sent them to gaol? I should not like to be the
  1612
  convicting magistrate the next time parents, under such circumstances, met me in the hunting-field or the marketplace. Let us just think of this Salisbury justice lecturing this child of eight years old in this May—
  "If you are caught at this sort of thing again you will so to gaol, and perhaps get a flogging into the bargain. You recollect that, and don't go picking people's greens and stealing them."
  Now, Sir, this bench of magistrates are apparently not actuated in this or any other case by any feeling of spite or malice against the individuals, but they have elevated severity into a system and established on that country side some-thing like a reign of terror. I have had a number of cases connected with the Salisbury Bench brought under my notice. I am aware that it is perfectly impossible to form a judgment at a distance as to matters of fact in such cases, and I shall, therefore, only mention to the House those in which the matter of fact is admitted, and then the only question will be as to the severity of the punishment. The only exception is this case—Two years ago that bench of magistrates sent to prison two poachers. In that it appears they got hold of the wrong man, and an alibi was proved at the trial. The evidence was strong, and it seemed impossible to resist it; but nothing could move the bench of magistrates to keep the man from their punishment, and even when some other men who were committed to prison confessed the crime, it was a long time before the necessary communications were made to the Home Office. On the 5th of September, last year, George Clarke was charged with stealing an apple of the value of ½d. The prosecutor said he did not press for, or wish any severe punishment to be inflicted, but he wished to convince the people that they had no right to his fruit. Lord Folkestone said—
  "The defendant must have known he was doing wrong, and cases of this description come before the Bench year after year; slight punishments have been inflicted, but the people take no warning, and they will not be convinced till they get it pretty sharp. The defendant was liable to three months' imprisonment; but as Mr. Waters strongly recommended him to mercy, the sentence was mitigated to three weeks with hard labour."
  In another case, two men were convicted of pointing an old gun, which would not go off, at a cock pheasant on the side of the road. They attempted to fire at it,

  1613
  but the gun would not go off; they tried it a second time, but still the cap snapped, and then the men went off. The keeper, who was hiding, and who said he saw them distinctly, thought they had gone for more powder, and determined to watch until they came back; but, finding they did not come back, he went to the police office and charged them with the offence. But there was a second keeper hiding in another place, unknown to the first keeper, and while one of these swore that it was light enough to identify the prisoners, the other swore that it was so dark that he could not see their faces. However, for the crime of pointing an old gun at a cock pheasant, the men were sent to prison with hard labour. Of all the sacred birds and beasts worshipped in India or Egypt, not one of them was afforded so much protection, care, and consideration, as was the English cock pheasant. John Elkins was also charged in January with poaching; four pheasants were found on him, and it was acknowledged that he was a notorious poacher. He was sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment, and called upon to find sureties for good behaviour for two years: or, in default., to be sent to prison for one year. There could be no doubt, he was a poacher, but the only remark I have to make upon the sentence is this, that he might have flogged half-a-dozen women within an inch of their lives, and not have been sentenced to so severe a punishment under the present law. We have been told over and over again that if the game laws were to be done away with, the country gentlemen would cease to reside on their estates; that they are the glory of the country side, and their presence is always hailed with pleasure; but if all the country magistrates and landlords were like those who sit upon the Salisbury bench —which thank heaven they are not—I doubt very much whether the country generally would rejoice in the presence of the landlords any more than they seem to do at Salisbury. They may be very ungrateful, in which case hon. Gentlemen would per-haps address them, in the words of Virgil—
  "O fortunates nimium, sua si bona norint, Agricolas! "
  My Lord Folkestone says, that mild punishment has been tried without effect, and that is the reason he resorts to ex-
  1614
  traordinary seventy. But really, Sir, country gentlemen seem to still cling to the superstitions of their ancestor, who used to hang for every trivial theft, and to believe that severity of punishment was the best means of putting down crime. That theory, or superstition if you will, has passed away entirely from the minds of all except our country justices; and it is now generally admitted that if the punishment of a crime has no reference to the demerits of the party, and is out of all proportion to the equity of the case, you eliminate from the minds of the class suffering such punishment those elements on which alone any morality, worthy of the name, can be based. And the punishment appears to be not so much the act of a judicial tribunal, acting with a strict regard to justice, but as an act of retaliatory vengeance on the part of one class towards another, and which produces in that class a feeling with regard to these offences that their repetition is not so much an offence against; justice and equity as of vengeance against the common enemy, which they will carry out whenever time and opportunity permit them to do so. That, Sir, is the case which I have to bring before the House,, and I thank the House for having listened with such patience to views which I venture to say cannot be very palatable to many hon. Members present. I have not ventured to ask the House to agree to an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her that Lord Folkestone may be removed from the Commission of the Peace; and for this simple reason, that in a House constituted as this is there would be very little chance of my carrying such a Motion, and more especially as the Home Secretary seems to think that the fact of two young children being subjected to the contamination of a prison for a month is a subject not worthy of his consideration. I very much doubted whether it was not my duty to make such a Motion, and if there had been the smallest chance of success I should have done so. I do not wish, Sir, on the other hand, while complaining of a wrong and an injustice, to do an injustice to the noble Lord against whom I should have made the Motion. It is not given to every wan posessing wealth, station, and dignity in this country, to possess those qualities which constitute the qualification of a Judge—tact, temper, and discrimination—which are

