Commons Sitting of 10 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Church Discipline Act Amendment* [234]: Regulation of Railways (Returns)* [232]; Treasury Chest Fund* [233].
Second Reading—Medieal Act Amendment (University of Loudon)* [224].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature [154] R.P.
Committee—Report—Military Manœuvres* [215]; Public Records (Ireland) Act (1867) Amendment* [217].
Third Reading—Militia (Service, &c.)* [216]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 4, 5, and 6)* [208, 209, 210]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 4 and 5)* [211–212], and passed.
Withdrawn—Shop Hours Regulation* [123]; Seduction Laws Amendment* [223].

FRANCE—COMMERCIAL TREATY, 1873. EXPORT DUTY ON COAL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris to secure for this Country, in the negotiations now pending between the Governments of France and England, the right of imposing a Duty on the export of coal?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, no provision respecting the exportation of coal was included in the Treaty of Commerce signed with the French Government on the 5th of November last, nor is any such provision now in contemplation. I may remind the noble Lord that the British Government is precluded from imposing an export duty upon coal by the 5th Article of the Treaty with the Zollverein of May 30, 1865, which is as follows—
  144
  "The contracting parties engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exportation."
  This Treaty continues in force until the 30th of June, 1877, and thenceforth unless terminated on twelve months' notice.

  ARMY—"ADVANCED CLASS" EXAMINATIONS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the last Circular giving notice of the Examination of Candidates for the Advanced Class; why the recommendations of Major General Napier's Committee, in reference to the Advanced Class, were not carried out; when the next examination will he held, and whether ample notice would be given; and, whether it is intended to make Officers supernumerary of their rank while in the Class, as recommended by the Committee before referred to.
  MR. CARDWELL: There is no objection, Sir, to the production of the Circular if my hon. Friend will move for it. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally carried into effect, but with the exception of allowing the Officers to be supernumerary. Objection was taken to this arrangement, on the ground that it was doubtful whether the advantages of the class had been proportioned to the expenditure which it occasioned. It is intended, in deference to the strong recommendation of the Committee, to give the class another trial, with ample notice, and to permit the officers above the rank of subaltern to be supernumerary.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—GENTLEMEN CADETS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the system now in force in a considerable portion of the barrack room at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, of placing together not less than three, and in many instances recently four, gentleman cadets in rooms fifteen feet wide by thirteen feet in length will be continued, or if he intends to provide a separate room for each such cadet, not only for health sake but to insure the system of volun-

  145
  tary study in barracks; and, whether, considering that the amount paid by the parents for the education of the cadets is about £21,000 out of the total cost of £29,000, and about £150 for each cadet, he will be prepared to recommend more satisfactory accommodation?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, among the objects recommended as desirable by the Royal Commission on Military Education was that to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. A considerable expenditure has been incurred in promoting various objects recommended by the Commission which have been considered to have priority over this proposal.

LUNATIC ASYLUM BOARDS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR DOMINIC CORIGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in accordance with the intimation given by the Irish Government to the deputation from the several municipal bodies of Ireland that waited on His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on 30th January last, it is the intention of the right honourable the Chief Secretary for Ireland to bring in a Bill this Session for the introduction of the principle of representation in the constitution of the boards of the Lunatic Asylums of Ireland, and for insuring better financial management in those institutions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that at the time when this deputation waited upon the Lord Lieutenant it was hoped that he (the Marquess of Hartington) would have been able to re-introduce during the present Session the County Officers Bill of last Session, but there had been no opportunity of doing so with any prospect of its obtaining sufficient discussion. There never was any intention to bring in a separate measure in reference to the boards of Lunatic Asylums. He trusted that during next Session it would be possible to consider and deal with the whole question.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—THE DERWENTWATER ESTATES—QUESTION.
  MR. T. E. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that a portion of the Derwentwater Estates lately advertised for sale
  146
  by public auction, have been agreed to be sold by private contract to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, without testing their value by public competition?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, no portion of the estates which had been advertised for sale by public auction had been withdrawn or agreed to be sold by private contract. It had been under consideration whether another portion of the estate which had not been advertised for sale by auction, should not be sold to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the Admiralty found that better terms could be obtained by private treaty than by public sale, that course would be followed.

