Commons Sitting of 17 February 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Endowed Schools Act (1869), Sir John Pakington and Mr. Alderman Lawrence added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors [66]; General Valuation (Ireland) [64]; Thames Embankment (Land)* [65]; Custody of Infants* [67]; Marriages (Ireland)* [68].
Second Reading—Juries [35]; Epping Forest [39].
Committee—Report—Polling Districts (Ireland)* [1] Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister [15].

ROYAL ARSENAL (WOOLWICH)—CONSUMPTION OF COAL—QUESTION.
MR. HOLT(for Mr. CAWLEY) asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether or not an investigation has been made, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War, by the Superintendent of Machinery in the Royal Arsenal as to the comparative consumption of coal per indicated horse power by different classes of steam engines in use in the War Department at Woolwich and other places, and by other engines also examined by the Superintendent; and, whether, considering the great importance of economizing the consumption of coal, there is any objection to the production of the Report of the Superintendent on this subject?
SIR HENRY STORKS: No special inquiry has been directed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; but
540
the Superintendent of Machinery in the ordinary course of his duty has made investigations of the nature referred to. Two Reports have been made, and the subject is under consideration, not only by the Superintendent of Machinery, but by the heads of the manufacturing departments, who are naturally anxious to economize fuel where it can be done with safety and efficiency. The general inquiry being not yet concluded, I do not think it would be desirable that the Reports should be produced.

LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to bring in any Bill this Session to give additional facilities for the erection of Labourers' Houses in Ireland?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he hoped to bring in such a Bill; but he thought that before he did so, it would be well that the House should be in possession of some Returns on the subject which had been called for by the Local Government Board, and which he proposed to lay on the Table in a few days, when an abstract of them, which was being made, would be completed.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX APPEALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CADOGANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether notice has been issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to persons assessed for Income Tax, to the effect that the Law admits of appeal to Special Commissioners at the Inland Revenue Office, instead of to the general Commissioners; and, if so, whether he is aware that in several cases the District Commissioners and their clerks under them have refused to issue these notices, or have substituted other notices in which no mention of the appeal to the Special Commissioners had been made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the facts were as stated by the hon. Member. He might mention that it was his intention to introduce into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill for this year a clause making it obligatory on those persons to issue the notices sent to them by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  COAL FIELDS OF CHINA.—QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the statement from competent authorities that the coal fields of China cover an area of upwards of 400,000 square miles, as contrasted with the comparatively small area of 12,000 square miles in Great Britain; if his attention has been called to the Report of Baron Von Richthofen, printed at Shanghai in 1870 and 1871, respecting certain coal-bearing provinces, notably that of Shansi, containing some 30,000 square miles, with beds varying from twelve to thirty feet in thickness, whilst the system of coal-bearing strata in this province is about five hundred feet in thickness, containing besides an inexhaustible supply of iron ore [the whole Report being amply set forth in "The Quarterly Review" for April, 1872]; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, by concerted action and in co-operation with the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, would endeavour to negotiate a supplementary Treaty to provide for the safe investment of British and European capital in mining enterprise and in connecting lines of Railway, under proper safeguards protected by the Contracting Powers?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Baron Richthofen's Reports on the provinces of Hunan, Hupeli, Henan, and Shansi were sent home by the Consul at Shanghai, in September, 1870. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Baron's estimates of the amount of coal existing in these provinces, and they are confirmed by the Reports of our own Consuls. The Consul at Hankow, in his Report for 1871, says that most of the steamers on the Yangtze take in coal at that port, the quality of which has lately much improved; it conies from Hunan, where a coal field more than 30,000 square miles in extent exists. The Consular Report from Kinhiang for 1871, speaking of the coal districts in the neighbourhood of that port, says—
  "The facilities for working mines remain in a rudimentary shape, although this province contains coal in enormous quantities; the coal pits of Yukang are said to be capable of producing a superior description of coal in practically inexhaustible quantities."
  An officer of the Consulate at Newcheang visited the coal fields in the
  542
  North of China in 1871, and found that coal, equal in quality to the best Cardiff, existed there in great quantities, though it is only worked on a small scale, and sold at prices varying from £1 11 s. 6d. to £2 9s. 6d. a ton. With regard to the Question of obtaining from the Chinese Government permission to work mines and make railways, Sir Rutherford Alcock, during his negotiations for the revision of the Treaty in 1869, repeatedly urged these points upon them, but, unfortunately, without success. It is to be hoped that sooner or later the Chinese will realize the advantage which they would derive from the development by foreign capital of the mineral wealth of their country.

INFANT LIFE—ROPE SPINNERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has sent down Commissioners to Liverpool to inquire respecting the destruction of Infant Life resulting from the employment of pregnant women to spill off into rope yarn large bundles of hemp bound round their waists; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commissioners?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, he had received, about three weeks ago, a statement to the effect of the hon. and learned Member's Question, and directed an inquiry to be made, not by Commissioners, but by the Inspector of Factories. The Inspector had sent down a sub-Inspector, who saw the women at work and examined into the truth of the statement. His report was that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, and that the women, who earned good wages, were unusually healthy, and would compare very satisfactorily with the women employed in factories.

  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, in the tale of loss of life at sea published by the Board, any account is taken of the losses of the men who are washed or fall overboard during a voyage in ones or twos, or of those who are accidentally killed during a voyage by rough weather or other causes, as in boarding a vessel or landing in boats, &c.?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, it was impossible to add anything to the Returns annually laid on the Table. If the hon. Member looked at the Return presented last year he would find that all the deaths of British merchant seamen, whether occurring from disease or accident, were enumerated and analyzed.

  THE LICENSING ACT, 1872—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. STRAIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he purposes introducing a Bill to amend the numerous defects that have been found to exist in the Licensing Act of last Session since its coming into operation, and particularly to remove the discretionary powers at present vested in the Chief Commissioner of Police in the metropolis, and the Magistrates in the country, as to the hours of opening and closing?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, there had been much interested exaggeration as to the number of defects discovered in that Act. As a matter of fact, only one decision had been in any manner contrary to what was the intention of the Government, and he believed of the Legislature, in passing the Act. That might hereafter be set right; but at present he thought it would be very inexpedient, and contrary to the public interest, to introduce fresh legislation on that subject.

  ARMY—CAVALRY AND ARTILLERY RESERVE.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to bring forward, this Session, any proposition for the formation of a Reserve of Cavalry and Artillery?
  MR. CARDWELL: I intend to propose the Army Estimates next Monday, and will then state the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Artillery and Cavalry Reserves.

  ARMY—CLAIMS OF INDIAN OFFICERS—THE BONUS FUND.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any decision has been arrived at in respect of the claims of the Officers of the Royal (late Indian) Engineers to com-
  544
  pensation for the abolition of their bonus fund, consequent on the issue of the Royal Warrant of 1871?
  MR. CARDWELL: I propose that the principle applied by the Act of Parliament to the 12 regiments formerly on the Indian establishment shall be applied to the Artillery and Engineer Corps, so far as they may be able to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that any just claim exists in respect of any bonus fund existing on the day on which Purchase was abolished?

  THE FIJI ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of any Despatches that have been addressed to the Governor of New South Wales (subsequent to Letter 88 of 3rd November 1871, published in Parliamentary Paper, No. 509, of 1872), respecting the acknowledgment of the Government set up by a section of the white settlers in the Fiji Islands, as well as of the Minutes or Correspondence which have passed between the Governor of New South Wales and his Executive Council on the same subject; and, of any Instructions that may have been sent to the Naval Officer commanding in the Pacific relative to the line of conduct to be adopted by commanders of Her Majesty's vessels towards the so-called Government of the Fijis?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN,in reply, said, there would be no objection to the production of the Returns mentioned in the first part of the Question. As to the other part he would communicate with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would repeat his Question.

ARMY—MILITARY CENTRES—OXFORD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Oxford or its neighbourhood has been definitively fixed upon as a site for a Military centre; and, if so, what place has been selected; and is there any objection to produce the Report or Reports upon which such selection is founded?
  MR. CARDWELL: Oxford is recommended as the site for a Brigade Depot for reasons which will be found in the final Report of General M'Dougall's Committee, which I am about to lay upon the Table. Its definitive adoption is dependent upon a suitable piece of ground being available on satisfactory terms, and the Department is at present in communication with the local authorities with respect to a site at Ballingtoft Farm, about 2½ miles S.E. from Oxford. If this site is adopted there will be no objection to lay upon the Table the Report of the General Officer, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, on the subject.