  1615
  nowhere more necessary than when men have a summary jurisdiction conferred upon them. For my own part, Sir, I should like to see magistrates appointed for the same qualities for which Judges are appointed. As to the Judges, everybody admits they present an extraordinary fitness for the offices they fill. They are appointed and are apart from all political or social influences, and their decisions are accepted with respect and obeyed with reverence. But it is not so, Sir, with respect to our country justices; for, if a man be a landowner of great influence in the county, that is held sufficient to constitute him a judge over his fellow-men; and when once appointed, it follows that he can never be removed from his position, unless for some gross misconduct, or some malicious attack on the rights and liberties of people subjected to his power. I have not the slightest doubt that Lord Folkestone thought he was doing his duty; but all I have to say is, that when he deals out such severe punishments for such minor offences as this, he is, in my opinion, no judge. If, therefore, I have not ventured to make a Motion on this subject, but have simply contented myself with stating the facts of the case, my object in doing so is to show that whenever there is a sentence of such extreme severity, so unproportioned to the offence as occasionally shocks the ears of the country, there will be at least one Member, however humble, who will think it his duty to hold up such conduct to reprobation, in this, the great inquest of the nation.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that he was sure no one would blame any hon. Member who might feel it his duty to bring before that House any instance of undue severity. Any Member who did so, with strict regard to justice, not only for those whose cause he undertook, but also for those whose conduct, he impugned, would receive the sympathy and approval of the House. But when any hon. Member took on himself to assail the conduct of others, it was his duty—and he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would admit the propriety of the remark—to ascertain well the whole facts of the case, and, having ascertained the facts, to detail them fully to the House. Before proceeding to mention what, the facts were on which his hon. Friend had animadverted, he
  1616
  must beg to state that it was no part of his duty to revise all the sentences passed on prisoners which he a night observe in the newspapers, and which might appear on the face of them to be unreasonable. That was no part of his duty, unless cases were brought regularly before him which appeared to require revision. Nothing would be easier—for the Home Office was open to all—than for the friends of these poor children, for instance, or for any lover of humanity and justice in the neighbourhood of Salisbury having a knowledge of the facts, to have brought them before him; and he need not give the assurance that they would have received as much attention on his part as when they were publicly stated in that House. His hon. Friend had brought a charge, not only against Lord Folkestone, but against the bend) of justices. He compared the offence committed by these children to that which perhaps no hon. Member present had himself in his youth committed, but which they must all have known some one to have committed—stealing an apple from an orchard; and he said how cruel it was for such an offence to take a child from the home of its virtuous parents and expose it to the contamination of a gaol. Now, what were the facts? The case, as stated, was that for stealing out of a field a few greens, valued at 1s., two children—one fourteen and the other eleven—had been fined 20 s., and in default committed to prison for one month. The law had been changed with respect to stealing such articles from fields, and he quite agreed in the change in the law. Such an offence was no longer a felony, but a trespass. In many cases the trespass was of an insignificant character, as the taking of a turnip from a field: though he thought anyone's moral sense must be offended when they saw a labourer go into a field and steal turnips without being punished. But in this case the real facts proved before the magistrates were these—In certain fields where greens were grown, at some distance from Salisbury, there had been wholesale pillage; a policeman was set to watch, and he detected these children carrying off 1½cwt. of greens. They had brought out of Salisbury, a distance of a mile, a sack and three wraps which were all full. The quantity was so great that, according to the evidence given,