  INDIA—REGULATIONS FOR EUROPEAN OFFICERS—PRIZE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the regulations for the European Officers in India are published by the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council; Whether the Regulation at page 608, of the second edition of that Code, which sets forth that under the Act 3 & 4 Vic. c. 65, s. 22, "the final decision in all disputed questions of prize now rests with the High Court of Admiralty," has been or is to be cancelled; and, whether any of the Public Departments claim the right to supersede the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, and to adjudicate, without a direct appointment from the Crown, on questions concerning booty of war; and, if so, under what Act of Parliament or what other authority?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to the hon. and gallant Member's first and second Questions, I have to say that the words "By authority" appear on the title-page of the book about which he asks, but that book is a mere compilation of official documents, and only authoritative in so far as it cites or renders with precise accuracy the meaning of official documents. The words quoted in the hon. and gallant Member's second Question form no part of any official document, and are a mere introduction prefixed by the compiler to a section of an Act of Parliament which he sets out in full, and the meaning of which is perfectly explicit. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member's third Question, I have

  147
  to say that I am not aware that any Public Department claims any right to supersede the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called to the following passage in a recent speech of the honourable Member for Derby, at Grimsby, viz.
  "On the 24th March a number of vessels that sailed were missing and never more heard of except at Lloyd's. Yes, on the 24th of March, 70 ships—a whole fleet of merchantmen—had gone down to the bottom of the sea with all hands.''
  and, if so, if he has caused inquiries to be made into the correctness of this allegation as to the great loss of life and property on the day named; and, whether the ships lost were British ships and. the seamen lost were British seamen?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, if the statement in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) meant, as the hon. Alderman seems to think it did, that the 70 ships went down on the 24th of March, that is certainly not the case. I have had search made through the records of the Board of Trade and inquired at Lloyd's, and the fact is that on the 24th of March the list posted in Lloyd's room showed that clueing the period which had elapsed since the commencement of the year, 57 ships had been reported as missing; and this number included foreign vessels—but I am not able to say how many of them were foreign. These losses, or possible losses, took place, not on the shores of these islands only, but all over the world.

ARMY—ABOLITION OF PURCHASE—MEMORIAL OF OFFICERS.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that more than 2,200 Officers of the Army have memorialised His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief with reference to the effect of the abolition of purchase on their position and prospects, and praying for inquiry; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Return upon this subject, similar to
  148
  that for which an Address has been moved in the other House of Parliament, and including Copies of all Letters from the Generals Commanding Districts, forwarding the said memorials?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the number of those who are reported to me as having signed the memorials is 2,245. The Return has already been given to the other House on the Motion of the Duke of Richmond, and if my right hon. Friend will move for it I shall have no objection to lay it on the Table of the House.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the Memorials referred to in the question of the Right Honourable Member for Droitwich, bear the signatures of officers of all grades from that of colonel downwards, comprising the names of officers who bought all their commissions, of others who have bought some but not all, and of others who have paid for none, the latter class including some who received their commissions for meritorious service in the ranks?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have no disposition at all to dispute the suggestions contained in the Question. My examination of those voluminous Papers has not been exhaustive, but I shall be quite safe in answering the Question generally in the affirmative.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION—PETITION TO CONVOCATION.—QUEST1ONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Petition addressed to the Upper House of Convocation by 480 Clergymen of the Church of England, praying for the revival of Sacramental Confession and for the establishment of an Order of Confessors, and of certain rites and ceremonies abolished at the time of the Reformation, with the signatures attached thereto?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, he did not receive any Copy of the Petition referred to in the Question, and, as Convocation was not now sitting, it was impossible to make any proper communication to that body on the subject.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Are there no means by which Parliament can obtain a Copy of the Document?
  MR. BRUCE: None that I can see, when Convocation is not sitting.

ARMY—FIRST DEVON MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any representations from the agriculturists of North Devon respecting the inconvenience which will result to them in ease of the First Devon Militia being called out for so long a period as forty-two days at the present season of the year?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have received such a representation. The time was originally fixed because we understood it would be the time most generally convenient to the county. I understand that arrangements have already been made by which a very small proportion of the men called out will be agricultural labourers, and every effort is being made to reduce this number as far as possible.

