Commons Sitting of 21 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Aberdeen City, v. Lieutenant Colonel William Henry Sykes, deceased.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tribunals of Commerce* [206]; Metropolitan Police Superannuation* [207].
Second Reading—Colonial Governors Pensions [176]; Bakehouses* [54], put off.
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Education (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [31–204]; Wildfowl Protection [46–205].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2) (re-comm.)* [124].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* [137], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

EDUCATION—INCREASED ALLOWANCE TO IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can now state the decision of the Government respecting the increased allowance to the Irish School Teachers under the National Board of Education?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he was not yet in a position to make a complete statement as to the decision of the Government respecting increased allowances to the Irish school teachers under the National Board of Education, but he thought he might say that the question had made some progress since the hon. Baronet first put the Question. If not before, he hoped to be able to give a complete statement of the matter when the Vote for Irish Education came before the House.

PARLIAMENT—MORNING SITTINGS—RIGHTS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he would recall to the recollection of the Speaker that, at the termination of the Business of the House that morning, he had moved that the second reading of

  21
  the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill be postponed from the Orders for that Day (Friday), till the House should meet at 2 P.M. on Tuesday next; but that, on a division, it was found that there was not present Members enough to constitute a House. His Motion, therefore, for the postponement of the Bill till 2 P.M. on Tuesday next, stood recorded upon the Votes and Proceedings of the House. He had not made that Motion inconsiderately, but, after consultation with several of the senior Members of the House, for the purpose of raising the following Question, which he desired to put to the Speaker:—Whether there exists any Standing Order or Resolution of the House, or any ruling or decision of any Speaker in the House, whereby a Member, not connected with Her Majesty's Ministry, was precluded from placing any Bill, of which he might be in charge, as the First Order for consideration when the House may meet at 2 P.M. on Tuesday, or to put the same question in other words, using the familiar phraseology of the House—whether an independent Member can appoint any stage of a Bill of which he may be in charge as the First Order of the Day for consideration, when the House meets at 2 P.M. on a Tuesday?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having been good enough to give me Notice of the Question, I have thought it my duty to look into the matter, and I do not know that I can do better than quote the decision given by the Speaker on the 26th of June, 1851. The point now submitted by the hon. Member was raised on the 24th of June, 1851, and again on the 26th, when the Speaker made use of these words—
  "The practice of the House—for no rule existed on the subject—had always been, since he had the honour of sitting in that Chair, that at the morning sittings the Government Bills took precedence over other Bills; but other hon. Members were not precluded from putting down their own Bills for the morning sittings, and if they were put down, they would come on in the regular order, after the Government Bills, if there were any."—[3 Hansard, cxvii., 1254.]
  There has been no departure from that ruling, nor could any departure from such ruling be sanctioned without the express authority of the House itself.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [re-committed] BILL.— [BILL 31.]—COMMITTEE.
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to call attention to an occurrence which took place on the previous evening. On postponed Clause 2 being put from the Chair, it was declared to be negatived; yet at a later period of the evening the Lord Advocate endeavoured to get the Committee to pass a similar clause, with an alteration of one or two words; acquitting the Lord Advocate of any intention of obtaining an undue advantage, he thought such a course deserve condemnation, as reflecting discredit on the proceedings of the House.
MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he presumed that what the Lord Advocate intended to do last night was to negative the 3rd, and not the 2nd clause; but as the 2nd clause was rejected, he kept the 3rd clause in the Bill, which was not required if the new clause the learned Lord Advocate proposed were inserted. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) wished to know whether he really proposed to keep both clauses in the Bill? If he did so, there would be two sets of officials to do the same work, and he feared that the management of Scotch education, which had hitherto cost nothing, would in the hands of Education Departments, local treasurers, and collectors, and pedagogues to hunt up absentees, prove very expensive.
MR. MELLORsaid, he also felt anxious about the question of expenditure, and he begged to ask the Lord Advocate whether the people of Scotland were to bear the expenditure of establishing the whole of the machinery which would be rendered necessary by the provisions of this Bill, or whether the people of England were to be Called upon to pay a share towards the education of the people of Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the organizing Commissioners appointed by the new clause of which the Committee approved last night, were to hold office temporarily—that was to say, for three years, with power to extend the period of five years if found necessary. While they were in office, they would be substantially the only officers in Scotland,

23
of course, with the exception of their secretary, clerk, office-keeper, or other person who might be required for the proper discharge of their duties. It was not contemplated to have anything of the nature of a permanent establishment in Scotland; but, while there were not to be two establishments, it would be necessary to have officers in Scotland after the temporary Commission had concluded its labours; and that was the reason why both clauses were to be retained. Clause 2 last night was negatived on account of an error of his own; and as it was only discovered on the instant, it could not be remedied, and the most easy course, he was informed, was that the clause should be negatived, and a new one introduced. He hoped that explanation would be satisfactory. As to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Mellor), regarding the expenses connected with the administration of the Scotch Education Act, all he could say was that we were a united kingdom, and the people of Scotland would be taxed fairly, according to their ability, to contribute to the defraying of the expenses of the United Kingdom. Since the English Act was passed the people of Scotland had paid their share of the expenses of working that Act, and he supposed it would not be deemed any hardship if the people of England were called upon to pay their share of the expenses of working the Scotch Education Act.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEwas exceedingly happy to find that the Lord Advocate had at last discovered that Scotland was a part of the United Kingdom, and that when expenses were laid upon the taxpayers of this country, those Members who were Scotchmen by birth, though not favoured with the confidence of constituencies of their own, had a perfect right, on behalf of their English constituencies, to raise their voice when such an enormous outlay was proposed as there was under the Bill. He would also remind the Prime Minister that there was a minority in Scotland as well as a majority, and that minority embraced within its ranks the greater part of the property—and certainly the majority of the intelligence of Scotland. As the taxpayers of England, it was now admitted, had a right to a say in this matter, he wanted to know what where to be the expenses of the Commission?
24
Was it to be a Commission stationed in Scotland? Would it embrace within its numbers persons in whom the people of Scotland could have confidence, and not a political Commission? Would it represent the great sections into which the Presbyterian Church was divided, or would it be merely a Commission formed of the "creatures" of the Lord Advocate, who would sit in Edinburgh, draw their salaries, and have very little to do, being, in fact, paid for doing what was formerly done free of expense?
MR. M'LARENthought the 3rd clause must have been retained by mistake. It was understood to be withdrawn, and a new one substituted for it. The new clause, forming the Commission, was introduced and approved of; but the 3rd clause was still retained in the Bill, and he hoped it would be taken out on the Report.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he took the same view as the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He understood that the arrangement which was made was that a new clause was to be substituted for Clause 3, to which objections had been raised. That new clause had been introduced and adopted; yet the objectionable Clause 3 still remained in the Bill. As to the Scotch Education Department, he joined in the expression of opinion by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) that the Government would give some idea of what that Department was to be. He did not make a request for the publication of the names of the Commission at present, because it would only create jealousy; but it was important that they should know what the constitution of the Scotch Department was to be.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to recall the House to the fact that the question before them was not whether Clause 3 was to be retained in the Bill, but whether they were to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of inserting a clause which was accidentally negatived last night. With regard to Clause 3, however, the Lord Advocate, not being able according to the Rules of the House to speak again, desired him to say that between this and the time of the Report he would consider whether the 2nd clause being again inserted in the Bill, it would be necessary to retain Clause 3. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) had asked for further information

25
respecting the Scotch Education Department. It had been said that the Department would have nothing to do while the Commissioners were sitting; but that was not correct, for it would have to see to the distribution in Scotland of that part of the Imperial money to which Scotland was entitled, and to take care that the conditions on which that money was received were fulfilled, and of course it would be paid for doing that work. With regard to the character of the Department, he must refer hon. Gentlemen to the explanations already given in the course of these discussions. The Scotch Department would be similar to the English Education Department, which was constituted in this way—there were the Lord President of the Council and the Vice President, who had to deal with the administrative work, and were responsible to the House of Commons for the management of educational matters; these were assisted, and, in point of fact, would be controlled, by a Committee of the Council for Education, a new Committee being appointed whenever a change of Ministry took place. That Committee would be carefully selected as regarded Scotland, and the belief was that it would be for the advantage of Imperial as well as Scotch interests that the administration of education in Scotland, so far as Parliament had to do with it, should be entrusted to the Lord President and the Vice President, as now the case in England, with the assistance of a Special Committee of Council for Scotland. [Cries of "Names!"] He did not think they ought to be called upon to give the names, and certainly they could not pledge a future Administration in the matter, for the Committee changed from Government to Government. But this he would say, that there ought to be appointed a Committee of Council, which should contain a fair and influential representation of Scotch views and feelings.
MR. MACFIEthought that the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman had just given would hardly realize the just expectations of the people of the North. He trusted, however, that the Committee would be so constituted in respect of Members with ecclesiastical leanings and persons possessing acquaintance with Scotch educational matters that all the apprehensions hitherto entertained would disappear under its satisfactory working. It was remarked by
26
the Lord Advocate that we were an United Kingdom. So we were, but there were some Scotch matters which Scotland wished to see regulated in accordance with Scotch feeling. There were five important divisions on this Bill, in which a very large numerical majority of the Scotch Members had been out-voted on the most vital points of the measure by the English Members. He was not a Home Ruler, but he must say that such a result could hardly conciliate Scotch feeling.
Motion agreed to.
New Clause agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to receive some explanations from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary before proceeding further with the Bill. When the Bill was brought forward in 1870, the Amendments suggested by the Mines Association stood in Ms (Mr. S. Hill's) name on the Paper. Those Amendments embodied arrangements of existing differences between masters and men which had been come to at a meeting under the presidency of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire. In 1870 the Bill was dropped, and in 1871 there was a similar result. In the present Session, when the Bill was about to be brought forward, it was thought advisable that all the difficulties likely to arise should be thoroughly considered by the three parties most interested, with a view to see how far those difficulties could be removed, so that the measure proposed might have the full assent of the House, and might not take up time unduly in its discussion. Accordingly, a Conference of the coal-masters, represented by the Mines Association, and of the men represented by Mr. Macdonald, was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, and the Home