  1617
  the children could not have earned the load into the town; they must have been taking it to some place of deposit, where they would be met by some one to convey the burden into Salisbury. Under the circumstances it appeared next to impossible that the parents of these children had not sent them out fur the purpose of pillage. It was not likely that the children would have taken the sack and wraps of their own mere notion to bring back 1½cwt. of greens, their parents being ignorant of the fact. It was proved before the justices that those children had been in the fields on previous days stealing greens; complaints were made of the heavy losses sustained by the Tanners, a policeman was in consequence placed to watch, and it had since been ascertained that one of the girls had been in the habit of selling greens at various places in Salisbury. The offence therefore was not that of stealing a handful of greens, but ½cwt.—the offence having been frequently committed by the same parties, and committed, in ail probability, by the authority of their parents. When a heavy fine was inflicted on children it was not intended as a punishment for the children but for the parents, with whose knowledge the offence must have been committed. That he assumed without any knowledge, of Lord Folkestone or any other member of the bench. His hon. Friend had inveighed against the sentence so passed on these children, and he wished some other punishment could be devised for the offences of children than imprisonment; but he could not believe that children would suffer more contamination in prison than if they continued to reside with such parents as they had the misfortune to have. It should also be remembered that punishment was imposed with a view to deter others from the commission of the same offences. It was no part of his duty to defend the conduct of magistrates. Not only justices of the peace, but the highest Judges of the land had occasionally laid themselves open to animadversion for the sentences they pronounce. Quot homines, tot sentential. Nothing could be more startling frequently than the apparent inequality of sentences where offences appeared almost identical. He was entirely unacquainted with the other facts which his hon. Friend had brought forward. It was possible that
  1618
  the Justices of Salisbury had occasionally inflicted punishments of great severity; but, in the present case, he could not say, considering what the laws of the country were, considering the manner in which they were generally administered, that the punishment was in itself excessive for the offence. He must assume that the justices were satisfied, from the evidence, that these children had not only committed the offence, but under circumstances of premeditation, not for the first time, and that they also considered that the line inflicted was for the purpose of reaching the parents. The sentence pronounced was intended as an example in the neigbourhood, and he could not think that the warning of such a punishment would be without its due effect.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated with great truth the facts of the case, and he was in a position to mention some additional facts which would illustrate the rashness of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in coming to the conclusion he had announced as to the manner in which those justices had discharged their duty to the public. He thought the punishment awarded for the offence a very proper one. The practice of stealing greens in the neighbourhood of Salisbury had been carried on to a very great extent, and great complaint was made by the owners of those small garden allotments, a class of humble men, of which the hon. Member for Leicester set himself up as the special guardian. They were the great sufferers. These parties were regularly plundered, and the greens were taken to Salisbury and sold in the market. It was no doubt hard to send children to prison for a month, but considering the example they must have set before them at home, it would, perhaps have been better if they could have been sent to prison for a longer period and then to a reformatory, where they would have some chance of learning industry and morality, instead of being made the instruments of wicked and unnatural parents for purposes of plunder. Whatever might be the case with regard to the children the sympathy of the House would be ill bestowed on such parents. he could not understand why the name of his noble Relative should have been

  1619
  brought forward so prominently on this occasion, as if he were the sole responsible person, for besides Lord Folkestone thorn were present on the bench seven Wiltshire gentlemen as intelligent and independent as could be found in any' other part of the country. In fact, as to part of this very ease, the view taken by Lord Folkestone had been over-ruled by a majority of those on the bench with him. With regard to the other cases which the hon. Member had brought forward he had given no notice of them. He (Sir. Bouverie; knew nothing of them. The hon. Member told some story of a cock pheasant, but if it had been about a cock and a bull, it would, perhaps, have been more appropriate. They were brought forward, he presumed, to give weight to the case against the magistrates in the present instance. The hon. Gentleman who made this charge started with the assumption that the bench, of magistrates were disposed to deal harshly and unfairly towards the unfortunate people brought before thorn; but, for his own part, he believed nothing of the kind. According to his experience, he came to the conclusion that, though, like all other men, justices of the peace were not perfectly immaculate, there was on the whole a determination on their part to do justice by those whose cases they had to deal with. The hon. Member for Leicester probably had not much experience of country magistrates; but his own experience had taught him that the rural population had the most perfect confidence in the fairness of the? bench of magistrates; and if, ns some improvers desired, stipendiary magistrates were {substituted for the unpaid country justices, he doubted whether they would enjoy the same amount of confidence. The hon. Member had done well in not ranking a Motion on the subject, because the facts adduced established no case of accusation against the magistrates, who simply did their duty in what he must call a most trumpery case; and he trusted that magistrates would not be deterred from acting according to their own sense of duty by such charge? of oppression, unfairness, and iniquity as had been made in the present case.
  MR. ASSHRTON CROSSsaid, that when small children were brought up before magistrates it was a difficult matter to know how to act for the pro-
  1620
  tection of the public without dealing harshly towards the children. He believed that the best thing they could do with such children would be to give them a good whipping and send them home, but the magistrates had no power to order that punishment. Where there was an honest and industrious parent they might get him to give the child a whipping; bur in many eases the fault was move the fault of the parent than the child, and in such cases he should like to punish the parent rather than the child. He thought it would be an advantage if in cases like that brought before the House, magistrates had the power to send the child to an industrial school, and to compel the parent, when able, to pay the expense of the schooling.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he could not consent to a case of this kind being treated in the way the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had treated it, who railed it a trumpery case. Very few cases could be more deserving the attention of the House than the present, when brought forward by an hon. Member who had taken pains to inquire into the matter, believing it to be one of oppression on the part of country magistrates. He was not prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Leicester in his wholesale denunciation of country magistrates, but in that House, which was formed, it might be said, of country magistrates, he was unwilling that the only voice raised on behalf of these poor children should be that of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the children had acted under the direction of the parents, why should not the parents, instead of the children, be punished?
  MR. ANTROBUSsaid, that if the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had properly inquired into the case, he would have found that it was not a small quantity of greens that was taken for the purpose of making a wretched supper, but that as much as a hundredweight and a-half was stolen; and it was not right to accuse the magistrates of harsh conduct for the course which they pursued. The case of apple stealing to which the hon. Member alluded was one of deliberate premeditation, and not one of merely jumping over a hedge to get an apple on the spur of the moment.