CASE OF THE IRISH CIVIL SERVANTS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the First Lord of the Treasury. Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Resolution adopted by this House on Friday last with reference to the case of the Civil Servants of the Crown serving in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I said a few words on this subject on Monday last, but, as it was at the close of some observations in regard to the Order of Business, it is quite possible that the words did not attract the attention of the House. I will repeat them as reported, because they express accurately what I said on the part of the Government—
  "I have to state, with reference to the vote of the House on Friday night upon the salaries of the Civil Service in Ireland that, in redemption of the pledge we gave, it is our intention to appoint a Departmental Committee, which will examine into the position, emoluments, and conditions of service of the Civil Service in Ireland, and will go through such of the different establishments as may apply for examination into their cases."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1859–60.]
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, the reason why he put the Question was, because it appeared from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Departmental Com-
  150
  mittee was to be appointed "in redemption of the pledge given" by the right hon. Gentleman at the time he was resisting the Resolution afterwards adopted by the House. He wished to ask, whether it was with a view to carry out the intention of the House that the Departmental Committee was to be appointed; and, if so, whether it would be exclusively composed of Treasury officials?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Committee to be appointed will be composed of official persons. I do not know that it is decided that they are to consist of Treasury officials. That is the only measure we can take in conformity with the Resolution of the House. Whether it satisfies that Resolution or not is, of course, a matter which asks for the free judgment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not the author of the Resolution, and I am under no responsibility to interpret it.

CUSTOMS—EXTRA TREASURY CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government are prepared to establish the Customs extra Treasury clerks, including those excluded from the establishment by the Treasury Order of 1856, or otherwise improve their position; whether the Government have recently established ten extra or temporary clerks at the Local Government Board; and, whether any of these clerks were properly excluded from the establishment by the retrospective action of the Treasury Order issued in 1856?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I understand the word "establishment" to mean the existing establishments, and, understanding it in that sense, I have to say the Government are not prepared to promote these clerks, because the existing establishments are now recruited by competitive examination only. I believe 10 clerks were recently placed on the establishment at the Local Government Board—that is, persons doing the duty of temporary clerks, because it was considered better by the heads of the Department to place them on the establishment. I do not think any of these clerks were excluded by the retrospective action of the Treasury Minute of 1856, because it did not apply to that Department.
  LORD ELCHO: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question whether he would "otherwise improve their position?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no knowledge of any claim they have for the improvement of their position. ["Oh, oh!"] Any claim they have will be attended to.

ROYAL COMMISSION—MR. PLIMSOLL AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with reference to a publication which has appeared in the newspapers on the subject of some evidence given before the Royal Commission by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), imputing grave offences to the officers of the Board of Trade. The Question I wish to ask is, Whether his attention has been called to the publication, and whether he is prepared to take any steps with reference to it?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, my attention was naturally called to the publication of a letter of the hon. Member for Derby in The Times of Saturday. Since then I have addressed a letter to the hon. Member recapitulating what has passed before the Royal Commission, saying that the Royal Commission would judge for themselves what it was their duty to do; but that as he had chosen to publish that letter in the newspapers it was necessary for me, as President of the Board of Trade, to take the matter up. I then called upon the hon. Member to furnish me—as the person bound to look after the pure administration of the Department, and also to protect honest and honourable officers serving in it—with the names of "the many officers" of the Department whom he accused of corruption, and with the grounds and nature of his charges, or, if he still persevered in the refusal to do so which he had addressed to the Royal Commission, that he should then retract absolutely those charges. I have not as yet received an answer to that letter.

  NAVY—AGE OF CADETS.—QUESTION.
  MR. FITZWILLIAM DICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What
  152
  is the maximum age at which Boys are admitted as Cadets into Her Majesty's Navy; and what are the regulations which govern their admission?
  MR GOSCHEN: Sir, the maximum age as the regulations stand at present is 13½. I will furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the regulations, and will be happy to give him such further information as may be in my power. But I do not pledge myself that no alterations will be made in those regulations before the next examination. I hope before Parliament rises to be able to answer the Question put to me some time ago with respect to the changes in the admission of cadets; but the matter is one of great difficulty, and we have not yet been able to arrange it.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—RETIREMENT OF MR. COLE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HOAREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that Mr. Cole has retired from the office of Director of the South Kensington Museum, and has been allowed a retiring pension equal to his full salary; whether General Scott has vacated his office of Secretary and Acting Commissioner for the estate purchased out of the surplus funds of the Exhibition of 1851 in order to succeed Mr. Cole; and, whether Mr. Cole has been appointed to succeed General Scott at a salary of £1,000 a-year in addition to his retiring pension?
  MR. AYRTON,in reply, said, his hon. Friend persevered in putting a Question to him, not merely with reference to the Exhibition Commission, of which he was an ex officio member, but also to a Department with which he was not connected. He might state, however, that it was quite true that Mr. Cole, after a long and honourable service, had retired, and that he had been awarded the pension to which he was entitled, and which was equal to the salary of the office he had held. With regard to the successor to be appointed, he believed he was correct in stating that the matter was under the consideration of the Department of Education. He was not on the Committee of Council, and was not able to say what their views might be. He had not heard before that General Scott had vacated his