27
Office was represented there by the Mines Inspectors, Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wynne. These representatives of the three interests concerned held meetings for five days under the presidency of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire; every question that arose was fully discussed, and at last an agreement was come to on all points, with one or two minor exceptions. The Report on the subject was very fully considered, and finally delivered at the Home Office on the 23rd of March. It was not without some surprise, therefore, that he saw, when the Bill was again printed, that on some of the most vital points the original measure remained unchanged, and that the Home Secretary had not adopted the agreements come to between masters and men upon full consideration. The points to which attention had been especially called were those with reference to certificated managers and certain general rules. Clause 15 of the Bill referred to wages, and might be called the wages clause. When matters were discussed between the masters and men there was a Master and Servant Bill before the House, and it was agreed that the 15th clause should remain in the Bill, lest anything should happen to the Master and Servant Bill; but if that Bill was to be proceeded with, then that this 15th clause might be struck out. He thought that some explanations on the points to which he had adverted ought to be given by the Home Secretary before proceeding further.
MR. PEASEexpressed a hope that the Home Secretary would not delegate his authority to any body of men. Whatever might be the opinion of the Coal Owners Association, he could state from personal communication with the miners, that many of the Amendments were not in accordance with their wishes.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that he had nothing to complain of in the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, except that he had somewhat overrated the authority given to the Inspectors. They were certainly not ordered to attend, but a request having been made that they might attend the deliberations of the Conference, he was perfectly willing that they should. When the Amendments were brought before him, he carefully guarded himself against saying anything further than that he would give them his best consideration, and his hon. and learned
28
Friend could not allege it as a grievance that he had not done so, seeing that he had adopted about 15 of them. The question of wages was a very important one, and could not be properly discussed in this Bill. He hoped the Committee would resist any alteration in the law until the whole question could be discussed, whether this Session or next year, and he believed that both labourers and employers would be unwilling to see any alteration in the law till that question had been far more fully discussed than it could possibly be in this Bill.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he had no desire to claim greater authority for the Conference than it really deserved, or to override the functions of the House; but there was in that Conference a very full representation of masters and men; these Amendments had been most fully and carefully considered, with an earnest desire to come to a settlement upon them; and, therefore, they came before the Committee at least with a primâ facie case in their favour.
Motion agreed to; Preamble postponed accordingly.
Preliminary.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
MR. BRUEN MR. BRUEN moved, in page 1, line 11, after "operation" to insert "in England and Scotland;" and in line 12, after "seventy-three," to insert "and in Ireland not until the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four." The object of the Amendment was to postpone the operation of the Act in Ireland until the 1st of January, 1874.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would admit that there was a fair ground for postponement in the case of Ireland, but thought that the postponement should be for a year only, instead of two.
MR. BOUVERIEasked whether there was to be any provision for the inspection of coal mines in Ireland? He believed there were no inflammable coal mines in Ireland, whatever other inflammable materials might be found there.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that, only one-fifth of the accidents which happened in coal mines were caused by explosions; four-fifths resulted from other accidents caused by the want of proper overlooking and discipline; and it was to provide for

29
such cases that many new provisions were introduced into the Bill. Hitherto, Ireland had not been, included in these Acts; but the Government had received communications which satisfied them that Ireland should now be included. The work of inspection would be very light there; but ample employment would be found for one Inspector. He would move to amend the Amendment by inserting 1874, instead of 1875.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.

PART I.
Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines).
MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 18, after "boy," to insert "save as excepted by section eleven of this Act," said, there was an earnest desire on the part of every miner in England that female labour should be prohibited on the "bank-top" as well as under-ground. He was aware that a contrary opinion had been expressed by a Select Committee; but in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Durham the general custom was not to employ women in coal-mining, even above ground, and much demoralization would be prevented if there was a statutory prohibition of such, employment all over the kingdom. He was aware that the question of wages was mixed up with such a prohibition; but he hoped that the Committee would not allow the question of wages to influence them when decency and morality were at stake, and when women by this employment were withdrawn from the care of their families and from home associations.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Committee must be careful not to allow the arguments of a specious philanthropy to lead them from the regions of common sense, or they would be really doing an injury to the very persons they desired to serve. To say that labour outside the pits was unadvisable for women was one thing; absolutely to prohibit it was quite another; and he certainly hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It had been advocated by the hon. and learned Gen-
30
tleman on three grounds—that female labour at the pit's mouth was indecent, that it withdrew them from their home duties, and that they themselves wished to have it done away with. He must first of all protest against the statement that this question had not been thoroughly considered by the Select Committee. In fact, a great number of working miners were called before it; and though many of them objected to this employment of women, as leading to indecency and immorality, many others were of the contrary opinion, and evinced the greatest dislike to its being prohibited by law. The evidence of the Inspectors of Mines was, that it would be a great hardship to these women to prevent their labouring as hitherto, that it would deprive them of many comforts, that they were as moral a sort of women as any in the kingdom, and that the work was free from indecency. No doubt, working at the pit's mouth interfered with their home duties and associations; but as much might be said of any form of female labour, whether outside mines or inside factories, and he thought, therefore, that the Committee should be careful how they interfered in the matter.
MR. BROWNstated that it appeared from the Report of the Miners' Commission that the practice of employing females was degrading to the sex, and led to gross immorality. It would be desirable, therefore, not to prohibit absolutely females labouring at the pit's bank, but to enact that none under a certain age should do so, because the chief danger of moral contamination would be removed if young girls were kept away.
MR. BRUENsaid, that there was none of the immorality which had been alluded to observable at the mines in Ireland, and the prevention of the employment of women there would be a great hardship.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the measure could hardly deserve to be called a "Mines Regulation Bill" at all, if this question of the labour of women was not to be dealt with. From actual observation, and from the universal testimony of those best fitted to speak with authority, he was bound to say that this employment of women was degrading and disgraceful to the nation. Something at least might be done to the same purpose as the enactment of last year in the case of

31
the brickfields, which prohibited in future young women under a certain age from working in them. By that means no injustice could be done to those now engaged in the work; and the Committee might be sure that if a woman did not begin this sort of employment before 18 years of age she would never begin it at all. No sight could be more degrading than to see women in attire almost like that of men, with coalheavers' hats on their heads, smoking pipes with the men, drinking with them in the public-houses, and, he was told, sometimes fighting with them afterwards in the streets. It might be said that women were as free as men to enter into contracts; but though that was all very well in theory, the fact was, that they were sent as girls to this work by their parents, and were not free agents till they were about 18 years old, and then only till marriage; for a woman in that class was very much the slave of her husband—was his horse, his ass, his anything. The House ought to interfere in the interests of the women themselves, of their children, and of public decency and morality; and he should certainly support his hon. Friend if he went to a division, though he would suggest that the Amendment should not now be pressed; but that words should be moved in a later clause, prohibiting the employmen at the pit's mouth of women under a certain age.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had lived in South Staffordshire for many years and was well acquainted with the work referred to, and with the class of persons engaged in it, and from his own experience he could say that no young women of a better class, more straightforward in their manner, more respectable, or whose dress was more thoroughly becoming to them, could be found engaged in any other employment in the kingdom. He must therefore express his surprise at the language of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella).
MR. FLETCHERsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be misled by the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment, because, although he quite agreed that in some parts of Wales and of South Staffordshire women were to be found employed on the "bank-top" who were not properly dressed, still, in Cumberland, where a large number of women were
32
engaged in this industry, that was not the case. The work of sorting out the refuse from the coal was neither hard nor degrading, and it was performed under cover. The women who picked out this refuse were better adapted to the work than men were, and they earned 9s. a-week by their labour. If the Amendment were adopted, a large number of deserving women would be deprived of the means of support which was now open to them.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, who had been one of the Select Committee appointed to investigate this subject, in opposition to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, said, that the Committee had examined a great number of working miners before coming to a conclusion on this matter.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, that the evidence of the working miners examined by the Committee did not bear upon the point now under discussion.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANproceeded to remark that the Committee had done their best to obtain the fullest information on the subject, and they had made a most conscientious Report. The question of the employment of women had engaged his attention for many years, and he had done his best to prevent them being employed on work for which they were not fitted; still he thought much hardship would be inflicted were Parliament to lay down the hard-and-fast law that no women were to be employed on collieries, even above ground.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that the Committee ought to feel obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds for having brought this question under their notice, because he believed that all that had been said about the demoralizing effect of this description of labour upon women was perfectly true. He thought, however, that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) should be accepted—namely, that no girls or women under a certain age should be employed in this sort of labour; for upon them it undoubtedly had a demoralizing effect. If the Amendment was now pressed, and in its present form, he was afraid that the object of those who favoured it would be defeated; and he thought it would be far better to move in the 3rd sub-section of the 11th clause words providing that

33
women under 20 years of age should not be employed at the pit's mouth.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he agreed with the last speaker that considerable inconvenience would result from discussing this Amendment on the earlier clauses of the Bill, when it could be much more appropriately debated on Clause 11. He, however, felt bound to state, at the same time, that he was entirely opposed to carrying much further the interference with women's labour. It might be quite true that in some places this description of labour was of a demoralizing character, but, at the same time, he did not think that it was as demoralizing as many other descriptions of female labour. The best course that could be adopted, in his view of the matter, was to leave the employment of women to be regulated by the improved feelings of our countrymen. It had been shown that in certain districts women were less employed in this sort of labour than in others, and that might, perhaps, arise from a higher sense of duty on the subject in those districts, though he believed the chief cause was that it happened that other descriptions of employment could be had by the women there.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he hoped that, as the Amendment had already been discussed at considerable length, it would not be withdrawn, but that its principle would be at once determined by the Committee.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he thought it absurd to object to the Amendment as an interference with freedom of compact, for the clause as it stood interfered with it as regarded labour below ground. Eye witnesses reported that this labour was very degrading, and his own limited observation led him to agree with them. He should like to hear the evidence of a working miner on this point.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he regarded the Amendment as too vague. The kinds of labour to be prohibited should be defined, or otherwise the prohibition might apply to lighting fires and cooking dinners.
MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) was anxious to hear the opinion of a working man on this point; but why did he not consult the women whose employment was proposed to be taken away? He (Mr. Bright) hoped the Government would be firm on
34
this question. He deprecated legislation which, at a time when women were properly seeking new fields of employment, would render it more difficult for them to earn a living. There might, perhaps, be sufficient reason for prohibiting women from working below, but he had heard no sufficient reason for extending prohibition to labour above ground.
SIR JOSEPH BAILEYalso opposed the Amendment, on the ground that there was a variety of light labour which devolved on women and boys. He would be no party to taking the bread out of the mouths of these poor women. By adopting the Amendment there would arise the necessity of doubling the population in the mining districts, and that would be the cause of great economical troubles.
MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn; but if that was not allowed, he should vote for it, preferring total prohibition to the present demoralizing state of things. Parliament had interfered with many trades in which women were only too anxious to be employed, and when attempts were made to shorten the hours of labour of dressmakers, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), who now came forward as the champion of women, never raised his voice, while he and his friends also opposed the Factory Acts.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he must protest against the idea that any woman who wore soiled clothes must necessarily be immoral. So far as his experience went, immorality was principally confined to women who wore smart clothes. He had lived in a mining district all his life, and he had no hesitation in saying that the wives and daughters of colliers and miners were as well able to take care of themselves and their honour as any other class of women in the country. It was said that they wore men's clothes, but the fact was that, as a matter of propriety, their trousers were lengthened to their ankles, and occasionally they put on a man's coat to protect them against the rain.
LORD ELCHO, when in communication a few years ago with working miners, said, he found that they had a picture of a woman dressed as had been described; but though they raised this point it did not appear to be one on which they laid stress. Mr. Dickinson,