CHARTERS OF DUBLIN UNIVERSITY AND TRINITY COLLEGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Charter and Statutes of Queen Elizabeth, and of the other Charters and Statutes by which the University of Dublin and Trinity College are now regulated?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, the hon. Member was, no doubt, aware that the Government were not in official possession of the charters or statutes mentioned in his Question. He had every reason to think that, so far as it was necessary for the convenience of the House, copies of them might be procured. It had never, he might add, been usual to furnish the statutes of Universities or Colleges. They were of great length, and it would take a considerable time to have them printed and corrected. The charters were not, he believed, of great length, and his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would endeavour to procure copies of the more material charters, such as those of Queen Elizabeth, James I., and the letters patent of Charles I. He might further observe that, although not in possession officially of the statutes, the Government would have no difficulty in obtaining copies of them, which might be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament for more convenient reference.

  RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILLS.—JOINT COMMITTEES.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the President of the Board of Trade, What course he intends to propose with respect to the Railway Amalgamation Bills; and, whether he will propose such modification of the Standing Orders as shall enable public bodies representing traders, such as Chambers of Commerce, a locus stanch before Committees on such Bills?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said that the course which he proposed to take with regard to the Railway Amalgamation Bills was that which was recommended by the Joint Committee of last Session. He would, therefore, move a Resolution to the effect that all Railway Amalgamation Bills this Session, and also all Bills to enable railway companies to acquire possession of canals, should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses especially selected for the purpose. Some such modification as that to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded would probably be effected.

  PUBLIC HEALTH LEGISLATION—THE SANITARY COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Right honourable Baronet the Member for North Staffordshire, Whether he intends to introduce during the present Session any measure relating to the Public Health?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, he hoped that those who were members of the Sanitary Commission would be permitted to reintroduce their measure this Session, with the view of collecting in one Bill such powers and duties of the local authorities throughout the kingdom as were now scattered over 19 or 20 Acts of Parliament. The Acts of the two last Sessions had dealt with the authorities, local and central, and it was therefore urgent that their powers and duties should, as soon as possible, be made clear. He trusted that, after what fell from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government the other day, they might have the assistance of the Government, and that a satisfactory measure might be produced.

PRICE OF COALS—RAILWAYS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether the Board had taken into consideration the present high price of coal in the metropolis, especially with respect to the restrictions imposed by the London and North Western Company on the transit of coals between London and Rugby, and whether, if those restrictions were removed, the Midland and other railway companies having termini in London would offer facilities for the carriage of coal to the metropolis?
  MR. A. PEEL,in reply, said, that the Board of Trade had no information on the subject nor means of obtaining it, other than those which were open to any Member of the House. If the hon. Member would specify the grievance complained of in a letter, he (Mr. Peel) would be happy to communicate it to the railway company. He thought that if the Government granted a Committee of Inquiry into the coal supply, such subjects of complaint as those referred to by the hon. Member might properly afford matter for investigation.

  JURIES BILL— [BILL 35.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he should not enter upon its provisions at any great length, as the subject had already been frequently under the consideration of the House. By the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, and still more by the Acts of 1862 and 1870, great alterations had been made in the law relating to juries, so that it had become extremely difficult of late years to find out what were the liabilities of particular persons with respect to serving on juries, and still more difficult to administer satisfactorily a law which had fallen into such a state of confusion. There could be no doubt that the defects of the jury law had resulted in the general deterioration of the character of juries, and that juries had not for the last 10 or 20 years secured for themselves that respect which those who wished to stand up for
  548
  trial by jury desired they should command. This was the more to be regretted because under the Act of George IV. the subject was perfectly plain. The eulogy pronounced on the system of trial by jury by Blackstone might be somewhat over-painted, but he did not know that he should be disposed to differ very much from it in principle. It was as follows:—
  "Trial by jury ever has been and I trust ever will be looked upon as the glory of the English law. I may venture to affirm that it has, under Providence, secured the great liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages; and therefore, the celebrated French writer (Montesquieu) who concludes that because Rome, Sparta, and Carthage lost their liberties, therefore those of England in time must perish, should have recollected that Rome, Sparta, and Carthage at the time when their liberties were lost, were strangers to trial by jury. Great as this eulogium may seem, it is no more than this admirable institution, when traced to its principles, will be found in sober reason to deserve.…. It is therefore a duty which every man owes to his country, his friends, his posterity, and himself to maintain to the utmost of his power this valuable institution in all its rights, to restore it to its ancient dignity if at all impaired, to amend it wherever it is defective, and, above all, to guard with the most jealous circumspection against the introduction of new and arbitrary methods of trial, which under a variety of plausible pretences may in time imperceptibly undermine this best preservative of English liberty."—[Book iii., ch. 23.]
  He did not think that Blackstone's view differed from that which any man who looked into the subject would have. There were, however, many more modern authorities in support of the system of trial by jury. In the complicated and artificial system under which we lived many indirect as well as direct advantages flowed from this method of trial which deserved attention. Thus it was of great benefit to the community that the public should take an actual part in the administration of justice, and he should be sorry if the Courts of Law ever fell into the hands of merely professional men. He believed there was no better education in the best and truest sense of the word than that which was derived from taking part in the administration of justice as jurymen, and while he had the highest respect for Her Majesty's Judges, he thought that juries might sometimes act as a check upon less perfect Judges. A Judge, no doubt, had obtained in this country a position of dignity and independence; but he did not thereby at once

  549
  become an inspired and infallible person, and a learned and able Judge once remarked to him that one effect of the interposition of juries was to compel him to give reasons for his judgment, and those reasons must be such as would be intelligible to 12 ordinary men. The institution was therefore very well worth preserving, and his object throughout this Bill had been to maintain the principle of trial by jury, and simply to improve the details of the present system, to raise the qualifications of jurors, to do away as far as he could with the unfair personal incidence of the present law, which pressed with great hardship upon particular classes of the people, to bring about an entirely impartial administration of the law, and to put an end to the inconvenient practices, and he might say corruption, which now existed in the administration of the law, as far as regarded bringing the jurors into Court. This latter was an abuse which was patent to all accustomed to deal with the subject, and was one which cried aloud for a remedy, and for which he trusted it would be found that the system which he proposed to establish would afford a practical and effectual remedy. The whole question had been carefully investigated last year by the Select Committee which had been appointed to consider the Bill which last year he had introduced, and which Committee had consisted of 16 or 17 influential and experienced Members of that House, whose opinion would doubtless have the greatest weight with hon. Members. Among them was the late Attorney General for Ireland, whose loss to the House he was sure both sides equally regretted. The present Bill was verbatim et literatim in the form in which that Committee had left it. He had not thought it becoming in him on his own authority to alter any decision which that Committee had arrived at after due discussion, and often by large majorities. But although he had not presumed to introduce alterations in the Bill itself as it had left the Select Committee, still he should feel bound to take the sense of the House upon two points to which he should presently refer, on which he differed from the opinion which had been arrived at by the Committee, and which he should try to induce the House to reverse. The Bill proposed to reduce the number of jurors to seven in all
  550
  cases with a single exception. The principle of reduction in the number of the jurors was unanimously agreed to—the number was, as might be expected, a subject of considerable discussion—and the number seven was arrived at as a compromise, and as being on the whole a convenient number. In his opinion it was exceedingly important that the number of jurors should be reduced. Of course there was no principle in the question of the number, and there was nothing particularly magic in the number 12 as constituting a jury. That number, as far as he knew, did not obtain in other countries besides our own, neither did it obtain in all parts of England, nor in the largest, most prosperous, and most important of our colonies. Again, in the County Courts, a jury of five decided questions of considerable importance which formerly could be decided by a jury of 12 only, and he believed decided them with perfect satisfaction; and those who knew our law knew that the number of 12 was not the creation of statute, nor proceeded from any particular wisdom, but had been arrived at almost as a matter of chance; and though it had had a long spell of authority in this country, still there was no more reason for the number 12 than any other. 15 had been for a great many years the number of the jury in criminal cases in Scotland. His great object in framing this Bill for the amendment of the jury law had been to obtain the maximum of public advantage with the minimum of private inconvenience. It must be borne in mind in considering this subject that it was not so much the serving upon juries that was the great cause of complaint—it was that the jurors were compelled, day after day, to keep on kicking their heels in a Court of Law without even being eventually required to serve. Of course a margin of jurors beyond the number actually required to serve must be provided, in order that when a jury was locked up, or jurors were taken ill, others might be ready to take their places. But if the number of persons required to form a jury wore to be reduced to seven, the amount of unnecessary inconvenience which would be saved to those summoned would be amazing. Now, the two important subjects on which he respectfully ventured to differ from the decision of the Select Committee were—