NAVY—ADMIRALTY CLERKS,

  RESOLUTION.
  CAPTAIN GROSVENORsaid, he rose to call attention to the position of certain Third Class Clerks in the Departments of the principal Offices of the Admiralty. About ton years ago the flow of promotion began to slacken in the Admiralty, and these third-class clerks found themselves in a disadvantageous position as contrasted with that of other civil servants. From time to time memorials were in consequence addressed to the principal officers. In 1865 a committee of experienced person in the Admiralty and Treasury was appointed to consider this question. They reported in favour of an increased scale of pay. and, in December of that year, effect was given to that Report by an Order in Council. There was joy among these third-class clerks when this Order was promulgated, but cruel disappointment awaited them, for the benefit of that Order was restricted, owing to the construction put upon it by the Treasury. The question, however, was not as to the intentions of the Treasury expressed in any letter or Minute, but as to the benefit actually conferred by the terms of the Order in Council. The whole Papers had been submitted to an eminent Queen's Counsel, who was of opinion that the Order of February 16, 1866, if acted upon according to its terms, conferred upon all third-class clerks then in the service whether of eight years' standing or not, a right to have their salaries' immediately paid to them according to the new scale; and Counsel further stated that, in his opinion, it was not competent to the Treasury to place on the Order in Council the qualification of which these clerks complained. The learned Counsel concluded by staling that the case of the aggrieved clerks was not within the cognizance of the law courts, and that all those individuals could do was to forward a respectful memorial containing a statement of their grievances to the authorities. That opinion was signed "John Duke Coleridge," and the advice it contained had been followed, but without result. The right hon. Gentleman the first, Lord of the Admiralty might possibly urge, as the reason for his inaction in the matter, the large economical reforms which, were about to be intro-
  1622
  duced, but tins was a question of principle—of right or wrong—and he did not believe in an economy which was based upon the ruin of good faith and of fairness. He had no hesitation, under the circumstances, in asking the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX, in seconding the Motion, said, the Treasury had always differed from the Admiralty upon this subject, although it was true that the letter which had crushed the hopes or these young gentlemen was signed by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time that he was Secretary to the Treasury. Knowing, as he must now do, the duties of these third-class clerks and the hardships of their case, the right hon. Gentleman would not, he trusted, still refuse to re-consider his decision with respect to them. The Order in Council announced that the salaries of certain of the third-class clerks should be raised at the end of eight years. Those who entered the service in 1857 and 1858, and those who entered in 1867 and 1868 enjoyed the boon; but those who entered the service between these two periods found themselves in a much inferior position. Although they had no legal claim whatever to consideration in the matter, he could not help thinking that they had a strong moral claim to have their case favourably considered. He (Lord Henry Lennox) had himself done what he could, but the Treasury was immovable. Cases of this kind had only to be well ventilated and to be properly laid before the country, to induce public opinion to back up Her Majesty's Government in doing that which was simply an act of justice. He would suggest that the third-class clerks should defer the proposal contained in this Motion until the period for preparing the Civil Service Estimates next year.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the members of the Civil Service are entitled to a scale of pay in accordance with the terms of any Order in Council which has not been revoked or qualified by a succeeding Order of equal authority,"— (Captain Grosvenor,)
  —instead thereof.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he was glad that the noble Lord had anticipated him