35
the Colliery Inspector, having seen nearly all the women in his district, had reported that they unanimously wished to be let alone.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped leave would be given to postpone the Amendment until the clauses relating to work above ground were reached, otherwise the question would have to be discussed again, while the present clauses related exclusively to work underground.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). Considering the enormous number of women employed in various ways, he was convinced that in order to protect themselves they must form combinations like men, and arrange matters for themselves. They would never be in a satisfactory condition until they attained the independent position which workmen had already reached.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to leave husbands and wives in an independent position, and should therefore vote against the Amendment. It was undesirable that women should be employed in such ways; but instead of laying down a hard law, it was better to trust the matter to the growing feeling of the times, and leave women free to accept or reject. He understood that during the last few years the views of working miners on this point had been somewhat modified.
MR. RICHARDsaid, the most conclusive evidence of the feeling of the colliers themselves in reference to the question was evidenced by the fact that representatives of the miners of England, Scotland, and Wales met some time ago at Manchester, and passed a resolution to the effect that they viewed with abhorrence the employment of women in mines. That meeting expressed an earnest hope that the Government would bring in a measure to prevent any female being employed in a mine.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PEASE MR. PEASE moved as an Amendment in line 18, page 1, to strike out "ten" for the purpose of inserting "twelve." His Amendment, he said, would exclude all boys below 12 years of age from going under ground, and its effect would be to keep boys at school for two years longer than the Bill proposed. That additional schooling would render
36
boys ten times more valuable than they would be if they were allowed to be employed under ground at 10 years of age, for it was well known that the labour of boys at that age was practically worthless in comparison with the greater age. In the mining district which he represented it had been the practice not to employ in mines boys who were under 12 years of age, and anyone acquainted with the subject would know the reasonableness of that practice. If the Committee, had any regard for the mining population, they ought to take care that boys under 12 should not be employed in mines by adopting the Amendment proposed.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Pease.)
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it would be necessary for the economical working of thin-seam, mines with which he was acquainted, that boys between the ages of 10 and 12 should be employed. He would not sanction the working of any mine which would be injurious to human life; but in the seams to which he referred there was an absence of deleterious matter, and the coal which was obtained from them was particularly well adapted for the production of the very best iron for which England was famous. Moreover, the opinion of the men themselves was in favour of this employment of the boys, and in 1870 two Petitions, signed by nearly 3,000 of them, were presented to the House to that effect. In fact, both masters and men were agreed on the subject.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the Amendment, on the ground that a boy between the age of 10 and 12 would not have strength enough for the work, and that the boy was anything but a voluntary agent in the matter.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that if a boy was to be prevented from working under ground in a thick-seam mine, much more ought he to be prevented in a thin-seam mine. The men knew what was good or bad for their children; they were the persons who would suffer if their children were not to be employed, and if they were willing to make the pecuniary sacrifices which would be entailed on them from the non-employment of their children, it was not for the House

37
of Commons to prevent them. Now, the 40th resolution of the Conference was to the effect, that children under 10 should be prevented from entering the mines for purposes of employment.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHopposed the Amendment. In most points to which the clause applied, parents were unanimous in favour of it as it stood. He had himself presented numerous Petitions from the neighbourhood of Halifax—and the men, almost everyone of them—had petitioned in favour of the clause, for the simple reason that the thin-seam collieries could not be worked without employing those boys. The evidence of that most experienced Inspector, Mr. Dickinson, before the Mines Committee was also to that effect. It was said that the thin-seam colliery was the most dangerous to the child. He believed the contrary to be the case, because the distances were comparatively short, and the loads light.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he did not see why the Argument of the noble Lord would not apply equally to a boy of eight. It was a question of strength, and until a boy was 12 years old he had not the requisite strength for this work. A boy of 12 ought also to have laid a good foundation in learning; he ought to have acquired at least "the three R's." He believed that many hon. Members, if they spoke candidly, would say that they acquired pretty nearly all they knew by the time they were 12; at all events, they laid the foundation of what they knew before that age. He should support the Amendment, believing it better to prevent boys from going into a mine at all until they were 12 years old, and had received a good education.
MR. BROWNsaid, he wished to point out that the clause as it stood would add materially to the number of accidents by falls in the shafts, because it would double the number of boys going up and down these mines. It was very difficult to make this legislation fit into the half-time system, and he would quote the opinion of the Committee of 1867, who recommended that no boys should be employed in coal mines under the age of 12.
MR. RICHARDsaid, he should also support the Amendment, and in doing so represented the view of the great body of miners employed in his district, who were ready to relinquish the wages
38
of their children up to the age of 12, in order that they might have the benefit if a good education. He maintained—from a letter he had received from an intelligent minister, who had visited many coal mines, and who said he abhorred the idea of employing boys of 10 under-ground—that this early labour stunted their physical growth, blunted heir moral perceptions, and did more than anything else to demoralize the mining population.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the discussion showed the extreme difficulty and perplexity of the question. The Select Committee proposed that in all cases the age of children employed in mines should be 12 years, and, feeling the difficulty with regard to education, they made no recommendation on that subject. The Bill was framed in accordance with the Report of the Committee, and in 1870 complaint was made, on the one hand, that no means of education were afforded to children, and on the other hand that children in certain cases would be deprived of a very lucrative employment. Meanwhile, deputations waited on him from Yorkshire and Lancashire, representing both masters and workmen, and he found that the feelings of the working population engaged in the thin-seam mines were entirely in favour of the employment there of children between the ages of 10 and 12. He knew that too much weight must not be attached to the selfish interests of parents; but he had made inquiry from the Inspectors as to the effect of employment in these mines upon the health and education of children, and could assure the Committee that the Reports he received were by no means unfavourable to such employment. It was difficult to apply one hard-and-fast line to various kinds of mining labour, and he came at last to the conclusion that it would be a fair compromise to exclude children under 12 from employment under-ground among nineteen-twentieths of the mining population, allowing such employment among the remainder as provided in the Bill. He was aware that the miners generally were in favour of the limit of 12 years. But surely the parents mainly to be consulted were those whose children would be allowed to work under this Bill? They comprised only one-twentieth of the mining population, and were in favour of the lower limit; but ample

39
security was given that younger children should have a sufficient amount of education. Both employers and men, he believed, were, on the whole, satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and he hoped the Committee would make no change in the clause.
MR. RYLANDSsupported the Amendment. In the greatest portion of the mining districts children under 12 years of age would not be employed; but in certain small portions of the coal districts the clause would give power to the Home Secretary to authorize the employment of children between the ages of 10 and 12. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about a hard-and-fast line, but there was a hard-and-fast line imposed by nature. Whatever might be done with regard to its mental education, a child of 10 could not be taken and put into a coal mine without sustaining physical injury. He hoped the House would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he spoke with reluctance upon a matter in which he had some personal interest; but when hon. Members declared that the employment of children in the thin-seam mines tended to their physical and moral injury he thought that some proof should be furnished of the truth of such a statement. Hon. Gentlemen should remember that children were now employed between the ages of 10 and 12, and he asserted that as regarded the thin-seam mines these children were as well-developed, mentally and physically, as those in any other parts of the country. He said so as the result of inquiry, and not of personal observation; but no interest in the world would lead him to support the employment of children between 10 and 12 in these mines if he thought that he was thereby preventing their physical and moral development. If they were not so employed, it was supposed that they would remain at school till they were 12 years old; but in the West Riding, where the thin-seam mines were situated, the whole country was dotted over with manufactories, and if the children did not go into the collieries at 10, they would inevitably go into some factory. Of the two, he thought mining labour more healthy than factory labour. In the thin-seam collieries the labour was of a light kind; the corves of coal were ex-
40
ceedingly small and light, and suitable to children. If labour were to be stopped at 10, let the question be fairly argued. He had seen the Petitions which had been referred to, and the parents of the children, who were the petitioners, all expressed a desire to have their children with them in the mines, so as they might be brought up to the labour they would have to follow in after life. The Home Secretary, too, saw no reason to object to such an arrangement, and why, then, should others interpose? He hoped that in thick as well as in thin-seam mines machinery would soon be invented to supersede to a great extent the employment of children; but the Committee ought not to interfere and extinguish this industry unless they were satisfied that physical and moral injury resulted to the children.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had really argued in favour of the Amendment, for though he wanted to employ children 10 years old in mining, he had expressed a hope that the time would come when such labour could be altogether superseded by machinery. If inventors were to be stimulated into producing such machinery, that stimulus would best be given not by permitting the employment of children at 10 years of age, but by preventing their employment until they were 12. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were such as had been used on every occasion when it had been proposed to restrict the employment of women and children. He hoped the Committee was not prepared to immure children of the tender age of 10 years in mines, where the weakest went to the wall, and where only the healthy and the strong could survive.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he was sure that the sympathies of the Committee were in favour of making children's labour as light as possible. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to suppose that that was a proposal, for the first time, to employ children of 10 years old in mines, whereas the clause, even as proposed, made a great and sweeping change, for in 19 cases out of 20, children between the ages of 10 and 12 now immured in coal mines would be disinterred. That was a great stride in advance, and all that the Bill proposed was to allow certain exceptions. Originally, miners, as a body, were in favour

41
of the limit of 12 years; but on reconsideration, and on representations made by owners and by parents who were interested, it was thought that the compromise contained in the Bill as to the thin-seam mines was a fair one.
MR. C. SEELY(Nottingham) said, he thought it would be better to let the clause stand as it was, and then when they came to the 5th clause they might limit its operation to a certain number of years.
MR. SAMUELSON, in opposing the Amendment, said that the only argument for it appeared to be that if children under the age of 12 years were not employed in the seam mines the expense of working those mines would be increased.
Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 136: Majority 51.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines).
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH moved as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out "No boy of the age of twelve and under the age of thirteen years, and." The object of the Amendment was to render the Bill similar to the Factory Acts, under which no child under 13 years of age was allowed to work full time.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken as to the effect of his Amendment, which was unnecessary, for it would be better to leave this point to the discretion of the school boards, who would have power to compel boys between 12 and 13 years of age to attend school during a certain number of hours per week.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved in sub-section 1, line 20, after "of," to insert "the shift or group of workmen commencing to leave;" in same line, to leave out "leaving;" in line 21, after "of," to insert "so commencing to return;" and in same line to leave out
42
"returning." He wished to show that the time during which the boys should be employed under ground should be calculated from the hour when the group or shift of workmen with whom the boys were employed commenced to leave the ground to the hour when the group or shift arrived at the surface.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to point out that in some instances in the North of England, while the workmen left the surface at four o'clock in the morning, the boys did not begin to descend until six o'clock, and came up again earlier than the workmen. While fully admitting the difficulty of properly defining the time when the boys were to commence or to leave off work, he regretted he could not accept the Amendment as it was at present worded.
MR. PEASEsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the practice in the North of England. It would be almost impossible to carry out this Act if every individual boy was ticketed when he went down the pit and when he came up.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the words really meant the average time when the boys were relieved.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, that the clause related only to boys, and had nothing to do with men. There would be great difficulty in arriving at the average time. The time should commence to run when the first boy started from the surface and end when the signal was given for return. There would be no difficulty in arranging it so.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that a most important point. If the clause was left as it now stood, or if the average was taken, it would be impossible to say when an offence had been committed by employing boys beyond the time allowed. He therefore thought the clause should be postponed, in order that suitable words might be inserted.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped the time would be accurately defined by Parliament, otherwise the embarrassment of mine owners would be increased.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, the Home Secretary need not fear that while some boys were being brought up others would be kept at work, because all the boys insisted upon stopping work at the same moment.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he believed that unless the Act prescribed the time at