  551
  first, the composition of an ordinary jury; and, next, the question of unanimity. The Select Committee resisted his proposition that there should be a definite proportion of more highly educated and of what he might call less educated men on each jury—a matter he had very much at heart. He very much regretted the decision of the Committee. He told the Committee he could not accept it as a final decision, and that he would endeavour to reverse it. And he would tell the House why. The presence of special jurors upon every trial was a thing that had been recommended by the highest possible authority—by the Common Law Commissioners and by the Judicature Commission. The Common Law Commissioners of 1850 in their second Report, dated the 30th of April, 1853, said—
  "On every trial there should be an admixture of jurymen of the class from which the special juries are now taken. This is, indeed, now the law, though in practice the names of persons qualified to be special jurors are not placed on the common jury panel. There is every reason why jurors of the higher class should assist in the administration of justice to the same extent as those who constitute the common juries. We think the higher class of jurors should bring the assistance of their more cultivated minds and superior intelligence to the decision of cases which, although they may not admit of the additional expense attendant under the present system on having a special jury, may not be the less important to the parties whose interests are involved. At the same time it should be understood that we do not propose to abolish the right which now exists of having a special jury as at present appointed. What we recommend is that the general jury panel should be made up indiscriminately from all persons qualified to serve on either jury."
  The same Commissioners in their third Report, made in 1860, said—
  "We think it right to avail ourselves of this opportunity to invite renewed attention to our former observations respecting the constitution of juries. More especially we would urge the consideration of that part of our recommendations which relates to securing the attendance on common juries of the class of persons who now serve exclusively on special juries, with a view to the improvement of the former by the admixture of persons of higher education and intelligence. We are strongly persuaded that a very great improvement would by this means be effected in the constitution of juries; and as we do not propose to do away with the right of parties to resort to a special jury, or to deprive special jurors, when serving as such, of the additional remuneration which they are in the habit of receiving, we can see no ground why the liability of such persons to serve on common juries which already exists in law, though it is
  552
  not required in practice, should not be enforced."
  The Judicature Commissioners in their first Report, made in 1869, quote the above passages, and state their "entire concurrence" with the views expressed. So that the recommendation that in common juries there should be an element of intelligence and education came supported by as good authority as the legal profession could furnish. He was, therefore, only recommending what had been repeatedly enforced on the House. Now, so far from the principle or practice of adopting all such measures as might be necessary for providing a competent jury for "every trial" being either new or unknown to law or custom, or to the theory of trial by jury, it would be found that throughout English history from the earliest times down to at least as late as the reign of Elizabeth, the Sheriff, in all cases of the slightest importance, was directed to do what was in fact his duty in all cases, by returning a "good" jury—an expression which implied that there were to be jurymen who were educated and intelligent and above the common run of jurymen. Of late years the whole law relating to juries has been allowed to fall into utter confusion, which had been aggravated by the conduct of the Sheriffs, who substituted, when they thought it expedient, practices of their own for their legal duties. One consequence of all this irregularity had been that trial by jury had to some extent declined in estimation through the abuse, for it was nothing else, of making up common juries exclusively of common jurors, and of common jurors, moreover, drawn from a lower class of the community than that from which they used to be taken in former times. The assertion was scarcely too broad that trial by common jurors only was unconstitutional, and had never at any time been contemplated by the law. The Commissioners, therefore, whose Reports have been quoted, could scarcely do otherwise than recommend that jurors should be summoned under some system which would render certain the presence of some special jurors on "every trial." How, then, was it to be done? The Bill provided that it should be done haphazard—that the jury roll should be made out indiscriminately from jurors of both sorts, special and common. It would be found,

  553
  however, that the plan which they suggested for securing that object would clearly fail to carry their recommendation into any real effect. The common jurors were the overwhelming majority in the largest number of places in England. In some places it was not so, especially in the City of London, where the common jurors and the special jurors were almost equal in number. An indiscriminate system would work unfairly and improperly in both of those cases. In the larger number of cases, where the overwhelming majority were common jurors, of course the great majority of ordinary jurors would have no special jurors on them whatever if the jurors were taken at haphazard. In the few cases where the balance was nearly equal there was a waste of jury power, because they had an equal number of common and special jurors, which they did not want. They wanted a due proportion. He would give the House two or three curious details to show how the haphazard system would work. At the time when the Judicature Commission reported, the proportion in Sussex was this:—Common jurors, 7,303; special jurors, 197. In Kent the common jurors were 15,600, and the special jurors, 400. In Lancashire the common jurors were 42,550, and the special 1,400. In the parish of Marylebone the common jurors were 3,680, and the special 300. In St. Pancras the common jurors were 6,628, and the special 50. In Paddington the common jurors were 3,390, and the special 220. In Gloucestershire the common jurors were 6,754, and the special 250. Now anyone who considered these figures would see that his case was made out. These figures were taken from the evidence of official witnesses given before Lord Enfield's Committee. They were not chosen as in any way exhibiting more strongly than was the case in other places the disproportion in the numbers of the two classes of jurors: they were given because they were the only figures of the kind accessible to him. It was impossible to suppose that where the proportions were these you could get by indiscriminate selection the presence of educated men on every jury. Juries were twofold. There were criminal juries and there were civil juries. It was desired that satisfaction should be given in each case. Now, if juries were selected by chance, they might
  554
  have a prisoner of the upper sort tried exclusively by a jury of the lower sort, and a prisoner of the lower class tried exclusively by a jury of the upper class, and in either instance the administration of the law was not likely to command confidence. Take a civil jury. You might have persons of one class adjudicated by persons exclusively, or almost exclusively, of another class, and class-feeling would influence the result. Now, what he desired to secure was, that an ordinary jury should be an ordinary jury. If there was upon each jury a definite proportion of the one class and the other, and if men knew beforehand the sort, they could say whether or not they were content with it, or whether they would prefer a special jury. The main objection to this provision of the Bill was, that it would operate unfairly, not as regards the attendance of jurymen, because everybody was to servo and nobody was to serve twice, but by introducing class prejudices into the jury box. Now, to that he would reply that the very men who had urged that objection—and a very shadowy objection it was—had themselves expressly desired that to which they seemed to be opposed. They had all said—"Secure for us, if you can, the presence of men of education." When, however, it was admitted that it was right to secure the presence of men of education upon common juries, did not that mean that it was well to secure some men who were superior to the rest? He doubted whether there was any real substance in the objection. In the first place, it was a pure matter of theory. There was no other authority than that of the Select Committee in support of it, and high authority and experience were on the other side. For the last two years in Middlesex, and he also believed in London, many special jurors had served indiscriminately, and he had not heard of any class feelings or class prejudices having been begotten in the jury in consequence. Moreover, it was part of the proposition which he made in this Bill, that invidious distinctions in point of description should be removed from the jury list. Whereas, at present, some men ranked as bankers, merchants, esquires, yeomen, or otherwise; in future the only distinction between them would be that which was the result of higher or lower rating. Men below a certain rating would be marked