  1623
  in seconding the Motion, which it had been his intention to do. The course that had been taken by the Treasury upon this matter involved manifest injustice to certain members of the Civil Service, which arose probably from sonic inadvertence on the part of the authorities, and not from any desire to act unfairly towards them. In 1866 it became necessary to raise the scale of pay of the third-class clerks from £90 to £100 per annum, but only clerks who had sowed, eight years were to receive that increase. There were a great number of persons who had not completed eight years' service, but who had gone some way towards it. They were in a move disadvantageous position than clerks who went in later. While seniors in the office were? receiving only £90 a year, clerks who were much their juniors received n higher salary.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid., that this was not at all an interesting subject; it was technical, and involved minute details which could not be of any very general interest. He felt bound, however, to give an explanation of the circumstances under which the change in respect of the salaries of those clerks had been made. The case had been stated with perfect fairness, but not with complete accuracy. In. 1865, as a consequence of the introduction of writers to do work which, did not require much brains, it became necessary to consider the position of the third-class clerks in the Admiralty, and a committee was appointed by the Treasury and Admiralty to go into the whole subject. the committee recommended that the junior clerks who entered at £90 a year and who received an increase of £10 a year should, after a certain number of years' service, but without rising to another grade, receive a sudden increase of £30, which would bring their salary up from £170 1o £200 a year, rising afterwards by £10. That plan would have involved an increased charge to the public of £1,51;; a year. The Treasury thought there would be au inconvenience in the mode of increase recommended by the committee, which would be demanded by others, and accordingly they made a different arrangement, by which they proposed that after a certain number of years the salaries of the clerks should be increased annually by £15, instead of £10 a year. This plan, which received
  1624
  the sanction of the Admiralty, and was carried into effect by an Order in Council involved an increased charge to the public of £2,043. Besides the change in respect of the annual increase, the Order in Council gave clerks on their entry into the office £100 instead of £90 a year. In addition to this, the Treasury, without any reference to the Order in Council, allowed the then existing clerks with more than eight years' service to receive the rate of salary they would have been entitled to had they entered the service at £100 instead of £90. Thus the clerks had got all that the Order in Council gave them, and some of them got considerably more; and the proposition of his hon. Friend was that because the seniors were receiving something beyond what the Order in Council gave them, the juniors should also receive something more. If such proposals as the one now made by his hon. Friend were agreed to it would be impossible to carry out anything like uniform arrangements in respect of the classification or of the payment of the clerks. He did not see how the case put by his noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) of juniors receiving more than their seniors, could occur; because, if a. clerk had entered at £90 in 1864 his salary would have been rising by £10 between that time and 1866. There had been one case of inconvenience—that of a clerk appointed a few months before the Order at £90. This had been rectified. For his part, neither at the Admiralty nor at the Treasury had he shown the least disposition to underpay any officer. On the contrary, the motto he had always used was—"Pay your officers well, but keep down their numbers." The real extravagance of the Civil Service—and, in certain Departments, there could be no doubt that some extravagance existed —was in point of numbers rather than of salaries. Acting on the principle which he had mentioned, the Government were effecting great reductions among the subordinate clerks at Somerset House, which, when completed, would result in an economy of something like £10,000 or £12.000 a year; but they had it in contemplation at the same time to propose an improved scale of pay which the House, he hoped, would readily assent to. He trusted, therefore, that he should be freed from the imputation of any de-

  1625
  sire to pare down salaries. In the doctrine laid down in the latter part of his hon. Friend's Motion, which might almost be called a truism, he cordially concurred; but, having shown that the officers on whose behalf the Motion was brought forward had really received everything to which they were entitled, he Hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the question which the House were engaged in considering was not the motto of the First Lord of the Admiralty in dealing with the Civil Service, but a ease alleged to be one of great hardship affecting the third-class clerks in nine departments of the Admiralty, numbering nearly 100 persons, and growing out of a misunderstanding between the Admiralty and the Treasury. The First Lord of the Admiralty, who, as Secretary to the Treasury, wrote the letter out of which this misunderstanding had now arisen, stated, at the commencement of his observations, that the subject was not a very interesting one with which to occupy the attention of the House; but it was so far interesting that it involved a sum of nearly £3,000 which these clerks claimed as their due under an Order in Council. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Henry Lennox) declared that these clerks had no positive right, though he believed them to have a moral claim; but had he looked into the Papers more closely, his noble Friend, he believed, would have formed a more favourable opinion. "Wait," it was said, "till next year's Estimates are under consideration, and the matter can then be brought forward with better effect." The answer was obvious; the clerks had already agitated this question through the heads of departments for four years, without obtaining any satisfaction, and early in the present Session, when a question was put to the First Lord of the Admiralty, his answer was very ambiguous. According to the right hon. Gentleman, because the seniors in the department had received something which they deserved, therefore the juniors now were pressing their claims. [Mr. CHILDERS: That is not what I said.] I took down the words. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case of the hon. Member who made the Motion was this—because the seniors had something given to them to which they were entitled, therefore
  1626
  the juniors now were asking for that to which they had no claim.
  MR. CHILDERS: As the hon. Baronet says he has taken down my words, I may be allowed to correct them. I said that the purport of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument was, because the seniors had received something beyond that which they were entitled to, therefore the juniors now were making a claim.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: I should like also to make a correction of what my right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) has attributed to me. What I said was that I believed the clerks had no positive right, inasmuch as when they originally agreed to serve it was at the rate of £90 a year, and any increase subsequently made was by the beneficence of Parliament and of the Government.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he did not know whether anybody else wished to interrupt him, but he suffered no inconvenience from the remarks just made, in as much as he regarded the point at issue as one of public importance, and believed he had not over-stated the effect of any argument used in debate. The First Lord of the Admiralty told the House this was an uninteresting question; but before the discussion closed he hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury, with his accustomed spirit and sense of justice, would rise and acknowledge that these clerks had a just claim upon the consideration of Parliament. All the Papers in this ease had been placed before the Solicitor General; he had been consulted as one of the most eminent counsel in the country, and he gave his opinion, before he became in any way connected with the present Government or with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty. That opinion was to the effect, that these clerks had clearly a case, and that the Government were over-riding an Order in Council. Here, then, was an occasion upon which the Government and the House ought to show generosity and consideration.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had no complaint to make of his opinion having been brought forward, more especially as the clerks, before doing so, had kindly asked him whether he had any objection to their taking that course. It was no part of his busi-