43
which the work should begin or end, parents, or workmen hiring boys, might be tempted to keep them at work beyond the ordinary hours.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsuggested that the words of the sub-section should run thus—
"The period of employment to be deemed to begin at the time of the shift or group of persons so employed commencing to leave the surface, &c."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as more men were employed at a time of full work than when work was short, the period occupied by lowering and raising was of uncertain duration, and it was impossible to define when either of these operations should cease; but they might fix the time at which the lowering and raising should commence.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the real question was as to the time that these persons were actually at work.
MR. PEASEsaid, that if a portion of the clause was omitted it might work well. The object should be to prevent annoyance through technical arrangements.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he feared that they were attempting to reconcile two impossible things.
MR. CANDLISHsuggested that the Amendment should be now adopted on the understanding that it should be remodelled on the Report.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the framers of the Clause had intended the time to count from the hour of leaving the surface to the hour of regaining it. He thought the clause as it stood was clearer than the Amendment, but was willing to discuss the matter elsewhere, and accept any feasible suggestion.
MR. BOUVERIEsuggested a modification of Clause 6, so as to calculate the time in the way just stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CAWLEYdoubted whether the proposed Amendment of the clause would accomplish the object in view.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, considering the penalty of imprisonment which would attend the owners and workers for the acts of subordinates, felt bound to go to a division, unless the Home Secretary undertook to alter the clause at another stage.
SIR JOSEPH BAILEY, on the contrary, hoped that the Home Secretary would adhere to the words of the clause.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not undertake to alter it, unless satisfied that it would be for the better. He denied that imprisonment would attach to persons except for personal and wilful acts.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would recommend the acceptance of the Home Secretary's offer.
MR. R. SHAWsaid, he thought that the time should be counted from the hour of leaving the surface till the signal was given to cease work.
MR. BRUCEobjected that boys might in that case have to wait an hour or more at the bottom of the shaft while coal was being hauled up.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he was willing to abide by the decision of the workmen's representatives.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought his own Amendment, framed by representatives of masters and men, was, after all the best.
MR. RYLANDSthought the clause should be postponed, with the view of enabling his hon. Friend the Member for Durham to propose a clause which would be satisfactory to all parties.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the question was surrounded with great difficulties, and on the whole he thought the suggestion of the Home Secretary was the best—namely, that the clause should remain as it was upon the understanding that on the Report the right hon. Gentleman should propose an alteration of it in conformity with what appeared to be the wish of the Committee.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, it would be impossible to individualize each boy, and in the result serious penalties might fall on the mine owner.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that when the Bill had been in operation 12 months many of the difficulties might be better met.
MR. J. S. HARDYhoped that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Vivian) would not press the question to a division, but would leave the question to be dealt with on the Report.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would gladly adopt any form of words which would remove doubt upon the subject. He, moreover, thought the Inspectors should not institute prosecutions against the owners of collieries without laying before the Secretary of State the grounds of prosecutions, and it would be expe-

45
dient to add to the clause words to that effect.
MR. PEASEsaid, the suggestion of the Home Secretary would perfectly meet the case.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was anxious that a more specific form of words should be adopted.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that after the declaration of the Home Secretary he would not persist in his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 (Educational provisions with respect to boys).
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH moved that, after the word "employed," in line 34, the following words should be inserted:—
"Attend a school which the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education having recognized as giving efficient elementary education to the children of the district, or if there be no school in the district which has been so recognized, or no school so recognized in which there is room, then any elementary school in the district."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he saw no objection to the introduction of the words, and would consider the matter before the bringing up of the Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Another Amendment made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
MR. WHEELHOUSEproposed verbal alterations which would provide that no girl or woman under 20 should be so employed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that this section was introduced on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Mines, to the effect that with respect to women and children employed on the surface the provisions of the Workshops Act should apply. There were many sorts of labour from which he should wish to see women and children exempted, but he held that all these questions should be dealt with as a whole. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was also of opinion that this matter, if
46
taken up at all, should be dealt with as a general question.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PEASEproposed, in line 12, to leave out "eight," and insert, 'ten," so that the age of children employed above bank might not be under 10.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he believed, as a matter of fact, that no children of the tender age which his hon. Friend had in view were ever employed.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he should support the Amendment on the ground that if the word "eight" remained part of the clause an invitation would be given for the employment of children of that tender age.
Amendment agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION INQUIRY.—EXPLANATION.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to prevent a misapprehension which might arise from the statement he made yesterday with reference to the evidence in the trial of the Galway Election Petition. He stated then, what he believed to be correct, that the shorthand-writer's notes were written on both sides of the paper, and that the questions were not numbered, and he mentioned these matters as adding to the difficulty of the enormous work to be done by the printer. But it might be supposed that this was a deviation from the usual practice; but that was not so, as the usual practice was strictly followed. The purport of what he wished to convey was the extent and magnitude of the printer's task.
And it being now Five Minutes to Seven of the Clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given Notice, to call attention to the Treasury Minute recently issued relating to the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and to move the following Resolution:—
  "Considering the inconvenience which results from their being in Parliament no Minister of Justice or other official who should be able to give his undivided attention to Law Reform, and to the various legal questions affecting the administration of public business, this House is of opinion that it would be inexpedient for the Treasury Minute relating to the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown to continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown should remain in office,"
  said, he believed he was expressing the very general wish of the House when he trusted that what had happened on previous occasions when the question of law reform was discussed would not occur that evening.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members are not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. FAWCETTresumed. He had observed that when any hon. Member felt it his duty to call attention to the relations that existed between those who were responsible for law reform and tendering legal advice to Her Majesty's Government, the question was instantly dragged down into a personal discussion as trivial as it was fruitless; and further, that if anyone pointed out the inconvenience resulting to the public from there being no Minister of Justice or other official who could give his undivided attention to law reform and legal questions affecting the administration of Public Business, the issue, though important, was never fairly and openly met, but what happened was this—the Attorney and Solicitor General used a great deal of exalted talk about belonging to a noble profession, and the great sacrifices they had made of their private interests in order to serve the public when they took office. He neither admitted nor denied those sacrifices, for the simple reason that they had nothing whatever to do with his Motion. Nothing was further from his intention than to deny that the profession of an advocate was a noble one, or on the other hand to pretend to
  48
  inquire the nature of the sacrifice which an Attorney General or a Solicitor General made to take office. But he must submit that that plea, if pressed, only strengthened his case. It was an old saying that it oftened happened that what one person lost another gained; and if they could believe that, when they found the Law Officers of the Crown taking a great portion of their time from their public duties to devote to their private practice, and thereby benefiting certain meritorious individuals, it would be some slight satisfaction. But it was not so. If the representations made on the subject were correct they only proved that we had a system which was not only detrimental to the public interests, but which also deprived us of the small modicum of comfort that it was accompanied with considerable private damage. He did not assert that the present Attorney General or Solicitor General did anything else than what had been done by their predecessors, or what would likely be done by their successors, nor did he wish to raise the question in any spirit of pettifogging economy. His object was not to save a few thousand pounds, but he did contend that the present system was inefficient and unsatisfactory, whilst it was disastrous to the public and costly to the taxpayer; and to secure an efficient system no public money which could be suggested could be spent more advantageously or beneficially to the public. Let the House consider what the Law Officers of the Crown had to do. Taking first their public functions, they were primarily responsible for introducing measures of law reform into that House; for if a great measure of law reform was to be brought in, it must be either by the Attorney or Solicitor General. Again, they were the legal advisers of the Government—a position involving most important duties. If an old treaty was to be interpreted the Government had to rely on the advice of their Law Officers; if a new treaty was to be framed, the Government had to depend on their Law Officers to point out its exact legal bearings. If certain acts had to be done which might vitally affect the future of this country, and might perhaps decide whether or not we should go to war, the Law Officers of the Crown were constantly ready to give advice to the Government as to the legality or illegality

  49
  of these acts. Further, they had to be the legal advisers not only of the Government, but also of that House. It very often happened that measures were introduced involving difficult questions of legal interpretation. On legal points—with which men like himself felt themselves incompetent to deal—they wanted an authoritative decision; and to whom were they to look for it but to the legal advisers of that House? The Law Officers of the Crown had likewise to perform the duties of public prosecutors; they had to determine for the Government, for instance, if a great commercial fraud had been committed, whether it was the duty of the Government to undertake a prosecution or not; and probably also the Government had to appeal to them for assistance when it had to decide whether or not it was wise to exercise the prerogative of pardon. Those were some—perhaps not all—of the public duties which the Law Officers of the Crown had to discharge; and he asserted that there was no head of a great Department, no Secretary of State, who had to perform duties which more taxed the capacity of the most able, or were more engrossing of the time, the thought, and the energy even of the most gifted man who ever occupied a public position in this country. Not only, however, had they to discharge those heavy duties, but they had to appear in Court as advocates, whenever the Government had any contentious business; and they also generally filled, as far as private practice was concerned, a leading position in a profession which was admitted to be one of the most onerous and exhausting in which a man could engage. What would the public think if the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary of State for War were at the head of some great commercial establishment, and if the only time they devoted to their public duties was the few occasional hours which they could squeeze out of their absorbing private concerns? He was not blaming the Attorney or the Solicitor General, but complaining of the system; and he was only astonished that those Gentlemen could give up the part of their time to the public which they did. For himself, even as a private Member only, he found that the work he had to do was sufficiently absorbing of his time; and if he had a private practice he should
  50
  scarcely have a spare hour to bestow upon it. The practical inconveniences of that system were so patent to them all, that he might, perhaps, be pardoned for alluding to one or two instances which had recently occurred. During the last fortnight the country had been passing through a great crisis in connection with the negotiations respecting the Washington Treaty. At such a period it seemed to him that the Government required to have constantly at their service the assistance of their Law Officers; and those in the Government who had the highest legal knowledge should have had sufficient leisure to concentrate their whole thoughts upon the bearing of any new proposal or any new clause which might be inserted in the Treaty. But what was the fact? Why, that just at that very time when the Government required all the aid of their Legal Advisers, those Gentlemen were absorbed in their private practice. Again, as to another instance, he thought he was justified in saying that it was one which concerned the practice and procedure of that House itself. Certain distinguished Members of that House had laboured during the last three years to introduce that important measure of law reform earnestly demanded by the country—the Public Prosecutors Bill. And what had occurred? Why, it came on for discussion on Wednesday last. The discussion lasted four hours, and during the whole of that time neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor General thought it worth their while or were able to attend for a single moment. On looking at the law reports, however, the next morning, he found that the Attorney General had been engaged in a great private will case. Now, if the Law Officers of the Crown were occupied six hours during the day in Court, how many must they spend in the morning or evening in reading their briefs and studying the law of the case? If a Law Officer of the Crown was then engaged in a great and absorbing case, how was it possible for him to attend to his public duties in that House, or to give that amount of time which at such a crisis the Government ought to command from their legal advisers? So long as that system continued it would be as impossible for the Law Officers to give sufficient time to the performance of their duties as it would, he must repeat, be for the Prime Minister,