  555
  C in the jury list; those above a certain amount of rating would have S set against their names—there being but one list, although there would be two qualifications. To this proposal he thought there could be no exception. Moreover, the new law, like most other laws, would be administered by sensible men, who would take care that the lists would be properly composed. It was to be remembered that a great many men who now ranked as special jurors were men engaged in trades or other callings, who would hereafter only be placed among the class of special jurors, because, from the amount of their rating, they might be taken presumably to be persons of a higher education. Supposing, however, the charge made against this provision of the Bill to have some foundation, what did the charge come to except that, in cases where there was a class feeling, the matter which gave rise to the class feeling should not be decided by one class alone? He was always glad, if possible, to appeal to authority, and upon points of practical wisdom it was well to be able to appeal to the authority of our Scotch fellow-subjects. For a great many years, then, the principle he was now proposing to adopt in England had been adopted in Scotland in criminal cases; and since the Jury (Scotland) Act was passed it had been adopted in civil cases also. Out of 15 jurymen in criminal cases in Scotland, 10 were common and five special jurymen; and it had been stated on the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) in this House that the arrangement had given general satisfaction. The 31 & 32 Vict. c. 100, provided that in civil cases there should be 12 jurymen—eight common and four special jurymen. He stood, therefore, upon authority, both in this country and in Scotland. The Scotch, therefore, who were a shrewd and peculiarly sensible people, did not object to the principle which was embodied in the present Bill. At best the objection was a theoretical one; it was not formidable even if it were true, and there was a weight of authority and of practical experience directly the other way. Another point on which he should ask the House to reconsider the decision of the Select Committee was as to the unanimity of the jury. He admitted that the question was one which increased in difficulty in proportion as they
  556
  diminished the number of the jurors; but, with every respect for "the wisdom of our ancestors," he must call the existing law in this respect somewhat barbarian. He could not see why they should insist that every one of the 12 or of the seven should be of the same opinion. Why should one pertinacious, wrong-headed, cantankerous man be able to veto the reasonable conclusion of any number of persons? He did not want to specify what number of persons should constitute a majority on a jury, for he had no definite opinion as to what the majority which should bind the rest of the jurors should be; but, whatever number was adopted, he trusted the House would no longer insist upon unanimity in verdicts. He had preserved the old number of 12 jurymen in cases of treason, treason-felony, and murder, and proposed that in those cases the jury should be unanimous. If asked why he had done this, he must say that he did not know that he could give any good logical, and perhaps not even any sensible reason for it, such as would stand the test of argument. He had done it from a deep-rooted feeling—superstition, if you liked to call it so—for the profound, immeasurable sanctity of human life, and because death, when carried into execution, was the only sentence which could not be reversed—the only mistake you could not atone for. He had not thought it right that human life should be taken more easily than before, and therefore the concurrence of 12 men would be required as heretofore. While strenuously maintaining the justice of capital punishment, he desired to fence life in the English law with every security. If the House would examine the Bill it would be found to contain within itself the whole law upon the subject on which it treated. Our legislation had been subjected to well-founded reproaches as to its obscurity and difficulty, one cause being that when the law was altered the alteration did not speak for itself, and you had to refer back to former statutes to find what the law was. The result was that lawyers only could say what the law was, and even very few lawyers could speak on this point with certainty. The present Bill would show absolutely and completely what a man's liabilities were as to juries, and would do so, he hoped, with clearness and precision. In this

  557
  way only could these subjects be properly dealt with and the Statute-book made reasonable and intelligible. It would be absurd to suppose that he could undertake alone the preparation of a Bill like this—referring to a subject which was not very attractive in itself—which was full of out-of-the-way detail and learning, which did not come across the path of the ordinary practising barrister. He thought it right, therefore, to state that he had had the advantage of the aid of a gentleman who united to great intelligence and ability a peculiar and almost unique acquaintance with this head of the law—Mr. Erle, Associate in the Court of Common Pleas, and also of Mr. H. Pollock, Associate in the Court of Exchequer. He did not mention the names of those gentlemen in order to evade responsibility. The Bill was still his, and he was prepared to bear the burden of the faults and errors contained within it; but if there were any merits in the scheme it was only right that they should be credited to the persons to whom they belonged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved that the Debate be now adjourned. No doubt the Bill was before the House last Session, but it was at once referred to a Select Committee, and it came back in a very different form from that in which it left the House. This happened at a very late period of the Session, and therefore hon. Members did not upon that occasion look into the Bill. The subject was one in which he took a deep interest, but he had not had an opportunity of seeing the present Bill until it came down from the Vote Office at about 10 minutes to 5 that day; and therefore he could be pardoned for not having studied its provisions. He did not think, therefore, that he should be doing an unusual thing in moving the Adjournment of the Debate in order that they might have time to consider the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he could not for the life of him see any good reason for reducing the number of men now composing a jury from 12 to seven. He thought
  558
  they ought at once to protest against the number of 12 being interfered with. It was true tradition told of seven wise men, and common report attached something mystical to the number. It was curious enough, but every person who had mixed in society had observed that there was a sort of mystery with reference to the number seven. It was imagined by some to be a lucky, and by others an unlucky number; but at the risk of being regarded as an antiquated person, he objected to a reduction of the number of a jury from 12, lest we might eventually come to the abolition of trial by jury altogether. And why should charges of treason and murder be tried by 12, when other felonies, misdemeanours, and civil cases were to be tried by seven? The grand object to be sought in the administration of justice was complete satisfaction on the part of the public and an absence of any suspicion of compromise. If the jury of seven were at first divided and afterwards agreed, the inevitable consequence would be that the public would believe the majority of four had induced the minority of three to forego their opinion. He thought also that it was highly important that in civil cases there should still be a jury of 12, for those cases were often of enormous importance, and their results sometimes ruinous, to the parties concerned. He could not deny that inconvenience resulted from time to time, owing to the non-attendance of jurors, but that state of things could be remedied by a stricter exercise of existing powers to enforce their attendance. The common jurymen, who were miserably underpaid, attended in tolerable numbers. Special jurymen, on the other hand, stayed away just as they liked; were often loud in their complaints if they attended for one or two days without being called; and when they acted they received their guinea. For his part, he thought that special jurors, from the social position they occupied, ought not to demand a guinea for trying a. case, but ought to perform that public duty without hope of receiving payment. [A laugh.] That might seem a strange proposition, but it should be remembered that if they discharged that duty towards others they would find it done for themselves also when they were engaged in causes. His chief object in rising was to protest against the pro-

  559
  posed diminution in the number of jurors, because he was afraid that if the number was reduced as proposed, it would be the first step towards the abolition of trial by jury. It was the fashion sometimes to sneer at that tribunal; but those who did so forgot how well it had worked and the benefits it had conferred on the community. If they were now to act upon the principle of the Attorney General, and diminish that number from 12 to seven, they might soon find it reduced from seven to five, and from five to three, and, finally, they would have causes tried by a single juryman. Instead of having trial by jury, they would have substituted for it trial by one Judge. He believed that common jurymen would be strongly opposed to the proposed composite arrangement and as to the numbers attending, he thought a sufficient number might be obtained without any substantial inconvenience. He objected to any alteration in the number of the jury with which the minds of Englishmen had been for so many centuries familiar. With great respect to the Judicial Bench, he could not help saying, before he sat down, that he had observed that Judges were gradually acquiring greater power over the minds of juries than they ought to possess or exercise, and this fact gave rise to what was frequently said that the Judge could lead the jury just as he liked. Juries were bound to take the law from the Bench, but of the facts of a case they were the sole judges. He hoped before they came to the consideration of the clauses in Committee, hon. Members would give what he might call a patriotic attention to the principal proposal of the Bill, and that they would not consent to a reduction in the number constituting a jury simply for the sake of the despicable consideration of convenience.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that the present unsatisfactory state of the jury system rendered it desirable and necessary that some re-arrangement of it should be made during the present Session. But while he hoped that the Bill would be read a second time there were some provisions in it which required much consideration, and in respect of which full opportuniy for consideration and inquiry ought to be afforded. The prin-
  560
  cipal matter to which attention would doubtless be directed, and to which it was impossible not to attach great importance, was the proposal to alter the constitution of a jury by reducing the number from 12 to seven. In the Select Committee of last year that proposal was carried by a very narrow majority. He (Mr. James) was among the minority, and his hon. and learned Friend was aware that it was intimated the opinion of the House would be taken by the minority before the important alteration in question was agreed to. No Notice had, however, been given that the provision would be discussed on that occasion, but his hon. and learned Friend was aware that in Committee a division would be taken on the subject. Many hon. Members would doubtless be anxious to know why the change was proposed, and his hon. and learned Friend, if he desired to effect it, must show that the alteration was required, and would, if carried out, be likely to work well. He wished to say that not being confident in his own opinion, he had taken some trouble to ascertain the views and feelings of his brethren at the Bar, who were likely to be able to judge of the change, on the subject. He had obtained the signature to a paper handed round without comment of most of those who took a conspicuous part as advocates at Westminster Hall, and he felt bound to say that their opinion was almost unanimous against the proposed change. They thought it was not desirable in civil eases that the number of jurors should be reduced from 12 to seven. In face of these facts, he hoped that ample time would be given for the consideration of the Bill in Committee. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to one other topic—namely, that of composite juries—a subject which was not sought to be dealt with in the Bill. That subject, too, had been fully considered by the Select Committee; and while they resolved that the number constituting a jury should be seven, they were opposed, as he was, to its being a composite jury. If they had a composite jury they might have four special jurors to be paid a guinea each, or four common jurors whose ordinary fee was 2s. each, and the chances were that the verdict would not express the mind of all the jurors, but would be the hasty decision of the majority, and probably in the end most