  153
  office as Secretary and Acting Commissioner of the Exhibition Estates, and as he believed that General Scott had not vacated the office, he could not therefore have succeeded to that lately held by Mr. Cole. It was true that Mr. Cole had since his retirement from the public service been appointed by the Commission to discharge very important and necessary duties—namely, to act as manager of the great International Exhibition which was now carried on from year to year, and for the very important duties he had to discharge he was to receive a salary of £1,000 a-year, which was to be paid not by the Government, but out of the receipts of the Exhibition.

  WAYS AND MEANS—POST OFFICE REVENUES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITE (for Mr. SEELY)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the sum of £430,000, taken from Post Office Revenue to repay moneys taken from Savings Bank balances, will not form part of the General Balances, and increase the Revenue by that amount; whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer still considers himself justified in anticipating that the Post Office Revenue will be nearly equal to that of last year, the Post Office Revenue will not be £430,000 in excess of his estimate; whether the effect will not be that next April the right honourable Gentleman will have the sum of £860,000 to deal with in addition to his estimated working surplus of £291,000; and, whether the probability of any increase in the Unfunded Debt being necessary at the end of the year is not thereby greatly diminished?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman assumes that this sum has been taken from the Post Office Revenue. I dare say he is right in that assumption, but I have no proof of it, or means of ascertaining at this moment. Before I enter upon the serious matter of correcting in any way the estimate I laid before the House when making the Financial Statement, I should like to be quite sure of the facts. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would allow his Question to be postponed for a few days, I will give him correct information.

  IRELAND—DRAINAGE OF THE RIVERS SUCK AND SHANNON.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR TRENCH: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice. On the 27th ultimo he acknowledged, in reply to my Question, that the proprietors and occupiers of a very extensive but much inundated district in the West of Ireland, had applied to be permitted to drain their lands under the provisions of the Drainage Act of 1863. He stated that permission had been refused, and that "the proprietors on the Suck must wait until a general measure had been determined upon for the Shannon." They have been waiting for such a measure for the last 25 years, and I now desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he can hold out any hope that such a general measure as that he spoke of, will be determined upon and introduced next Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that he could hold out no such hope.
  MAJOR TRENCH: Then, Sir, I beg leave to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply—I hope on Friday, the 18th inst.—I will call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government have prevented the owners and occupiers of the 72,000 acres of land injured or inundated by the waters of the Suck from undertaking the drainage of their lands under the Drainage Act of 1863, and to move—
  "That the course of action pursued by Her Majesty's Government in preventing the owners and occupiers of land injured or inundated by the waters of the Suck from undertaking the drainage of their lands, at their own expense, under the Drainage Act of 1863, is most prejudicial to the interests of a large agricultural population in the west of Ireland, and calculated to discourage a spirit of enterprise and self-reliance so necessary for the development of the resources of that country."

  PRIVILEGE—THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—THE JUDICATURE BILL.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, it will be for the convenience of the House that I should give some further explanation of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in consequence of what