  51
  the Home Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they were taking an active part in the management of some great commercial concern in the City. But that by no means exhausted the case. To carry out a great and systematic measure of law reform, it was necessary for those who had charge of it to devote to its preparation long and continuous labour. It had been said that the great obstacle to law reform was in that House—that if the Attorney or Solicitor General introduced a measure of law reform they did not obtain sufficient assistance from the House. But the shortest experience in the House of Commons showed that those Bills passed most quickly which was introduced by hon. Members having the confidence of the House; and nothing inspired confidence so much as a belief that the measure introduced was the result of careful, anxious, and continuous labour. His second point was, that the present system was not only inefficient, but extremely costly. If he rightly understood the Treasury Minute, the present arrangement was that the Attorney General should in future receive £7,000 a-year, and the Solicitor General £6,000. And for what? For all the work they did for the Government? No. They were to receive these sums—40 and 20 per cent more than was given to the Prime Minister for the discharge of his public duties—and for the sums thus paid there was no security that these officers would devote a proper amount of time to the discharge of their duties. In addition to these sums, they were paid for every bit of contentious work done for the Government, in each case receiving a handsome fee, and made what they could out of their private practice. He did not say that £7,000 and £6,000 were extravagant sums for the Law Officers; but they were monstrously extravagant sums, unless Parliament could have a much better guarantee than at present that the duties would be properly discharged; and it was impossible they could be so discharged so long as the present system was permitted to continue. And now, it might be asked, what was the remedy for this state of things? He would not shrink from the responsibility of shadowing out a scheme of reform. What was required in the first place was a Minister of Justice. And what were the duties he would be called upon to discharge? With re-
  52
  gard to his legislative duties, his first would be to draft and prepare Bills. His second would be to exercise a control over the law reports. His third would be to devote his time to a systematic and continuous effort at law reform. His executive duties would be—first, to act as legal adviser of the Government and of the House—the Parliamentary legal authority to whom the Government and Parliament should appeal. In the second place, he would have to discharge the duties of public prosecutor, or if local public prosecutors were appointed, to watch over them. In the third place, the prerogative of pardon should be entrusted to him, and not to the Home Secretary, who might not be a lawyer. He thought he was justified in saying that a Minister of Justice would have duties to discharge second in importance to none, sufficient to gratify the honourable ambition of the most capable man, and he would have the satisfaction of feeling that there was no one in the country who rendered more effectual services to the public. It might be said that they would not get an eminent lawyer to take the position; but would it not be second in importance or dignity to that of Lord Chancellor? and there was never any difficulty found in getting distinguished men to fill that office. With reference to qualifications, Mr. Fitzjames Stephen had said that the man who was most successful at the Bar would be the best man for a Minister of Justice; but it was not necessarily the fact that the best advocate, having the largest private practice, would fill the post with most advantage to the public. The necessary qualifications might co-exist with great rhetorical powers, but that would be an exception. Such an officer as the legal Member of the Council of the Governor General of India was what was needed—a position which had been filled by the most eminent jurists of our own country—Lord Macaulay and Sir Henry Maine—neither of whom had practised in the Courts. It had happened that under their jurisdiction more had been effected by continuous exertion towards codifying the laws of India in three years than we had been able to effect in thirty. The salary attached to that office was £8,000 a-year without pension, and in cases where the person holding the office had retired from ill health, he had invariably returned to his practice in this country.

  53
  A salary of £8,000, £10,000, £12,000, or even £15,000 then would be ample for the post in this country, with a claim to some easier position on retirement, or a position such as was held by an ex-Lord Chancellor. But the position of a Minister of Justice in this House might be strengthened if there were a permanent Commission sitting outside, which should assist him and render him services analogous to those rendered to the heads of Departments by their Permanent Secretaries. If that were done, hon. Members of the House might be able to refer their Bills to that Commission to have their opinion, not upon the policy of those Bills, but upon their legal bearings; and in that way we might be saved from one of the greatest opprobriums of Parliament—namely, the passing of Acts which were at variance with other Acts, the consequence of which was that unfortunate litigants found themselves involved in additional doubts and difficulties. If we had such a Minister of Justice, there would not be the smallest reason why the Government, when they wished to appear in Court upon contentious matters, should not retain for the conduct of their cases the most able counsel. The Government then would not be represented by the Attorney or Solicitor General, who might be the ablest lawyers in the House or the ablest lawyers who had not sacrificed their claims to office by too much independence. The Government would have an unlimited choice. They would be represented by the ablest men at the Bar, and it was a simple truism to say that the ablest men at the Bar might not be able to find a seat in this House. There would be another collateral advantage connected with the scheme. Nothing seemed so anomalous or mischievous, or produced such a bad impression on the public mind, as that the Attorney or Solicitor General had sometimes to combine what appeared to be the two perfectly contradictory offices of advocate and public prosecutor. For instance, the Attorney or Solicitor General might be retained in a case which, in its progress, might assume an entirely different phase; and then they might be called upon by the Government to decide whether the State should or should not carry on a prosecution. The House might ask what he intended to do with his Motion. He would certainly ask hon. Members
  54
  to express their opinion upon it. If the Government approved the Motion it would be extremely useful to have that Motion upon the Records of the House. If they disapproved it, of course the House would hear their reasons, and also the reasons of those who would give it their support, and they would be able to judge between the two. He had arrived at the conclusion that nothing could be done by a private Member unless he steadily persevered. He had tried his very best, and he had been defeated by a combination of unfortunate circumstances in never having had an opportunity before that evening of getting the House to express an opinion on the subject. But, as he had escaped shipwreck to-night, he would certainly take advantage of his good fortune, and would not let the occasion slip. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) said the other night that we were having a great deal too much legislation in this House. We should soon be worried out of our lives by meddlesome and mischievous Government intervention, and people would shortly begin to say—"We won't be Conservatives or Liberals; but we shall join a party that will leave people alone." Whenever such a party was formed he should be a member of it. But, though he said that, there was one field of legislative activity in which all might unite their efforts. The stanchest Conservative and the most advanced Liberal, the stoutest advocate of Government intervention and the most devoted disciple of laissez faire, might combine in carrying out a scheme of law reform which would give to the free energy of this country a better chance of developing itself. They might wish to see the transfer of land rendered cheaper and more expeditious; they might desire to see justice rendered less costly and less complicated, and punishment brought home with greater certainty to the offender, in whatever rank of life he might be. These, and a countless number of instances which he might enumerate, would suffice to show what bountiful blessings a great law reformer might confer on this country. Believing that if he had failed to do so, there were others to follow in the debate who would abundantly point out the evils of the present system, he would ask the House with some confidence to accept the Motion which he now begged to make.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the inconvenience which results from there being in Parliament no Minister of Justice or other official who should be able to give his undivided attention to Law Reform, and to the various legal questions affecting the administration of public business, this House is of opinion that it would be inexpedient for the Treasury Minute relating to the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown to continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown should remain in office,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The connection between the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and the Motion he has submitted to the House is so exceedingly slight that I think it necessary to remind hon. Gentlemen of what it is they are asked to vote. The substantial proposition of the hon. Gentleman is that the recent Treasury Minute should not continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown remain in office; but he couples with it a statement that inconvenience results from the absence of a Minister of Justice able to give his undivided attention to law reform and the legal questions affecting the administration of Public Business. From that assertion the hon. Gentleman, by some process of logic best known to himself, deduces that the Treasury Minute should be cancelled. That Minute makes an arrangement by which in the salaries of future Law Officers we save £12,000 a-year, yet the first and only step which the hon. Gentleman asks us to take in law reform is to undo it and re-impose the £12,000 a-year on the public. How does he justify that extraordinary proposition? He says the present system is at once inefficient and costly, and he enumerates the duties of the Law Officers. He says it is, in the first place, their duty to introduce measures of law reform; secondly, to advise the Crown; and, thirdly, to act as public prosecutors. There the hon. Gentleman stopped; but not until he had entirely inverted matters, and left out that which was the principal duty of the Law Officers, concentrating his views upon that which
  56
  was a very subordinate duty. What is their primary object? Any other Member would, I think, have said that it is the duty of a Law Officer of the Crown to be the advocate of the Government, to defend it in all the law suits which, owing to the vast quantity of property they administer and the immense number of transactions in which they are engaged, they are concerned in, or in all the suits or prosecutions they may think it necessary to institute. The main object of a Law Officer is, that there should be at the command of the Government the very best legal advice that can be procured. I will leave the House to judge of the careful analysis the hon. Gentleman must have made of the subject, from the fact that he so ignores the primary functions of the Law Officers. No wonder the hon. Gentleman's conclusion is unsound when his premises are so faulty. It is desirable, no doubt, that the Law Officers of the Crown should attend to measures of law reform, but have they ever been found otherwise than able and willing to do so? Let anyone look through the scanty list of law reforms which have been passed; whatever the cause of their failure—whether the inability of the Government or any other cause—had they not the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown? Who carried through Parliament the Bankruptcy Bill, or what measure of law reform was carried without the assistance of the Law Officers? I maintain, therefore, that the view of the hon. Gentleman on that part of the subject is radically wrong. Considering their main and primary function, it is far more important for the Government to command the highest legal ability than to be able to command the whole time of any person. It is easy to get persons to give their whole time—men, too, of ability, honour, and very fair professional standing; but we want, not moderate ability, but the very best ability. We can afford to pay for it, and we have a right to have it. The hon. Gentleman has sketched some sort of plan, but is there any certainty of obtaining the best legal ability in any way as well as in the present? Suppose we were to require the whole time of the Law Officers, and call upon them to give up their private practice, we could no doubt find gentlemen at the Bar for the purpose, but they would be gentlemen

  57
  who had no private practice to give up. What gentleman in large practice, and with all the emoluments and prospects of such a practice, would, for the precarious tenure the Government could offer him, throw up all his connections, sever himself from his professional and political associations, and resign all the prospects they opened to him? They would not be first, second, or even third-rate men who would do so. The hon. Gentleman says we might engage counsel for the occasion; but where acquaintance with private and confidential matters is required, is it not better to have the same advisers and advocates than to separate the two functions? The hon. Gentleman proposes a Minister of Justice, who is to be something a little lower than the angels, and another set of men to defend our cases; but private litigants find it expedient to take advice from the men they employ, and if it is expedient in private life, is it not probable that the experience of so many hundred years, during which the Government has had Law Officers, points to the same conclusion? The proposal, in fact, would deprive us of the best legal assistance and condemn us to the assistance of men of comparatively mediocre talent. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman seems to have passed by the question how the chief seats on the Judicial Bench are filled. They are filled by Gentlemen who have had seats in this House and filled the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General; and what has been the effect? Gentlemen promoted to those high offices have not always been superior in knowledge of the details of law to the puisne Judges, but by experience in this House, intercourse with the Government, and participation in important affairs they have acquired an insight into affairs and a wideness of view which have tempered the narrow and restrictive tendency of law. A liberality and wideness of view have been thus obtained in our Courts, and no greater blow could be struck at the administration of justice than to separate promotion to the higher offices of the law from seats in this House and from political life. The hon. Gentleman complains that the Law Officers are absorbed in their private practice, and he gave an illustration of great force. He says the affairs of this House are so absorbing to himself, that he cannot conceive how the Law Officers can
  58
  find time to devote both to their Parliamentary duties and to their private practice. Now, I will not push the remark further than to say that every day's experience shows us there are things which one man can do and another man cannot. It is just possible that men selected by the keenest competition from the highest ranks of a high and laborious profession may be capable of exertions which some of us would find difficult, if not impossible. The hon. Gentleman referred to the labours of the legal Members of the Council of India. I have nothing to say against those distinguished gentlemen, but perhaps he will allow me, as a former Secretary of the Board of Control, to say that the measures carried there—a less difficult task than carrying measures through the House of Commons—were not all prepared by them, but by persons of whose services we hear little, but which were not inconsiderable. Again, has the hon. Gentleman considered how a Minister of Justice, to advise the Cabinet, would square with the present position of the Lord Chancellor; or how both could go on together? He complains of legislation being pushed on which is not particularly wanted, yet he proposes to appoint an officer, with £18,000 a-year, to occupy himself with law reforms. Now, being a very able man, he would naturally find out a number of defects not obvious to other people, which he would press on the consideration of the Government in season and out of season, and then I suppose the hon. Gentleman would get up and complain of legislation being forced upon us which was not wanted. Whatever may be the hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the demand for law reform, it is a demand which might very easily be exceeded by the supply. As to this paragon of a Minister—a man of boundless erudition, knowledge, and capacity—where are we to find him, and having found him, what are we to do with him? He is to receive a salary equal to about three of the rest of us. When he goes away, his pension would, of course, be calculated on that salary, and how can the hon. Gentleman ask the country to meet that expense, unless he thinks an additional charge of £12,000 is a step towards economy? But, in truth, there would be no person of any weight who would impair his position at the Bar by