  561
  unsatisfactory. On this point his hon. and learned Friend stood almost alone in the Committee, and his reason for touching on it, although it formed no part of his Bill, was perhaps to foreshadow the argument he would eventually bring forward with a view to show that the Committee had arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Whilst everyone wished to see a Bill of some kind carried, he certainly thought that a discussion on the particular clauses contained in this one ought to be postponed so as to give hon. Members time for consideration.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEobserved that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in advocating a change in the jury system, had failed to make out any case for his proposed reduction in the number constituting a jury. Before he could justify such a measure he should have shown that under the existing system jurors had failed in their duties, or that they had delivered improper verdicts. There had been occasional miscarriages of justice, but there was no evidence to prove that such would not have been the case had the juries consisted of seven instead of 12 persons. It was true there was no magic in the number 12, but there was this reason for a continuance of that number—that it had existed and had-worked well for a long series of years. It was said that the present system involved great inconvenience to jurors; but he maintained that there was an argument of much greater weight on the other side, and that was the confidence which the people felt both in Judges and juries; and he thought it infinitely more important than any supposed inconvenience of that number that the confidence of the people in the administration of the law should be carefully preserved; therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to pause before making any change which might shake that confidence. Then as to the suggested admixture of the jurors—knowing the feeling of the great body of the people—he was quite sure that they would deprecate this attempt to influence the one class of jurors by associating with it what was supposed to be a superior or better educated class. That would be, indeed, the introduction into the jury-box of the caste system for the purpose of effecting an undue influence, and would be looked upon by the
  562
  people of this country with very little favour. The amount of rates paid by individuals was no criterion whatever of the superiority or better education of one class over another, and as to the proposal of accepting the verdict of a majority, it appeared to him to be better to abolish juries altogether than to allow a man to be convicted of an offence by the voice of a simple majority. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if it was a thing not to be expected that 12 men should be of one mind. That might be the case with respect to a question of doctrine or philosophy, but there was nothing so unlikely in expecting that 12 men could be brought to say, after hearing the evidence, whether one man had or had not injured or robbed another. The Bill provided that the number seven might in cases of illness or absence be reduced, and that the Judge might direct that the trial should go on with five jurors, except in cases of murder and treason. But it ought not to be permitted that important cases, involving charges of libel or conspiracy for instance, should be decided by the majority of a jury of five persons. He held that it would be unwise to try to carry out a doubtful improvement at the risk of shaking the confidence of the people in trial by jury.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he had for many years endeavoured to call attention to this subject, and he had himself brought in a Bill with a view to remedy the serious grievances under which the people of this country laboured. But, feeling that the undertaking was too much for any private Member, in the February of last year he moved that the whole measure should be dealt with by the Government in a large and comprehensive measure. He was bound to say that the Attorney General at once acceded to that proposition, and he rose now chiefly for the purpose of thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for the prompt and full performance of his promise and for the measure which he had introduced. He did not purpose to discuss the merits of the question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, but he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) that this was an exceptional case, and that the Bill had been stated to be in the main a copy of the Bill of last Session which

  563
  was discussed before the Select Committee, which was printed and in the hands of hon. Members before the Long Vacation. Would it not be sufficient for his hon. and learned Friend's purpose that the Bill, if now read a second time, should not be taken in Committee until after Easter? That would give sufficient time for its consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not assent; but he should remember that many hon. Members who took a great interest in the measure, and who would like to have an opportunity of discussing the different clauses, would of necessity be absent between this and Easter.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYwas bound to say, in defence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), that the hon. and learned Attorney General, he thought, had taken a course which he would find a bad precedent to be followed. If they were to accept this measure at once, because a similar one had been in their hands at the end of the previous Session, they might find themselves placed in a position of some difficulty. He was further reminded by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. H. James) that the Attorney General had dwelt at some length on one particular point which was not in his Bill at all. Nevertheless, he thought that the House might assent to its second reading now, upon the understanding that ample time should be afforded them for the consideration of its provisions before they were asked to go into Committee upon it. He would, therefore, unite in the request of the last speaker, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry should withdraw his Amendment. It was clear that there really was no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but only to details of it, and therefore he hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. A good deal had been said upon the subject not only of special, but of ordinary jurors. It had always appeared to him while in practice at the Bar, and since in his small judicial capacity at Quarter Sessions, that there was a class of persons who were never tried by their peers—he referred to the labouring class—and that it would be well, if possible, to introduce working men into juries. He knew that the question was a very puzzling one;
  564
  and it seemed to him that though it would be, of course, impossible to throw the jury lists altogether open, it would be desirable that a proportion of members of the labouring classes should be found on them. He merely threw it out now, however, as a suggestion for the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he concurred in the appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment, but at the same time he thought that, as the clauses of the Bill were numerous and the subject an important one, it was desirable that a tolerably long interval should be given for the consideration of it, although he was aware that it embodied the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year. He quite agreed with the Attorney General as to the non-necessity of requiring unanimity in a jury.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas in this matter in the hands of the House, and would never for a moment think of pressing on the second reading if there was any real desire that the debate should be adjourned. It was evident, however, that that was not the case, and he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment would feel that in the discussion which had taken place the object he had bad in view had been attained. The Bill was, no doubt, complicated in its details, and the demand for time for its consideration was only reasonable. He would therefore put down the Committee for Thursday next, with the distinct understanding that it would not come on on that evening. By that time he would probably be able to fix a time which would be convenient to hon. Members.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLwould at once accept the, hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  EPPING FOREST BILL— [BILL 39.]
  (Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. AYRTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, reminded hon. Members that an Act was passed two Sessions ago for the purpose of authorising Commissioners to inquire into all the disputed rights in Epping Forest, with a view to preserving all the rights of the public. At the time it was thought that the Commissioners would be able to complete their labours within two years. It was now found that this anticipation was not quite correct. The Commissioners had been proceeding very actively with the discharge of their duties from the passing of the Act to the present time, but had by no means arrived at a conclusion. Their first duty was to obtain an accurate survey of the remains of Epping Forest. This was a difficult task, and it was not until one year had elapsed that the map was laid before them. They had then to make inquiries into its accuracy, and to perambulate the Forest. These duties occupied two or three months. Then there was a great number of inclosures necessary to be surveyed. After this was done it was necessary to inquire into the rights of parties who made claims. No fewer than 553 claims had to be brought on before them for inquiry, and in order to do justice to those claims and to the parties connected with them, considerably further time would be required, as well as to prepare a scheme in reference to them; and it was for that purpose that this Bill was brought in. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould remind the House that the proposed extension implied a great increase of expense and inconvenience to a large number of people. There were many holders of small interests in land in Epping Forest, land held of the Crown, and which had been in the hands of the present occupiers for many years, and everything in connection with those interests was now in abeyance, and would be until the Commissioners issued their Report. It therefore seemed to him that the House ought to be very careful before it consented to prolong for another
  566
  long term the present state of uncertainty as to the enclosures in this Forest. What they had already seen of the conduct of the Commissioners was not enough to convince them that this application might not at some future period be renewed. It was at first thought that the Commission need only sit two years; but that view was now altogether abandoned, and he himself believed that it was more likely to last for eight or ten years. Why, only the other clay they had had evidence of the extent to which the inquiry would be protracted, for at a recent meeting of the Commission it was asserted that there was no limit to the power of cross-examination of the witnesses, and in consequence the cross-examination of one was conducted at such length that the Court had to adjourn to consider the matter. Again, the lords of the manors would be most seriously affected by the extension of the time now proposed to be given to the inquiries of the Commission. He would also point out that if, as he believed, the Commission would report that only part of the Forest was proper for the purposes of public recreation, then by allowing this fresh delay to the Commissioners they would virtually be allowing all the remaining portion of the Forest to lie unproductive during the interval. His view was this—that the Commissioners ought to have already decided what portion of the Forest should be set aside for the public, and to have confined their inquiries to that part. It was a serious matter, considering the rise in prices at present, that 3,000 of these acres should be shut up for another two years, and debarred from the possibility of being brought under cultivation. The smaller proprietors were not only hung up from dealing with their land, but had to attend before the Commissioners and watch the proceedings at great loss to themselves. They had also to watch the suits going on in the Court of Chancery. [Mr. LOCKE: One suit.] The principal points to be arrived at were, whether the Metropolitan Board of Works or the City of London were the proper authorities in which the property to be set apart for the recreation of the people ought to be vested so as to free the rest of the property from litigation. The settlement of the question of Hainault Forest was carried