  155
  ocurred "elsewhere" in relation to the Judicature Bill. I stated, when the subject was formerly alluded to, that it had come to our knowledge that serious doubts were entertained in quarters entitled to much authority and respect, whether the proposal we had given notice of our intention of making in this Bill was or was not consistent with the Privileges of the other House of Parliament. We have thought it our duty, not in a controversial, but, I hope, in a constitutional and prudential spirit, to give immediately our best attention to the question. It is our duty, in the first place, to watch with care over everything that relates to the progress of a Bill of so much importance, on which so much of the labour of both Houses has been spent, and in regard to which so much expectation is entertained by the country; and it is also our duty to consider any matter relating to a subject so serious as a conflict of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament as to their Jurisdiction—a matter which we know to be grave, and which, especially after the transactions of 1860, the House of Lords knows to be grave also. We thought it very advantageous that we should consider this subject before any question was actually proposed to this House of Parliament which could lead to the adoption of any positive proceeding in the other House leading to the possibility of future difficulty. At present nothing has happened, excepting that the Government has announced its intention to make a certain proposal as to which Gentlemen in many different quarters of the House have given their opinion almost uniformly, I think, if not quite uniformly, in its favour; but on the other hand, as I have said, in quarters of influence and authority doubts have been raised on this very serious matter. What I understand to be the statement made to which these observations of mine have reference is this—if this House should, in amending the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, insert provisions which would extinguish the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords with regard to Irish and Scotch appeals, it is to be considered as a violation of the Privileges of the House of Lords, assuming these Privileges to be correctly declared in a certain well-known passage of Mr. Justice Blackstone, which runs as follows:—
  156
  "All Bills likewise which in their character affect the rights of the Peerage are, by the wisdom of Parliament, to have their first rise or beginning in the House of Peers, and suffer no changes or Amendments in the House of Commons."
  Now, there are two questions that may be raised on that passage—first, with reference to its meaning, and second with respect to its authority. As regards its authority, I should not say that a sentence quoted from Mr. Justice Blackstone could bind the right or title of Parliament—I mean morally—which must depend on accumulated evidence of often repeated and long-continued consent. With respect to the meaning of the passage; it is very difficult to say what is meant by "the rights of the Peerage." But, undoubtedly, it is the opinion of some—I confess I think it a reasonable opinion—that that expression does not point so much to what concerns either the constitution or the duties of the House of Lords collectively, as it does to questions affecting the titles individually by which Members of that House sit within its walls. However that may be, I wish to observe upon an important point in connection with the present case. The present case is one in which we do not propose—it never has been proposed—to deal with one of the original and traditional Privileges of the House of Lords. As regards the power of the House of Lords to judge English Appeals, it is a power which the House has possessed from time immemorial, and which it is very difficult to detach even in argument from the history and being of that House. But as respects the power to deal with Irish and Scotch Appeals, it is a power which accrues to the House of Lords exclusively from the declarations of a statute; and while I would carefully avoid any term of controversy so far as it is in my power, I must say it would be to carry this doctrine to excess if, with respect to what has been done by a statute, it were to be contended that it was not in the power of this House to make proposals to modify or remove that power. I may be permitted on this occasion of very considerable interest to point out how very far the practice of the other House of Parliament has been from the assertion of this rigid theoretic doctrine. I will mention a few cases which have occurred, and I will quote nothing what-