  59
  accepting such an office. The only chance of filling the office efficiently would be to take some old Judge—probably from the House of Lords—who had served his time, and who would be willing to occupy his time in the preparation of Bills to be sent down to this House, where no doubt they would be treated with the degree of attention which we usually bestow on such measures. And not only that, but when a change of Ministers occurs, the Minister of Justice, in common with the others, is to retire on a pension, and another is to supply his place. I therefore say that the hon. Gentleman has not shown that the present system fails in its object of providing the Government with the very best assistance and advice. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grappled in his own mind with the insuperable objection to any other scheme—namely, that the best ability can only be obtained by allowing gentlemen to retain their practice at the Bar. Again, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has shown any reason why we should have a Minister of Justice, at least for the purpose of preparing measures of law reform; for, though perhaps I have no right to speak on the subject, I am perfectly aware that if it be the wish of the House, we shall be quite ready to place before it measures of law reform which would occupy it for several Sessions. The only difficulty in the way is that the attention of hon. Members is turned to other pressing subjects which have attracted public notice, and that these dry details and changes in the law do not command the attention of the House so much as measures relating to the public health, police, and local Government, which directly interest every man in the country, whether he be a litigant or not. This being the case, the only other question to consider is whether the hon. Gentleman has made out a case for rescinding the Treasury Minute, which saves the country £12,000 a-year, and for putting that sum back into the pockets of the Law Officers of the Crown. Now, he has adduced no argument in favour of the change, and as I assume the Law Officers are satisfied with it, and as the public gain by it £12,000 a-year, why should we revert to the old system in order that there may follow from it the appointment of a very inferior person to assist the Go-
  60
  vernment in advocating their cases in the Courts of Law?
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, that though prepared to support with great cordiality the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), he confessed he found himself more in accord with the terms of that Motion than with the tone of some portions of his hon. Friend's speech. He also thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted himself rather to replying to the tone of that speech than to the terms of the Motion, for the Motion, as he understood it, meant that the exigencies of the time had quite outgrown the system of legal advice and preparation of Bills. The opinions he was about to state were not given on his own authority, but had been expressed by Lord Brougham, Mr. Napier, and many other distinguished members of the legal profession. In dealing with this question it was necessary to consider that the Home Office was the most overworked Department of the State. It had, among other things, to deal with a large portion of the legal business of that House, and only the other day it appeared that in consequence of there being no regularly constituted authority on whom hon. Members could depend to state the exact effect of proposed Amendments, the Government were obliged to say with regard to a great Bill they felt they were in the hands of the House. It would be of immense importance to have some authority outside the House to assist in drafting Bills. At present the able gentlemen engaged in this work got no praise if they succeeded, and were beyond the reach of blame if they failed. He did not mean, however, to say it was not of immense advantage to have in that House two legal Gentlemen who were actively engaged in private business, because he knew that in all matters in which there was contest and argument, it was necessary to have men who were practised in contest and argument; and they had recently seen the result of that necessity in the sending a Professor of Law to Washington instead of a legal politician. He, however, regarded his hon. Friend's Motion not as a subversion, but as an extension of the present state of things, for, in his judgment, unless there were an authority to appeal to, the legislation of that House would become more and

  61
  more unsatisfactory. What happened last year? First, he would take those Acts, which might be termed partly general and partly legal in their character, such as Highway Acts. It was a general complaint throughout the country that those Acts were often entirely unintelligible or contradictory. An attorney of high standing once asked him who were the draftsmen employed at the Home Office. He replied that to the best of his belief they were most able and efficient men, but he added that these Bills had to undergo sifting in the House of Commons, and the criticisms of hon. Members who did not understand the precise force of legal language, and that as there was no legal authority to give cohesion and unity to the Amendments, confusion was the result. When the House passed Bills of a purely legal character, it was impossible, under the present system, to have any satisfactory amendment of the law. Mr. Greaves, a gentleman largely employed on the Criminal Law Amendment Act, speaking of the prospects of a consolidation and codification of the law, expressed a doubt whether a code could ever be passed through Parliament, and said his strong impression was that it could never be so passed, as the success of such a measure would entirely depend on the accuracy of the language employed. Again, Mr. Napier, in bringing before the House the subject of a Public Prosecutor in 1856, said he found the same system constantly pursued; the Government consented to the introduction of Bills of private Members, but would not consent to the details, and so matters went on night after night, and Session after Session. In conclusion, he must say that if the Motion were pressed to a division he should deem it his duty to support it.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT: Sir, I was sorry to observe this morning in the leading journal that the prospects of law reform in this country are desperate. However, I might borrow the words of an epitaph in the Abbey—
  "Life's a jest, and all things show it.
  I thought so once, and now I know it."
  —[Laughter]—after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he has used all the well-worn arguments, and employed his wit and rhetoric in ridiculing law reform. He has said we may have a great deal too much of it, and
  62
  that the House does not wish to occupy itself with dry details of that character, being impatient, no doubt, for those moist details of the Licensing Bill which presently await us. What is the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has approached this great subject? How has he treated the weighty remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett)? He has treated them with banter—of which no man complains—and with unfairness, which any man has a right to complain of in this House or elsewhere. A more complete misapprehension—I will not say misrepresentation—of a speech I think I have never heard than that of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the observations of my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the object of the Motion is to restore the system of remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown which existed before the Treasury Minute; but that is exactly the opposite of the fact, of the Motion, and of the statement of my hon. Friend. He did not propose to restore payment by fees; he said that the Treasury Minute ought not to be continued in order to express an opinion that the whole system should be put upon a new footing for the future. Therefore, a more complete misapprehension it is impossible to conceive. What is the next point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He says that my hon. Friend represented that the almost exclusive duty of the Law Officers was to conduct the legal business of this House and to advise the Government, and almost omitted to notice their duty of carrying on the business of the Government in the Courts. Why, a great part of the speech of my hon. Friend was occupied with pointing out that the performance of that duty was in no way connected with their position in this House. If their main business is in the Courts, I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be no hard measure that they should not be in this House at all. But I do not think that is the principal duty of the Law Officers of the Crown. Indeed, I have been surprised by some statements which I have heard from the highest authority with reference to the position of the Law Officers of the Crown in this House—with reference, for instance, to advising the Government. I have always understood that they were responsible to this

  63
  House and the country for advising the Government upon great and important legal and International questions; but, if I am not mistaken, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), the Attorney General stated that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was never taken upon that important transaction, the Treaty of Washington. If that be so, it goes a long way to establish the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that advising the Crown upon great matters of public policy is almost a non-existent function of the Law Officers. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say it is necessary that the persons who conduct the business of the Crown in the Courts should hold confidential office and be in close relations with the Government. I am astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know that a great part of the business is not done by the Law Officers of the Crown at all. If the Attorney General and the Solicitor General happen to belong to the Common Law Bar, the business in Chancery is conducted by eminent members of the Chancery Bar. On the other hand, suppose that both were at the Chancery Bar, would they go to the Central Criminal Court to conduct great prosecutions? Not at all. Everybody knows they receive assistance, and that the work is practically done by persons conversant with the Courts of Law. And when you want to have conducted a great transaction of the most confidential character, upon which the credit and reputation of this nation depend, whom do you get to conduct it? Why, a person who is not a Member of the Government—a man who is most eminent at the Bar, but a man who cannot conduct—as everybody would be proud that he should do—the affairs of this country in a confidential relation with the Government, because his own conscientious convictions have stood in the way of that position which he would otherwise have occupied. But, really, in the face of the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) is this day at Geneva representing the Government, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn into ridicule the suggestion that advice of that character can be obtained from independent sources, seems to me to be a remarkable and strong position for that right hon. Gen-
  64
  tleman to take up. This question is far too large to be treated with the levity with which we have heard it treated to-night; and I venture to say that the time will come when there will be a Government in this country which will not laugh and jeer at law reform in the House of Commons. When the country comes to understand the magnitude and importance of the subject, its bearings upon the social relations of all classes of society, and especially upon those classes who cannot afford expensive litigation—justice delayed and justice denied—there will exist in this country a Government whose Chancellor of the Exchequer will treat the question of law reform in a very different spirit from that in which we have heard it approached to-night. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton goes to a division, I shall vote with him, as a protest against the existing condition of law reform in this House. It is no use in this Parliament, and with this Government, hoping for law reform after what we have just heard. I did not hope much before, for the experience of this Session has taught us something. What happened during the present Session? One of the greatest lawyers in this country, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), came forward with a well-considered scheme for the reform of legal education, when the Law Officers of the Crown got up one after the other and shuffled it out of the House. Then a measure of law reform was brought into the other House of Parliament, with reference to the reform of Appellate Jurisdiction, and I think the Attorney General stated that the Lord Chancellor did not consult the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to it. That is another proof of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated—that advising the Government upon law reform was but a secondary part of their duty; and with the added fact that they were not consulted with reference to the Treaty of Washington, the proposition may be considered proved. That second measure of law reform has gone to a Select Committee, from which it will probably never emerge, and certainly never in a form likely to be accepted by the House of Commons. Then there came the Public Prosecutors Bill, which has been referred to. It was brought forward by the right hon. Member for

  65
  the University of Cambridge and the Recorder of London. They had made their little straw nest with great care, when the Government came like a cuckoo, and laid the egg of local taxation in their nest, expecting them to hatch it. The fact was that the Government had got into difficulties with hon. Members opposite, and they seized upon the unhappy Bill in order to get out of them. So the Bill has disappeared, and that is the end of the chapter of law reform for the Session of 1872. It has been finally closed to-night by the funeral oration pronounced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) said the other night—"Why don't you try to do something?" I think everybody must see why nobody should try to do anything in the present state of affairs. Is it not perfectly obvious that the first thing done with any practical proposition upon subjects of this magnitude is to endeavour to laugh them out of the House of Commons? Such a course succeeds, and it saves the trouble of considering difficult questions. But it is idle to say that these are speculative opinions. We have the opinion of the Judicature Commission, formed of the most eminent lawyers, of members of both branches of the legal profession, solicitors as well as barristers, and they have unanimously condemned the system of legal administration in this country. That has been lying on the Table of this House for three years. The Commissioners recommended that we should do away with the extraordinary higgledy-piggledy system which now prevails in our jurisprudence, and they recommended the establishment of a Supreme Court of First Instance. They also testified to the fact that we have the ablest administrators hampered by the worst system that ever cursed a country, and that we have the greatest expenditure in our legal system to produce the most unfortunate results that are anywhere to be found. Having got the Reports of the Judicature Commission as to the Courts of First Instance, as to the Courts of Appeal, and as to the County Courts, what have we done? Nothing. Are these the dry details which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that people may have too much of? And what are the efforts that have been made to carry out law reforms? I can
  66
  hardly call what took place in the House of Lords an effort, for nobody expected that to succeed. The Government should come forward in a different spirit to that they have evinced this evening, and bring the ability that they can command in their Law Officers to bear, so that they may deal with a question of this magnitude, for they would at least have as much chance of carrying such a measure, as they have of carrying some of their other measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this question of appointing a Minister of Justice cannot be dealt with apart from the question of the position of the Lord Chancellor, and no doubt it cannot; but this Motion deals with only one part of a great question. I know quite well that all efforts of private Members have failed and must fail; and all my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton hopes to do is to stimulate the House to protest against the existing system. I know the question of a Minister of Justice cannot be settled except by dealing with the position of the Law Officers, including the Lord Chancellor, which like many things which have come down to us from antiquity, is wholly indefensible. That the head of the judicial Bench should go in and out of office with the Government; that there are men whom we would choose for the office who are excluded by its conditions; and that it involves a mixture of incongruous functions are matters the reform of which no amount of ridicule can long postpone; and it is only by attracting public attention to them that any pressure can be put upon the Government to deal with them in a practical way. I feel that any scheme dealing with the present question, to be at all satisfactory to the country, must be far larger in its scope than that embraced in the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. It must comprehend not only the reconstruction of the duties of the Law Officers of the Crown, but those of the Lord Chancellor, and probably of the Judges themselves. I look upon it as a matter highly deserving of consideration, when there are acknowledged delays, causing infinite mischief and expense, the cause of infinite injustice, and I think that I and those who take a similar view should protest, as far as in us lies, against the continuance of such a state of things. The question of the appointment of a