  567
  through in a short time without complaint, and at an expense not exceeding £3,000. If the right hon. Gentleman brought in an amended Bill to define the power of the Commissioners, and to bring certain points before them on which they should give judgment at once, the House would be better able to deal with the subject. He hoped the House would pause before granting the extension of time now asked for.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that as one of the Commission, he ought not, perhaps, to address the House, but he desired to answer one or two of the points of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The Commissioners had narrowed their inquiry for the present into all those parts of the Forest that had been encroached upon by the lords within the last 20 years; they had in the first instance confined themselves to 20 years, because if they had enclosed within that time they could not make out a title. It was necessary that the Commissioners should have plans made as to all the property that had been so absorbed; and then these plans had to be examined and corrected, and for this purpose perambulations were made by the Commissioners, who compared these plans with the land, and alterations had to be made; and, in fact, the work was of a complicated character, and required much time to perform it, and had only been got through towards the end of last year. The Commissioners had now commenced upon the claims of different parties who had made use of the land for their own purposes within the period he had mentioned. Counsel appeared for the different parties and the witnesses who gave evidence for the lord of the manor were cross-examined by Mr. Manisty, who appeared for the Commissioners of Sewers, and likewise by counsel for the Metropolitan Board of Works, in addition to the counsel for the Crown. Parties who had the same interest as the lord of the manor were of course partially represented in the examination-in-chief. Yet now the hon. Baronet wanted to arrest the proceedings at the very moment when the Commission was about to commence the really practical part of their duty, to which all the rest had been little more than preliminary. One question, which ought to be decided before the Commission resolve on a scheme, was what were the privileges of
  568
  the commoners; whether the rights of individual commoners holding land in any part of the Forest, extended throughout the whole of it; and this was a question now before the Master of the Rolls, and would in all probability have to b o finally decided, not by the House of Commons, but by the House of Lords, or the new tribunal which was now in embryo in that House. The matter had now reached a certain stage when something could be done, and if the House stopped its further progress all that had been done would be useless.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he concurred in the last remark of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), and hoped the hon. Baronet would not persevere in his opposition to the Bill, especially at a time when the Commissioners were approaching the practical part of the business committed to their care. The argument the hon. Baronet had advanced this evening ought to have been addressed to the House when the scheme for the appointment of Commissioners was first brought forward. Now that the Commissioners had been appointed, and were actually exercising the powers conferred on them by the Act, the opposition of the hon. Baronet would, if successful, render void all the important business on which they had been engaged during the last 18 months.
  In reply to Lord HENRY SCOTT,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the present Bill would continue all the powers conferred by the Bill of last Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—NAVAL AND CIVIL SERVICE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £6,000, Gunnery Inventions, Captain Scott, R.N.
  (2.) £9,620, Supplementary sum, Harbours, &c.
  (3.) £3,260, Supplementary sum, Metropolitan Police Courts.
  (4.) £1,250, Acquisition of Lands (Palace of Westminster).
  (5.) £51,666, Supplementary Sum, Stationery, Printing, &c.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that before this sum was voted he should like to receive some explanation with

  569
  regard to it from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. It appeared from the Appropriation Act of last Session that the sum voted for the Departments was £396,000, being an increase of £26,000 on the preceding year, and now the Committee was asked to vote £51,000, making an addition of £76,000 in the same year for the article of stationery alone. It was true that in 1871 there was a Supplemental Vote, bringing it up to £400,000, but this year they were called upon to vote £448,000. If increase of expenditure was to go on at this rate, there would be no end to it. He wished to ask how far it was due to the increase of public business in Parliament, and how far to the public Departments themselves. Had not the time arrived when some attempt ought to be made to regulate this expenditure, and ought not a Committee to be appointed to control or diminish the enormous quantity of useless Papers that were distributed to the Members of both Houses? There were often printed Returns that were of great value to particular individuals, and for purposes of reference; but they need not be sent to all the hon. Members of both Houses; and in many cases, if 100 copies were printed and left to be applied for by those who required them, it would be found that that number was quite enough.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, so far from objecting to the hon. and learned Member calling attention to this matter, he was exceedingly obliged to him for doing so, because it was one which demanded attention. The responsibility for the increase depended very little, indeed scarcely at all, upon the Treasury. At the same time the increase which took place from year to year in this kind of expenditure could not be prevented unless the heads of the Departments concerned and the House of Commons took up the matter and dealt with it themselves. In consequence of action that was taken last year, the attention of the Committee was more than once called to the enormous cost of printing Parliamentary Returns and Blue-books; and it would be found that in that item, during the past year, there had been a considerable falling off, as he hoped there would be in future Estimates. It was not in the cost of Parliamentary printing that the enormous increase had occurred, but he was sorry to say it was
  570
  owing to the daily increasing demands of the public offices throughout the country in regard to printing. It seemed as if there was to be no limit to the enormous expenditure which was every year incurred in printing public documents connected with various public Departments throughout the country. Some step ought to be taken, by the appointment of a Committee or otherwise, to endeavour to stop the increasing expenditure for stationery. Part of the apparent increase in this Vote, so far as it was due to two sums of £6,500 and £4,000, was a mere matter of account; but this was comparatively a small matter, and practically the Vote was increasing year by year, and every year, at this period, there were demands which necessitated Supplementary Estimates. He should be glad to co-operate with the hon. and learned Member in any practical course that might be suggested, as he believed the Vote was capable of great reduction.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he hoped that the conversation might lead to his hon. and learned Friend moving for a Committee on this subject. He believed that the matter was one of detail, and that a Committee might reduce the expenditure of the Departments as the action of that Committee last year had reduced the printing of the House.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not quite understand whether the Vote was for expenditure actually incurred or whether it was to be incurred. If it were to be incurred, he thought he might help his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury by moving that the Vote be reduced. And in order to raise the question, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £20,000.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he did not think that would be a wise course to pursue. Most of the money, if not all, had been spent, or arrangements had been made for spending it; and the consequence of making a reduction now would be to swell the Estimates for next year. He thought the general object of the hon. and learned Member could be attained in a more practical manner.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that there had been errors in the Estimates of the Stationery Department for the last two or three years. Last year that Department took not only a Supplementary Estimate for the year ending March 31,