  1627
  ness to interfere with the discretion, of the Government in the matter; all he wished to do was to inform the House upon what materials the opinion was given. For as to the opinion itself he would say respectfully but firmly that upon the same materials lie should again give the same opinion, without adding anything to what he had previously written. He had nothing; to alter in the opinion he had given, but the question now before the House was totally different from that placed before him. The question submitted to him was as to the true construction of the Order in Council, and whether, the terms being clear, the Treasury had the power to limit its operation, and no one who looked at the ease submitted to him could come to any other conclusion than that the Treasury had not. The Order in Council was the first and leading document submitted to him, and no suggestion was made to him of the existence of any prefatory correspondence by the light of which the terms of the Order in Council were to be read. It appeared to him then, as now, that if the Order in Council stood alone it meant that all the third-class clerks at the Admiralty from the date of the Order coming into operation wove to receive salaries on the scale laid down in that Order, whether they had joined the Admiralty after the date of the Order in Council or were there already. It was then suggested to him that the construction placed on the Order by the Treasury was that whereas for the future all third-class clerks were to come in at £100 a year, were to rise £10 a year for eight years, and were then to rise by £15 a year until they reached £300 a year, it was only to take effect in the case of those who had been in the Admiralty eight years, and those who joined it after that date, but that it was not to apply to those who had not completed the term of eight years, who were to receive £90 up to the completion of that term, when the £15 a year was to be added. That interpretation he certainly thought there was no foundation for in the Order of Council, and if the Treasury had so limited its operation he was of opinion that they had exceeded their competency. It. however, turned ant—which he was not aware of at the time—that the third-class clerks who came in at £90 a year were receiv-
  1628
  ing a yearly accretion of £10, and therefore the question was whether if they had, for instance, entered a year upon the service they were to receive a retrospective £10 to put them on an equality with those who had begun at the £100. He never understood that his opinion was taken on that point. A very different question had been agitated between the Admiralty and the Treasury, and it appeared that the state of things was not what he had supposed in his third answer. It was further suggested to him that a person who entered at £100 a year might be receiving more pay than his seniors in the same department. That was certainly an anomalous position; and he thought that if the matter were referred in a memorial to the authorities it would be corrected. He was, at all events, justified in saying that none of the grievances he supposed he was advising upon now existed. His opinion was given upon the facts before him, and he had no idea of the previous correspondence and of the real state of the case.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the merits of the question were of a kind very difficult to follow, from its complex nature, and if his hon. Friend (Captain Grosvenor) wished to challenge the opinion of the House it would be necessary he should take some means for putting the House in fuller possession of the facts. There were, however, objections to the Motion which were quite independent of the merits of the particular case. As to its meaning, he had no doubt it was conformable to common sense and justice: but it would be very inconvenient for the House to adopt the terms of the Resolution. He was not aware that that House had asserted or admitted, or could by possibility admit in justice to itself or to the people, that the terms of any Order in Council constituted a title to a payment of public money. If they constituted an obligation to anything it would only be to an obligation on the part of the Government to make application to that House, but no Order in Council could bind the House or constitute a title to pay. His hon. Friend bad not adverted to that aspect of the Resolution, which was of a very serious character. He would hardly lay down such a doctrine as that the terms of such a document bound the Executive irrespective of the previous

  1629
  assent of that House, or constituted a title, to the receipt of public money. Such a doctrine was entirely novel, and; he trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 64: Majority 43.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