  67
  Minister of Justice, so far from being a subject fit for ridicule, is one, I think, which is of a very serious and practical character. More ought, I believe, to be done to separate judicial from political action in that House, and the present state of legislation is, I cannot help thinking, a scandal to any civilized Assembly. Statutes are passed Session after Session of a character so conflicting as to astonish, I will not say lawyers, but men of common sense. There is a Commission employed in repealing the statutes; but, like Penelope's web, as the Commission is trying to unravel the web at one end it is woven at the other, so that the Commission pant after Parliament in vain. I am not prepared myself to deal with the question with the thoroughness which I could desire; but I cannot sit down with entering my earnest protest against matters of such consequence being treated by a responsible Government in the tone in which they have been treated this evening.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he thought the delays and mischiefs which had been spoken of could not be of a very urgent nature, seeing that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would allow such evils to continue until the present Law Officers retired. He also wished to remind the House that the present Law Officers of the Government had no personal pecuniary interest in the Motion, because the hon. Member for Brighton did not attempt to interfere with them, and the alteration proposed would only affect their successors. It was said that it was part of the duty of the Law Officers to be the Advisers of the Crown; but so long as these appointments were party appointments, it could not be expected that the professional views of the Law Officers should not be regarded with some jealousy. The hon. Member for Brighton had admitted that there was too much legislation already, and there was therefore a general concurrence in the view that there was no pressing necessity for law reform as contrasted with measures for which the demand of the country was louder. If the question at issue was one involving the appointment of a Minister of Justice, the observations of the hon. Gentleman might, be important; but as it was his Motion would lead to no immediate practical result, except, perhaps, it might
  68
  be to the flooding of the House with measures of law reform, to the exclusion of other business.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was prepared to admit that there might be some convenience in the establishment of a High Court of Appeal and in the removal of certain antiquated modes of procedure, but doubted whether any practical advantage would result from the presence in Parliament of a Minister of Justice. As far as the first part of the Preamble of the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton was concerned, he maintained that it was not proved that any inconvenience arose from there being in Parliament no Minister of Justice; and as for the second part of the Preamble, that there should be in the House some one able to give his undivided attention to the various legal questions affecting the administration of Public Business, he asked whether, on the other hand, it was not necessary to have in that House, for the purpose of conducting the business of the Government, persons of the greatest eminence at the Bar, and who could command the attention of the highest Courts of Justice in conducting the business of the Government in the Courts of Law? Another part of the business of the Law Officers was to advise the Government, and if any hon. Member rose to ask a question as to an Act of Parliament on a proceeding in a Court of Law, Ministers of the highest talent might give an answer; but everybody knew that the answer would come with much more force from a lawyer accustomed to deal with such matters. There was nothing in the present system to prevent law reforms being carried out, for what would be the use of the Law Officers of the House if they could not give their attention to the various questions affecting public business? They must have two persons of the highest powers, able to conduct the business of the Government, so far as all legal matters were concerned; and a field of choice was likely to be left open as long as so many distinguished lawyers were ready to sacrifice emoluments in order to secure the honour of a seat in that House.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that no hon. Member in that House more felt the necessity of law reform than himself, and if by voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton he thought

  69
  that he should be promoting law reform, he should not hesitate to support the motion; but he regretted he could not do so, for he saw nothing in it calculated in the slightest degree to advance law reform. Although favoured with a position in the most gracious Speech from the Throne, as a subject in which amendment was greatly required, yet the reason why measures of law reform were not carried into effect was on account of the disinclination of the House to entertain measures of that description, because hon. Members thought that there were other measures of a more practical character which ought first to engage their attention. He made these remarks because, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), he should not like it to go forth that any one voting against the Motion was desirous of obstructing law reform. He did not regard the hon. and learned Member's criticism, of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fair, for he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to cast the slightest ridicule on law reform. What he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ridicule was the imbecility of the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton for the accomplishment of the law reform which that hon. Member desired to effect. That he understood to be the tone and spirit of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, far from attempting to ridicule progress in the way of law reform, was well known among law reformers for his desire for the improvement of the law. But what was it that the House was really called on to do by the hon. Member for Brighton? It was to place an obstruction in the way of all those measures of legal reform which would be facilitated by altering the mode of paying the Law Officers by means of fees, and among the measures impeded by that mode of remuneration was the reform of the Patent Laws, a subject upon which he would not dilate upon the present occasion. The hon. Member for Brighton wanted a Minister of Justice, in order that Acts of Parliament might come before the House in a more perfect state than they did. But how was a Minister of Justice to prepare Acts of Parliament so as to prevent them from being imperfect, seeing that the Amend-
  70
  ments introduced into clauses in the passage of a Bill through the House often left the clauses less clear than they were? He opposed this Motion as one which would do more harm than good if adopted, and while doing so he strongly protested against being characterized as one who disregardèd the advantages of law reform.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he must confess he had felt some difficulty in clearly understanding the object of the Motion, and he attributed that difficulty to the ungrammatical structure of the proposition itself. If the meaning was that the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General should be abolished, he certainly could not support such a proposal; and if it was meant that a Minister of Justice should be appointed, he must say that was a very large question, which would require a much wider discussion than could be given to it upon the present occasion. A great deal had been said about law reform; but why did not those who spoke so much about it take the trouble to bring forward some measures of law reform? It was very easy to make long speeches before Social Science meetings; but why did not the advocates of law reform do something to show the House what they really wanted? After all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), it really was very natural for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be somewhat jubilant, having made a bargain by which the public were gainers to the extent of £12,000 a-year. Probably the public were all of one mind on the subject. The Attorney and Solicitor General, perhaps, were not quite of the same opinion—they had been very quiet during the evening, and their reticence might to some extent be due to that fact. He objected to discuss a large subject like this on an abstract Motion, for he thought in so doing they might be led into a great deal of mischief. He was anxious for law reform; and if at any time the hon. Member for Brighton was disposed to bring forward some practical measure of law reform—such as a proposal to amend the machinery of the law in reference to small debts and the like, or in reference to public prosecutors—he should be happy to assist him.
  MR. DENMANsaid, in common with most of the hon. Members who had addressed the House upon this subject, he considered the Motion a most unfounded one. It was a complete non sequitur. It recited certain supposed evils, and went on to propose what would be no remedy for them—what, indeed, had no relation to them, and what would be an evil in itself. He, for instance, did not think it was true to say that inconvenience had resulted in that House from the inability of the Law Officers to do all they could reasonably be called on to do, looking to the functions they had to perform; and he could not see that those functions could be remodelled to any extent without impairing the high position they held, and their usefulness by reason of holding that high position. They must be lawyers of the highest eminence, and they must be Members of that House, for it was only by passing through a Parliamentary training that they could fill the highest situations of the law with that efficiency with which they ought to be filled. It had been said that it was the duty of the Law Officers to advise the House in questions of law; but he must say he had often wished that they had been more reticent in their opinions, given on questions put to them by private Members in that House. They were the Law Advisers not of the House, but of the Government, and were responsible for the opinions they gave. He repeated, he could not support this most inconsecutive Motion; and he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be blamed for treating it with something like levity. In these dull times, and in such hot weather, there was no reason why a man should not speak truth, and laugh while speaking it.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that he should give the Motion his cordial support. There had existed some confusion in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen as to what the functions of a Minister of Justice ought to be. He supposed that one of his duties would be to prepare measures of law reform, and to advocate them in Parliament; that he would also appoint the magistracy, and be responsible for its proceedings; and that he would likewise advise the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. At present the distribution of those various duties was very anomalous. The
  72
  Lord Chancellor was supposed to have charge of law reform; the Home Secretary advised the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; and the Attorney and Solicitor General were required in that House to advocate law reforms, in the preparation of which they might not have been consulted, and to which they were sometimes strongly averse. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of an unusual piece of effrontery in rising in his place and defending such a system; but that he supposed was explained by the fact that the present Government had been distinguished by a spirit of perverse parsimony in relation to the administration of the law. What had been their conduct in regard to the office of Queen's Advocate? The ground on which the Government of the day defended their course in respect to the escape of the Alabama, which had caused all these recent troubles, was, that the then Queen's Advocate was not in a position to advise them on that occasion. However, the Government seemed to consider a time when they most required his counsel to be an opportunity for saving the entire salary of the Queen's Advocate, and had also cut down the salaries of the Attorney and Solicitor General; and now they had to go out into the walks of the profession for an eminent lawyer to represent them at Geneva. The fees they would have to pay, and very properly, to so distinguished a counsel, would, he ventured to say, more than counterbalance the economy effected by the reductions to which he had referred. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the saving of £12,000 a-year was to debar the House from considering that Resolution, the recitals contained in which were accepted, not only by many in that House, but by the almost unanimous feeling of people out of doors.
  MR. A. W. YOUNGsaid, he had known the Chancellor of the Exchequer both at the other end of the world and in this country, and he believed that no good measure of law reform had ever been introduced into that House which the right hon. Gentleman had not supported; while in the Colonies he was the most celebrated law reformer of his day. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Brighton would prevent the Government from having the choice of the highest