  571
  1872, but also an excess Vote for the year ending March 31, 1871, the excess Vote being £13,800, and the Supplementary Estimate £25,000. When a Department made an under-Estimate, or spent money in excess of its Estimate, it would be well to allow the excess to be reported by the Audit Office, and then it would have to be voted as an excess; but to bring forward an official Estimate at the close of the financial year was to condone an excess, and to defeat the practice of estimating the public expenditure.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he had already made a suggestion in the proper quarter, and it had been adopted—namely, that the heads of the various Departments should be communicated with, in order to ensure more accuracy in the Estimates, and a reduction in the expenditure.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £14,000, Supplementary sum, Police (Counties and Boroughs).
  (7.) £730, Supplementary sum, Miscellaneous Legal Charges.
  (8.) £20,000, Supplementary sum, Colonial Local Revenue.
  (9.) £6,000, Supplementary Amount, Tonnage Bounties and Bounties on Slaves, &c.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that although these payments were made under an Act of Parliament, there was no sufficient check on such bounties. The arrangement, as he understood it, was this:—if a cruizer captured a slave vessel, though there might be no slaves in her, the cruizer could claim prize money on the amount of the tonnage of the vessel so captured; and if, on the other hand, there were slaves in her, the cruizer might, in order to take advantage of the greater bounty, charge the prize money on the number of slaves, instead of the vessel's tonnage. He believed irregularities had occurred in former years, and inasmuch as the slave dhows on the East Coast of Africa were exactly the same kind of vessel as those engaged in lawful commerce, he suggested that the bounties paid should be only for the slaves actually captured. The advantage he now pointed out had been taken and might be taken again, and there was also reason to believe that ordinary vessels engaged in legitimate commerce had been captured as slave ships, and confis-
  572
  cated. All this showed that the prize money should be paid on the number of slaves actually captured, and not on the tonnage of the vessels. He presumed that the officers and men were paid like those in Her Majesty's service in other parts of the world and he therefore altogether objected to the system; but if the system was to be continued, the bonus should depend on the number of slaves captured. No temptation should be offered to men employed on those seas to make captures of vessels which might actually be employed in legitimate trade. He therefore hoped the attention of his hon. Friend would be directed to this subject.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the views taken by his hon. Friend much commended themselves to his judgment, and the Government would give itself to the subject and exercise caution, but he did not think that anything had occurred recently to justify an interference with the existing rule. He hoped that in a few years, as the result of measures which were being adopted, this Vote would disappear entirely from the Estimates. The civilized nations of the world had put an end to the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa, and he trusted that the result of recent measures would be to put an end to the slave trade on the East Coast.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £1,395, Guarantee (Mediterranean Extension Telegraph Company).
  (11.) £18,536, Supplementary sum, Miscellaneous Advances, Civil Contingencies Fund.
  MR. BOWRINGcalled attention to the sum of£16 0s. 10 d.charged in this Estimate for the maintenance of Manuel Vacca, a pirate chief, who was imprisoned at Ascension. This piratical chief, like a bad shilling, was always turning up, for he had appeared for small sums varying from £4 to £46, and amounting in all to £120 in the Votes of five successive years, during which time his annual imprisonment appears to have ranged from three to 12 months. He thought that he ought no longer to be thus specially distinguished in the ornamental Votes for Civil Contingencies, but should be treated like any other ordinary convict imprisoned in this country. There was another item in this Vote to which he wished to draw attention—the item of £400 to Mr. Ross for

  573
  his Parliamentary Record. He had not a single word to say against the Parliamentary Record. It was a most useful publication, and very much appreciated by Members of the House. But he wished to ask a question with reference to another publication which was published chiefly for the use of the Members of the House. He referred to Hansard, which recorded the debates of Parliament in a very voluminous and authentic form. He found that Mr. Hansard and his family had published their Parliamentary Debates for a period of between 60 and 70 years. The debates which originally occupied one or two volumes a Session now extended to five; it was well-known that in a pecuniary point of view their publication was no longer in any sense remunerative; and if it had not been for Mr. Hansard's patriotism and his wish to benefit the public he might have long since fairly ceased to publish these invaluable reports. He did not see how they could expect Mr. Hansard to produce these volumes at a pecuniary loss, at the same time that serious public inconvenience would be entailed by their discontinuance; and the question he had to ask was, whether there was any intention of inserting an item in the Estimates for Hansard's Debates similar to that given to Mr. Ross' Parliamentary Record. He spoke without having any communication with Mr. Hansard—but he hoped the subject would be taken into consideration.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he could not share in the wish of his hon. Friend, that the pirate chief should be brought home to this country. The small sum which appeared in the Estimates was simply for his maintenance as a prisoner at Ascension; and he (Mr. Baxter) preferred that he should remain there until he was taken to a better world. With regard to the other question of his hon. Friend, the Vote to Mr. Ross for his very valuable Parliamentary Record was the result of an agreement, and it would in future be included in the Stationery Vote. He could not hold out any hope of extending the Vote in the same direction to Hansard.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL— [BILL 15.] COMMITTEE.
  (Sir Thomas Chambers, Mr. Morley, Mr. Leith.)
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD HENRY SCOTT,who had given Notice of his intention to move—"That the Committee be postponed till Monday 17th March," expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Thomas Chambers) who had charge of the Bill would not think he was taking an unparliamentary course in doing so, especially as this stage of the Bill was proposed to be taken so soon, he might say so suddenly, after the second reading, and in so thin a House. It was well-known that at this early period of the session hon. Members did not attend to their duties with the same zeal which they displayed at a later period. He was not disposed to find fault with the hon and learned Gentleman for the course he took. It was a golden opportunity, and he was quite right to take advantage of it if he could. At the same time he thought a Bill of this importance should receive due consideration in Committee, especially after the small majority obtained on the second reading. The more he looked at the Bill the more important it appeared to be; and his belief was, if it became law, in a very few years they would have another Bill for legalizing marriages within other degrees of affinity. It would be impossible to stop at this degree of affinity; further relaxations would certainly follow. He knew that there was a clause which provided that the sanctioning of these marriages retrospectively did not affect any existing title to property; but if they once legalised these marriages it would seem invidious to shut out the issue of past marriages of this kind from all the rights to which legitimacy entitled them. This, if the Bill passed, would probably be attempted in a few years hence. Again, there was a question in regard to the clergy. He knew that this Bill did not go beyond allowing marriages before a registrar, but the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of it would not pretend to say that a claim might not afterwards be made that these marriages should be solemnised by the clergy. The measure was opposed to the Christian law, and he believed that if it were fully discussed in Committee they might

  575
  come to a different conclusion than they had done. He objected to any infringement of the old Christian law that man and wife being one flesh, the relations of the one became the relations of the other; and had there been a larger attendance he should have hoped for a reversal of the decision given on the second reading. He could not, however, blame the hon. and learned Gentleman for availing himself of the opportunity of forwarding the measure a stage, and he would not press his proposal for postponement to a division but would content himself with uttering a protest against so important a Bill being hurried through so early in the Session, when many hon. Members opposed to it could not attend.
  MR. COLLINSthought his noble Friend had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing the Motion to a division, and he advised the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) to take a similar course. The question raised by the Bill was a very serious one—namely, whether they were for the first time in the history of England to sanction retrospectively the conduct of those who had broken the law. He did not like discussing such a question at all, and it could not be usefully discussed in a House with barely a quorum, and in the general absence of lawyers and Cabinet and ex-Cabinet Ministers. No man disliked the measure more than he did, but at the same time he would permit it to go with all its sins and imperfections upon its head, and receive that condemnation which he hoped it would meet with in "another place."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister not void or voidable).
  MR. J. G. TALBOTmoved to omit the word "heretofore," in line 8, and said that the object of his Amendment was to deprive the Bill of its retrospective action. He had always imagined that the House of Commons had acted on the principle of upholding the justice and dignity of the law, and of making offenders against the law feel that if they broke it with their eyes open they would have to bear the consequences. He could understand difference of opinion
  576
  on the marriage law itself. He had heard it stated that there should be no law on the subject, and that a man should be allowed to marry whom he liked, trusting to his natural sense of decency and propriety to keep him from going astray. But what he wished to point out was that, if this Bill passed, persons who had broken the law would be made ex post facto innocent. The Bill did not logically follow out its own principle, and the supporters of the Bill were not consistent. They proposed to legalize these marriages; but they did not propose to give to the issue of them all the rights to which, if the marriages had been lawful from the beginning, they would have been entitled. He avowed his conviction that should the Bill succeed it would soon be followed by another to do away with all prohibited degrees, and make the clergy, against their will, marry people to their deceased wife's sisters, although in this Act the ceremony was only to be performed by the registrar.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsupported the clause as it stood, but at the same time stated that he had no great affection for the measure. After all, this was only doing for the people at large what Lord Lyndhurst did not scruple to do for a certain great peer, going to the length of declaring all such former marriages lawful, but forbidding any new ones within the prohibited degrees from being contracted in the future. If these marriages were to be good for the future they ought to be good for the past, and he could not help thinking that if this Bill were to pass it should be made retrospective and retro-active as well as operative for the future.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

REGISTER FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTORS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. HIBBERT(for Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL) rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill, which stood in his hon. and learned Friend's name, "to provide for