IRELAND—TRALEE GAOL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the Papers relative to Tralee Gaol, and to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What steps have been taken to remedy the abuses that existed in the management of that Prison? According to the Report of Mr. Burke, Tralee Gaol was remarkable for three things — the wretched state of the building, the enormous expenditure, and the small number of prisoners. There were only thirty-six prisoners in the gaol, who cost £80 a year each. The salaries of the officers amounted to £1,267, while the total cost of everything else was £1.193. The local inspector, who was a clergyman, got £180; the governor got £200; and the chaplain of the Established Church, who had not more than two persons on the average to attend to, got £50. The deputy governor, who also acted as schoolmaster, got £100 a year; and £350 a year was given to nine turnkeys to watch the thirty-six prisoners; yet the inspector said the discipline was very lax, and the prisoners were so poorly guarded that it was a wonder they did not walk out. Among the turnkeys there were five tradesmen to teach the prisoners trades, and the highest profit ever made in a year was £30. During the winter, the inspector said, the prisoners were all locked up in their cells from half-past four in the afternoon till seven the next morning, and many of the cells were damp and not properly lighted with gas. He found that, the governor, who had a family of eight, lived in the prison; and the deputy governor, who had a family of four, also resided in the prison. Between the prison wall and the interior boundary wall of the gaol were two acres of land, on
  1630
  which were kept cows, pigs, and poultry, and another portion of the same ground was used as a kitchen garden. The governor also kept dogs within the gaol. All this was in opposition to the law and regulations under which Irish gaols were managed. The gaol had a local inspector who received £180 a year for visiting the prison twice a week, whilst other local inspectors only had £80 a year. That local inspector, who was obliged by the Act of Parliament to make a report on oath, had certified that no horses, cows, pigs, or cattle of any kind were kept within the precincts of the gaol, and that each prisoner was provided with a separate cell and a separate bed, in the face of the Reports of the Inspector General and the knowledge of others to the contrary. He thought that this was a state of things that required prompt attention, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give him some assurance that the Government would take the matter into their consideration. He was aware that the powers of the Government in gaols were somewhat limited; but in this case the inspectors of the gaol had called attention to these defects repeatedly, without the slightest effect, and therefore it was necessary that the matter should be brought forward in Parliament.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was labouring under some misapprehension respecting the details upon which he had drawn. he thought, for instance, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken respecting the alleged keeping of cattle within the precincts of the gaol. On the day the Inspector General visited the gaol some repairs were going on, and things were consequently to some extent in a state of confusion. Every attempt had been made by the Board of Supervision to remedy the evils complained of, and the Inspector General would find a very different state of things at his next visit.
  MR. CHICHESTER. FORTESCUEsaid, he agreed that there was much which needed remedying in the gaol of Tralee; but this was not the case of a Government gaol, but of a county prison, over which the Government had little or no control. He doubted not that the local authorities would do their utmost to remedy the evils and defects

  1631
  complained of. He was glad that his ton. Friend (Mr. O'Reilly) had called attention to the subject. The Board of Supervision had not lost sight of the Report of the inspector. A committee had been appointed to remedy the abuses which had been complained of; and it had been actively at work. so that the inspector would find a very different state of things on his next visit. He was thoroughly convinced that legislation was required to put the county gaols in Ireland upon a proper footing in conformity with our improved notions of what the conduct and management of a gaol should be. There were many things in connection with those gaols which could not be dealt with by the local authorities. The question was under the consideration of the Government. He did not know that anything could be done this Session, but it should, undoubtedly, be dealt with at an early period.

BOROUGH OF RYDE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. W. BEACHsaid, he rose to call attention to the circumstances under which the Town of Ryde was formed into a Borough. No doubt the town had increased in wealth and population, but a borough should not be formed unless a strong case was made out. However, some of the inhabitants were desirous of the prospective luxury of paying additional rates. A Commissioner was sent down to inquire; respecting the formation of the new borough. and it was only fair that ail the parties concerned should have been heard. When the Chief Constable, however, saw the evidence that had been taken, he wrote at once to point out some inaccuracies. His letter was not even acknowledged. He (Mr. Beach) was of opinion that when a new borough was to be created it should be created by mutual agreement between the borough so to be formed and the locality surrounding it. Unless this were done, discontent was sure to prevail in consequence of the complications of interests that would arise. By removing a considerable population, as it were, out of the county, and constituting it into a separate community, it necessarily followed that increased liabilities and burdens were thrown upon the rate-payers
  1632
  of the county in which the borough was created. There was a public debt charged on Hampshire, but by constituting a portion of the county into a borough the area of liability was contracted. That was a matter which should have been taken into consideration. If Ryde had been constituted in a fair way into a borough, the cost of the county police would have? been reduced to the extent of the sum charged for the borough police, but the charge for the police of a most objectionable suburb of Ryde was charged on the county. Oakfield, in the parish of St. Helens, was part of the town, but had not been included within the limits of the borough. The interests of the people of the county of Hampshire ought to have been consulted as well as the interests of the borough of Ryde, but this had not been done, and he thought there was, consequently, just ground for complaint. His object in drawing attention to the subject was to press upon the Government the necessity of taking greater care in the formation of boroughs in order that injustice might not be committed, as had been the case in the present instance.
  SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, he must confess he had seen with surprise the announcement of the hon. Member's intention to bring forward this question. The inhabitants of Ryde considered it to their advantage to secure the right of municipal government, and control over their own police and rates, and they had taken the usual mode of accomplishing that object. An exhaustive inquiry had been held, which lasted two days, and a charter had been granted; and there was nothing more to be said on the subject. In wealth and population Ryde had increased greatly during the last ten years, and was now one of the most important towns in Hampshire, as appeared by the statistical returns. Could it, then, be wondered at that the people of Ryde should desire to obtain the prestige resulting from its conversion into a borough? Ryde was constituted a borough in 1868; and therefore it was not the present Home Secretary, but his predecessor, who was answerable for what had been done.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to point out that his hon. Relative (Mr. Beach) did not object to Ryde having been made a borough, his complaint being that the boundaries of

  1633
  the borough had not been sufficiently extended. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would consider whether it was advisable that boroughs should be constituted throughout the country with separate police jurisdiction, which tended to impede the due administration of justice.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the whole of the proceedings of which the hon. Gentleman complained were conducted, not by the Home Office, but by the Privy Council Office, under the late Government. He might however remark that, under the terms of the Commission, the districts which had been referred to could not, according to the report of Captain Donovan, be included in the borough: and he was bound to add that the proceedings under the late Government were conducted with perfect fairness.