  73
  legal talent of the country, a result he, for one, should be sorry to see.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, for my own part—and I believe I may also say for my Colleagues—I should not be unwilling to go at once to a division on this question, having reference either to the general tone and purport of this debate, or more especially to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the speech of the Mover of this Motion. But I certainly should not be content that it should be supposed that we are prepared to acquiesce for a moment in the description given of my right hon. Friend's speech by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt)—a description which I think was very inequitable, as well as very inaccurate. I was glad to see the objection that there was something of humour and wit introduced into the discussion by my right hon. Friend met by a lively protest from various parts of the House. We are not, I think, in much danger of losing the balance of the mind and judgment of the House through the enormous and intolerable redundancy of those qualities: on the contrary, it is supposed by some that the Goddess of Dulness, with leaden wings, is more apt to brood over our deliberations. We have even known the hon. and learned Member for Oxford himself, on propitious occasions, endeavour to bring his artillery of that kind into the field when circumstances favoured. But the hon. and learned Member, in his zeal for law, has a little forgotten justice. As regards the Government at large, were the charges of the hon. and learned Member fair? What is the exact purport of the Motion on which we are called to vote? The practical and operative part of it is—
  "That it is inexpedient that the Treasury Minute should continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown remain in office."
  The hon. and learned Member for Oxford says it is not a fair representation of the Motion to quote these words; but that it is really a Motion that the Treasury Minute should be cancelled in order that the whole subject may be re-considered. If these words, "in order that the whole subject may be reconsidered" be part of the Motion, they are written in invisible ink. But even if these words were there, would they mend the matter?
  74
  Is it really true that plans of the large description which the hon. and learned Member desires—and which as regards some important plans I think he is right in desiring—would it be true to say that this Minute ought to be abolished in order that the Government may produce those plans? What is the real difficulty in the way of the introduction of measures of law reform? It is not the want of ability or of readiness to prepare them; it is the crippled position of this House—crippled, I mean, relatively to the enormous other demands on its time and attention. What measure of law reform is there that we could have introduced to the House with a fair prospect of doing justice to it by carrying it into law. The hon. Member for Brighton does not adopt the enlargement of the terms of his Motion as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. His complaint against the Government is, that we have too much legislation—that we submit to the House measures greater in number and magnitude than can possibly be passed. If that be so, why does the hon. and learned Member for Oxford think it worthy of him to enter into these complaints—unjust towards the Government and futile as regards the House—that we have no measures of law reform passed in this House? He knows that it is the duty of the Government to prepare from year to year, and to introduce into the House, those measures which are the subjects of the liveliest and most pressing public interest, and which, in the view of the public opinion of the country, are most urgently demanded. But more than that, the hon. Member for Brighton has pointed to no great measure submitted to the House by the Government which ought to have been cast aside in order to deal with this question of law reform. Therefore the accusation, whether against the Chancellor of the Exchequer or against the Government, is wholly devoid of foundation. The Motion further suggests that—
  "It would be inexpedient for the Treasury Minute relating to the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown to continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown should remain in office."
  Now, that as it stands would land us in a difficulty if it were carried. In the course of affairs it does not usually

  75
  happen that the Attorney General and Solicitor General pass out of office together; but the Motion appears to be framed upon the supposition that they are political twins, born into the world at the same moment, and likewise passing out of it at the same moment. Supposing the ordinary state of things to prevail, and if it were the misfortune of the Government to lose the present Attorney General before they lost the Solicitor General, I will call the attention of the House to the singularity of the fate which will attend the destiny of the present Solicitor General. The present Solicitor General has the honour of being the first Law Officer who has come into office on the reduced scale. According to the Motion of the hon. Member, if the House passes it, the Treasury Minute will cease to exist; and, supposing the Government were thereupon to lose the Attorney General, the Solicitor General would be promoted to the post, and his successor would be appointed upon the old scale of remuneration. The present Solicitor General will then enjoy the new and accumulated honour of being the first low-paid Attorney General with a high-paid Solicitor General. That would be the practical result of the Motion as it stands upon the Paper. But I am anxious to call attention to a matter which is very imperfectly understood, but which should be made plain in justice to all Law Officers. An impression has gone abroad that it is only a limited portion of the time of the Attorney and Solicitor General that the Government secures. I am not surprised that the impression should exist, seeing how distinguished a part the Law Officers usually bear in conducting the business of the Courts; but, after a very long experience in many Governments and in association with many sets of Law Officers, I find it difficult to conceive of a misconception more complete. Enormous as are the powers of labour generally displayed by our distinguished lawyers, there is no question as to the relative nature of the claims upon their time. There is a limit to their powers of exertion and to their time; but upon that limited quantity the Government is authorized and entitled to draw—and does draw habitually—without any stint whatever, except what is dictated by a regard for human strength. The Government pays no regard whatever to the demands
  76
  of the private practice of the Attorney or Solicitor General, and no Attorney or Solicitor General has power to obtain from the Government the slightest allowance on that account. My hon. Friend says we have not had the advice of the Attorney and Solicitor General in the matter of the Alabama negotiations. That is not a very good argument in support of his case, because Treaties cannot be dealt with as a matter in which legal advice is required at every turn; but we have had no difficulty in obtaining the advice of my hon. and learned Friends whenever we required it in connection with the negotiations between this country and the United States. I do not believe that the whole of our administrative history affords a single example of the Government being in a real difficulty from the want of legal assistance owing to the demands made upon the time of the Law Officers by their private practice. My hon. Friend thinks we have only the dregs and leavings of the time at the disposal of the Law Officers; but the fact that the Officers continue in private practice is a direct gain to the Government, because it is the means of preserving the freshness of their knowledge, and insuring that when we want their assistance it shall be not only complete as regards learning and ability, but in accord with the thought and feeling which prevails at the moment when their opinion is given. It is easy to criticize the distribution of the duties appertaining more or less to the law among the various Members of the Government. Let it, however, be remembered that the administrative system of this country and the construction of the Executive Government is just as much a peculiar and characteristic part of our institutions, although not as vital and fundamental a part as the legislative system itself. And it is utterly impossible that any good can be done by mere piecemeal attempts to amend that which, if it is considered at all, must be considered as a whole. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, indeed, has been careful to state that a Motion dealing with a portion only of this great question does not command his approval; he votes for the Motion as a protest against the existing state of things, and justifies himself by attaching a meaning to the Motion which it does not really convey. Many changes are required in our system of judicature

  77
  which I hope will be seriously considered before attempts are made to alter the position of our Law Officers. The position of the Law Officers of this country has been decided by their character from generation to generation, and the fame which they have earned has been no scandal, but an honour and credit to the country. Who are the distinguished men that, as lawyers, have earned a name and place in the history of their country, and have lived to us through fame as a portion of our national patrimony? I do not know whether nine-tenths of them, but certainly very nearly the whole of them have been Law Officers of the Crown. I do not wish at all to enter into the particulars of this question; but I think it is a pity that the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the remuneration of the Law Officers, should have been disparaged, and that attempts should have been made to thwart those efforts by Motions such as that now before the House. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) has given Notice that he will invite the House to deliver judgment upon the terms of his Motion. I believe that he will find no large proportion disposed to accompany him upon those terms; but if he should, it is not merely in our interest as a Government, not merely in the interest of all those who will vote with us on this occasion, but it is in the interest of law reform that I feel bound to utter an emphatic protest against the assumption that those who are unwilling to adopt this crude, most impolitic, and most mischievous proposition are therefore hostile or indifferent or lukewarm in the matter of an amendment of the law.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 24: Majority 77.

ARMY—CASE OF LIEUTENANT TRIBE.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  LORD ELCHO, who had given Notice to move an Address for Papers relating to the case of Lieutenant Tribe, 9th Lancers, said, since the House, on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by a majority of 26, had given up its right to bring forward on going into Committee of Supply any grievance affecting any in-
  78
  dividual in this country, and since the Government had taken Tuesdays and Fridays from private Members, it was notorious that private Members had only from 9 till 12 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays to bring forward grievances. Therefore, the position of a private Member who desired to bring forward a question which might take up some time, and which he wished to be fully discussed and reported, was an embarrassing one. Circumstanced as he was, he was obliged to discover whether there was any possibility, according to the Rules of the House, of his obtaining a proper opportunity of stating the grievance which he wished to bring before the House. He believed the natural opportunity for stating that grievance was not on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, but in Committee of Supply itself, and therefore it was his intention, when the Army Estimates were brought forward next Monday, to state the case of Lieutenant Tribe on the Vote for the Administration of the Army, it being a question of discipline; and in order to give point to that statement, he would move the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for War by £2,000, and his reason for doing so would be that that sum would only be a fair and legitimate penalty to impose upon the right hon. Gentleman for committing an act of very great indiscretion in answering a question of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) on a matter relating to the discipline of the Army.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS PENSIONS BILL— [BILL 176.]
(Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Baxter.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that an Act was passed in 1865 enabling the Secretary of State to grant pensions to colonial

79
Governors who should have reached the age of 60 years. The full rate of pension was to be given to persons who had served for 18 years as Governors, or for 10 years as Governors and 25 years altogether in the Civil Service. The reduced rate of pension was to be given to persons who, after having attained the age of 40, had served 12 years as Governors, or for 8 years as Governors and 20 years altogether in the Civil Service. One effect of that Act had been found to be that persons who had finished their service at some period between 12 and 18 years were most anxious to be employed again, so as to complete that longer period which would entitle them to the larger pension. They might be very near the 18 years—they might have been good public servants—but yet it might be undesirable to employ them at an advanced age; whilst, on the other hand, it seemed hard to refuse them employment, and to dismiss them with a 12 years' reduced pension when they had served 15, 16, or 17 years. The Colonial Office had therefore deemed it much better that the Secretary of State should have the power of giving to such persons a fractional yearly increment above the lower rate. That, in the interest of the service, would enable them to get rid of persons from whom the State had received the best part of their life's work, without hardship to them; whilst, in the interest of economy, it would enable them to dismiss them with a less amount of pension than if they had been re-employed and had completed their 18 years. The Treasury, however, would not allow such a measure to be passed unless it was secured that there should be no additional charge upon the public revenues. That eminent actuary, Mr. Finlaison, was therefore employed to draw the schedules of this Bill, and upon his figures the Treasury were satisfied that no such additional charge could be created, whilst the position of those Governors would be much more satisfactory.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
MR. DICKINSONsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill would considerably increase the present pension list, and as he condemned the principle upon which
80
these pensions were to be given, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was of a different opinion. The scale of rewarding colonial Governors was far too low. He should like to see them far more liberally rewarded.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the Bill was intended to allow the Secretary of State to give pensions for infirmity of mind or body at an earlier age than 60, and at an increased rate. The present pension list contained the names of persons who had been pensioned for infirmities of mind or body, and it was a well-known fact that many of them had since recovered and were capable of discharging public duties.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in answer to the remarks which had been made, must say that in all his experience he had never known of any appointment from that House or elsewhere unless the gentlemen nominated were perfectly qualified for their duties. Looking over the whole range of our colonies, it must be admitted that the salaries of the Governors and other officials were not excessive.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed, to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

WILD FOWL PROTECTION BILL.
(Mr. Andrew Johnston, Colonel Tomline, Mr. Brown.)

[BILL 46.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. AUBERON HERBERT MR. AUBERON HERBERT moved an Instruction to the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill during the breeding season to other wild birds. In support of his Motion the hon. Member exhibited a piece of the bark of a tree in Kensington Gardens, which he said had been destroyed by a species of beetle which was known to have destroyed many of the finest elms in the country, and the natural enemies of those beetles were the birds whom he sought to protect.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the protection given under the Bill to Wildfowl during the breeding season, to other wild birds."—(Mr. Auberon Herbert.)
MR. A. JOHNSTONobjected to an extension of the Bill as likely to prevent its passing this Session.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 15: Majority 5.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WHITWELL, Bill for the establishment of Tribunals of Commerce, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. MONK.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

METROPOLITAN POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to amend the Law respecting the Superannuation Allowances of certain Officers of the Metropolitan Police, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]
House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.