  577
  the formation of one Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors, and for making the changes necessary in consequence in the Law relating to Parliamentary Electors and Burgesses, and for the better prevention of frivolous objections." The Bill did not make any change either in the Parliamentary or in the municipal franchise, but it proposed that there should be two columns on the register, the one showing a list of Parliamentary, and the other a list of municipal, voters. To meet the difficulty which would arise owing to the municipal elections occurring on the 1st of November in each year, whereas the Parliamentary list did not come into operation till the 1st of January, his hon. and learned Friend had been obliged to put forward the preparation of the register 37 days in every particular, and the rates would have to be paid 37 days earlier. If that were carried out, the municipal elections would be held, as at present, on the 1st of November, and the Parliamentary list would also come into operation on the 1st of November in each year. In fact, both lists would come into operation at the same time. For the better prevention of frivolous objections, the Bill sought to apply the same principle as was now applied to the county register—that was to say, when an objection was taken to a voter, the ground of the objection would have to be stated. Another alteration proposed by the Bill was that if the person raising an objection failed to make it good he would be compelled to pay a certain amount of costs. The desire of the Government was to improve and economize the preparation of the Parliamentary and municipal register, and to make the position of a voter in large towns much more agreeable than it had been for many years past. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUthought the part of the Bill which dealt with frivolous objections might be very good, but that there was not the slightest advantage in putting forward the dates in the Acts relating to the Parliamentary franchise 37 days, in order to make the calendar for the Parliamentary and the municipal register tally if he did not also alter the county register,—as he presumed, from the title of the Bill, was not to be done. He thought that it was a
  578
  mistake to make the dates for the Parliamentary register in boroughs and counties to become different. He suggested also that the Attorney General should by his Bill make one register serve not only for Parliamentary and municipal voters, but also for Poor Law union voters. He could not help thinking that the franchise would be more or less affected by the proposed alteration in the law, and he hoped to have some explanation upon that point. For example, it had been enacted that when a person has a property which gives a qualification for both the county and borough franchise, then he shall only have the borough vote. Now, suppose that, in consequence of putting the dates earlier in a borough, such a person had not been in occupation long enough to gain the borough vote, but yet long enough to be put on the county register, (which is 37 days later); then that person would have the county vote in one year, and the borough vote every year after. He must remark, also, another blot; women, having the municipal franchise, would appear on the register with Parliamentary voters. This would give the women's suffrage agitators a great advantage.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he knew one large borough where 3,000 objections to voters had been withdrawn; and Parliament having given the working classes the right to the franchise, every opportunity should be afforded them of exercising their right, without unnecessary obstacles being allowed to stand in their way.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not answer the noble Lord, owing to his not having been provided with the necessary papers. The question of providing a list for Parliamentary, union, and municipal voting had been maturely considered; but great difficulty was found in the way to accomplish this object, which difficulty, he thought, would not apply to the list which this Bill advocated. Every facility would be given for amending the Bill in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the formation of one Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors, and for making the changes necessary in consequence in the Law relating to Parliamentary Electors and Burgesses, and for the better prevention of frivolous objections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.]

GENERAL VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BAXTER,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the Law relating to the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland," pointed out that the valuation of town land in that country was commenced in 1826 solely for the purposes of grand jury assessment. Subsequently a general valuation became necessary, and an Act with that object was passed in 1846, which itself was amended by that of 1852, which introduced a new form of valuation, having regard not only to local assessments, but also to Imperial purposes. Now, it so happened that the valuation of the Southern and Western counties of Ireland was made when prices were exceptionally low—that was to say, during and immediately subsequent to the great famine year 1847. Not only, he might add, were prices low, but taxes were exceptionally high, and the consequence was that the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught were valued at far less than they ought to have been—at far less than the great northern Province of Ulster, the valuation of which was completed in 1866. As a natural result all who were interested in property in the North of Ireland complained very justly that while their land was valued at about the proper rents and they paid their fair share of Imperial taxation, the lands in the South and West were valued at a time when rents were low, and that they were, consequently, relieved from a considerable proportion of their proper assessment. The present valuation of the whole of Ireland, he found, amounted to £13,769,806, and it was calculated that under a new valuation that amount would be increased to £16,730,483, or by an amount very little short of £3,000,900. How much that increase would add to the amount of Imperial taxation it was easy to calculate. It was estimated that the cost of the proposed valuation in the 23 counties of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, exclusive of Ulster, would amount to £70,000, and it was proposed that it should be undertaken with as little delay as possible and concluded in seven years. It was further proposed under the Bill that those counties should pay something like half the expense, just as they at present paid half the cost of a
  580
  revision, and in order that the sums to be paid might not be left undetermined and liable to dispute, it was proposed that there should be a fixed sum not exceeding the sums specified in the schedules annexed to the Bill. It was at one time proposed that something should be done with regard to exemptions from taxation in the Bill; but inasmuch as the subject was one which would be dealt with in another Bill for the country at large, it was resolved not to insert any provision with respect to it in the present measure. He begged to move for leave to introduce the Bill, and to express a hope that he would have the assistance of Irish Members, as well as of the House generally, in passing it, for he believed the result would be found as beneficial as the valuation of Scotland, which took place 20 years ago.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he did not then rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but to refer to one or two errors in the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, with regard to the past valuations of the south and west parts of Ireland. There was one in 1826, and a second under the 9 & 10 Vict., which was passed in 1846; but, after costing the country a large sum of money, the valuation of not one single county had been issued. It was a mistake to say that the existing valuation of Ireland was made during the famine years when prices were very low and the country was in a state of comparative disorganization. He admitted that a new valuation of Ireland was necessary, and he rose chiefly to point out that this was a question which affected everyone connected with land in Ireland, and that it was not a measure to be hurried through the House or passed during the small hours in the morning. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow a sufficient time to elapse to enable all who were interested in this question thoroughly to examine the details of the Bill before it came on for its second reading, and that the second reading would be fixed for a day when there would be ample time to discuss it. He thought that on the second reading he should be able to show that the Valuation Department of Ireland was not fit to be entrusted with this important work, and unless his hon. Friend included in his Bill a thorough reorganization of that department, the measure would not

  581
  give satisfaction, and he should give to it his determined opposition. He trusted that no action would be taken under the measure until the Royal Assent had been given to it.
  MR. SYNANregarded this Bill as calculated to benefit the Treasury rather than the taxpayers of Ireland, and therefore thought that the expense of the proposed new valuation should be paid out of the Imperial revenue rather than by the Irish taxpayers. There was no necessity for the Bill for local taxation, because whether the valuation was high or low the same amount would have to be levied. He thought the Government ought to state who would conduct this valuation, and how it would be conducted, and whether it was to be a bonâ fide valuation which would be serviceable with reference to the sale of land and the fixing of rents. If it was to be a valuation of that sort the ratepayers of Ireland would not object to pay a little for it; but if the object of the valuation was to increase the Imperial taxation, the Government ought to pay for it.
  MR. BAXTERthought the requests made by the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) were reasonable. The Government would consult the convenience of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members with reference to the second reading, but he would then fix it for Thursday week. He had no hesitation in saying that no step for the revaluation of any portion of Ireland would be taken under the Bill until it had received the Royal Assent. With reference to the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, he (Mr. Baxter) had distinctly stated that what the North complained of was that they paid a larger portion than they ought for Imperial purposes. The object of the Bill was to provide a just and sound valuation for the whole of Ireland, not merely for Imperial purposes, not merely for local purposes, but for purposes connected with the land, and for other similar matters as well. A similar Act was passed for Scotland in 1853, and the taxpayers in the towns and counties of that country paid every shilling of the expense.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAXTER and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

  WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS.
  Address for "a detailed Return of the Revenue and Expenditure of the British West African Settlements, including Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Cape Coast, Gambia, and Lagos, for the three years ending the 1st day of January, 1871, 1872, and 1873."—(Mr. M'Arthur.)

  THAMES EMBANKMENT (LAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to authorise the acquisition and appropriation by the Metropolitan Board of Works of certain Land reclaimed from the River Thames, in pursuance of "The Thames Embankment Act, 1862," ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

  CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Bill to amend the Law as to the Custody of Infants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Colonel LOYD LINDSAY, Mr. LOPES, and Mr. MTINDELLA.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 67.]

  MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PIM, Bill to amend the Law relating to Marriages in Ireland in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PIM, Mr. HEYGATE, and Sir ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 68.]
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.