THE JUDICATURE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he would beg-to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Whether it be the intention of the Government to enlarge the scope of inquiry of the Judicature Commission so as to embrace the County Courts, Quarter Sessions, and other local tribunals in the provinces'? He would also suggest that the mercantile and manufacturing interests should be represented on the Commission.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Commission was issued by the late Government. He had consulted the Lord Chancellor and Lord Cairns on the subject, and they agreed in the opinion of his hon. Friend that the scope of the inquiry ought to be extended. The suggestion which his hon. Friend had made should receive consideration.

SCOTLAND.—SHERIFF COURTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILLER: I rise, Sir, to call attention to the appointment of sheriffs in Scotland, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that, looking to the great preponderance of opinion in favour of a change in the existing state of the Sheriff Courts, as given in the evidence taken by the Royal Commission to inquire into the Scotch Law Courts, Whether it is the intention of Government to make it a condition of
  1634
  any appointment of sheriffs, either principal or substitute, that those appointed shall not be entitled to any compensation in the event of their office being abolished by Parliament when the whole question comes to be considered on the Report of the said Royal Commission? The point was one of considerable importance. These courts had long been condemned by public opinion, and the evidence adduced before the Commission showed that the double sheriffship could and must ultimately, be dispensed with. At present each county in Scotland had what was called a sheriff-principal and a sheriff-substitute. The sheriffs-substitute were resident magistrates, acting as justices, while the sheriffs-principal were sheriffs who reside in Edinburgh, and only visited the counties periodically. The existence of two sheriff's in a county tended to create very considerable delay and considerable expense. The appointment of the sheriffs rested nominally with the Crown, but, he understood, really with the Lord Advocate; and it had been stated in the evidence that they had sometimes been appointed from political considerations. The sheriffs-substitute were appointed by the principal sheriffs. He understood that since the date of the Commission three of the latter had been appointed. He did not know how many more such appointments might fall vacant before the Commission had completed its labours; but, unless some stipulation were made with future appointees, they might have a claim on the country for compensation should their offices be afterwards abolished.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, as a member of the Royal Commission felt called upon to enter a protest against the assumption contained in the Question which the hon. Gentleman had placed upon the Notice Paper—that there is a great preponderance of opinion in favour of a change in the existing state of the Sheriff Courts. No doubt there was evidence to that effect; but there was quite as much evidence the other way. The difficulty arose from the Commission—with what he could not but consider a stretch of their power in that respect—publishing the evidence bit by bit. But he did not think it desirable, when the evidence had been published in this manner, for hon. Members to make use of it to

  1635
  bring before the House Motions founded upon it before the Report of the Commissioners was made known.
  MR. CRAUFURDthought that when the evidence was published the public were justified in assuming that the inquiry vas complete, and that they might draw such conclusion as they pleased, without in any degree prejudicing the Report which the Royal Commission might afterwards make. Now, the suggestion of his hon. Friend did not in any way fetter the recommendations the Commissioners might make. All that was required was that, following the precedent of the Registration of Writs, they should take precautions that persons hereafter appointed to these offices should have no claim to compensation if the Commission should recommend that one of the double sheriffships should be abolished.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that when a Commission had been appointed to inquire into so important a matter as the whole, operation of an important jurisdiction, it was premature and inconvenient that while the inquiry was still incomplete, they should form conclusions as to the result of the evidence until the Commission had reported—for he supposed the Commission was appointed because the information before the Government and the country was not sufficient to enable them to come to a conclusion. The evidence, as far as it had gone, was laid before Parliament at the earliest, possible period after the meeting of Parliament. He had no reason to know that the evidence upon the subject of the Sheriff Courts was complete. An all events, it would be entirely premature, either on the part of the Government or of the House, to come to any conclusion on this matter. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Burce had requested him to state in direct answer to the Question—without giving any absolute pledge—that he will be prepared to consider very seriously the suggestion made by the Question should a vacancy occur.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to move an Address for Copy of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Science and Art Department to inquire
  1636
  into the alleged deterioration of the Pictures belonging to the National Gallery deposited at the South Kensington Museum. He hoped the evidence of the scientific men would be given to the House. On considering the subject, he thought he would not move the Motion, of which he had given notice, but content himself with calling the attention of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council to the matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Report had been delayed in consequence of experiments which scientific men had been engaged in making. He believed, however, it would be presented before the close of the present Session. He might say, however, that they thought there was no reason to believe that the pictures were suffering.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  SPECIAL BAILS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HADFIELD, Bill to facilitate the taking Special Bails in Civil Proceedings depending in the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, and in Proceedings in Error and on Appeal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD and Mr. DENMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.