  157
  ever but what have been the subjects of Parliamentary controversy. Some of those who hear me recollect the time when it was almost the annual practice to bring forward Motions in this House to relieve the Members of the Episcopal Bench from their duties in the House of Lords. Bills for that purpose were introduced, although they were never passed or accepted by the House. They were objected to on the ground of policy and sometimes of high constitutional argument; but never, so far as I know, was it asserted that to deal with or even to initiate such a Bill was beyond the proper province of this House. I may mention that Bills for that purpose were brought forward in 1834, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and I believe, if the Votes were carefully examined, additions might be made to the list.
  MR. DISRAELI: I must rise to Order, Sir. I do so with the greatest regret but I must call attention to the fact that, without Notice, the right hon. Gentleman is entering into discussion on a subject of the greatest importance. No doubt the indulgence of the House to one filling the exalted position of the right hon Gentleman, and who is entitled to that position for so many reasons, would be willingly granted, but it must be done with reason. Under usual circumstances, a Minister would bring up some Papers, and on the Motion that these do lie on the Table the House would, of course, listen to him, and enable him to make any statement which he thought necessary. The late Lord Palmerston, when he led this House, always took that course. Even if he did not take that course, the House will receive with great indulgence any statement of facts from the right hon. Gentleman, however lengthy it must necessarily be; but he is not confining himself to a statement of facts for the future consideration of the House. He is entering into an argument upon a very abstruse question, without first of all giving any Notice to the House, and under circumstances which will not allow other Members to express their opinions. I therefore object to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. If he wishes a discussion on this important question he should have given Notice, and, at all events, he should make some Motion now which will enable other Members to avail themselves of their right and
  158
  privilege to make such observations as they think necessary.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The importance of the matter is such that unquestionably I should be justified in making the Motion, which ought never to be made without serious cause, that the House do now adjourn; and I have not the slightest objection to conclude with that Motion, in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make any remarks which he would be entitled to make, whether I conclude with a Motion or not. The right hon. Gentleman will see I have justification for the course I am pursuing, because it is one which is conceived in no narrow spirit, and which really aims at giving facility for the progress of Public Business as well as avoiding causes of serious difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is some peculiarity in the circumstances out of which my address arises, and it has reference to proceedings such as are not permitted in this House, and it is difficult to treat under the regular forms of this House of proceedings which have been so carried on. I will resume the enumeration of precedents to which I had begun to refer. In the year 1832, there was actually introduced into this House a Bill for the abolition of the right of voting by proxy in the House of Lords. That proposal, however, was not persevered with, upon the ground that it trenched on the Privileges of the House of Lords. I think that withdrawal was perfectly justified, inasmuch as the Bill did not refer to anything belonging to the duties of the House of Lords, but to a subject which is properly one of procedure in the House of Lords. It is a plainly reasonable assumption that the procedure of either House ought not to be the subject of discussion in the other House. In the year 1856 a Bill was brought into this House from the House of Lords, which dealt with the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords in relation to the creation of life Peers for certain purposes. That Bill was not accepted by this House, but it was referred to a Select Committee, and, unless I am very much mistaken, it is impossible to conceive any more clear assertion by the House of its title to deal with the details of such Bills and to introduce Amendments into them. In the year 1868 there came to this House a Bill to increase the number of Bishops,

  159
  and provision was made in this Bill for I introducing the new Bishops into the rotation by which prelates take their seats in Parliament. That Bill was amended by this House. We struck out all the provisions relating to the Peerage, and we struck out of it others relating to salary. The Bill was sent back to the Lords, and the Lords disagreed with the Amendments, but they disagreed upon the merits and did not raise any question of Privilege; and the Bill was finally dropped, because this House adhered to its Amendments, the Lords adhered to their disagreement upon the merits, and the Bill was lost. In the year 1833, under the high authority of the late Lord Derby, there was actually introduced into this House that important measure known as the Irish Church Temporalities Act, which most importantly modified and altered the constitution of the House of Lords with regard to the rotation in which the Irish Bishops were to sit. That Bill was accepted by the Lords without any difficulty as to Privilege, and finally became the law of the land. In 1869, we introduced into this House the Irish Church Bill; in that Bill, if I am correct in my recollection, we proposed to take away the right of Peerage of existing Peers as well as to destroy the Peerages themselves prospectively. That Bill went to the House of Lords, and the Lords, I believe, amended the Bill by carrying the rights of the existing Peers; we adhered to our refusal to recognize those rights, the Lords eventually accepted the provisions of the House of Commons; and that provision, on the initiation of the House of Commons, going straight to the rights of the Peers in the highest sense, became the law of the land. These are proceedings of the Commons, and I believe many others might be mentioned; but there are other proceedings in the House of Lords. If ever there was an Act which materially touched the constitution and Privileges of the House of Commons, it was the Septennial Act, which in 1716 was introduced not in this House, but in the House of Lords. In the year 1832 there occurred a most singular instance. A Bill was introduced into the Lords, the effect of which was to alter the law with respect to the vacating of scats upon the acceptance of office under the Crown. That Bill was received by the Lords without objection;
  160
  it was debated in the Lords; a single Peer, Lord Radnor, took the objection that it dealt with the Privileges of the House of Commons, as, indeed, it did in the very highest and closest sense; that objection does not appear to have received any support from any other Peer, and the Bill was dropped before the second reading; but it was dropped, as I believe, entirely on the ground of want of time to proceed with it at the period of the Session at which it was introduced. We say, therefore, as regards this claim, such as we understand it, without seeking at this moment to commit the House,— because I am arguing the matter entirely with reference to the intention of the Government as to its own proposals—we shall feel bound to deny in the most respectful but in the most unequivocal, and in the most absolute manner, the claim of Privilege which has been advanced. With every regard for the freedom of the House of Lords to assert its own privileges, should it think fit, the time for this assertion upon the present occasion, as I have already said, at any rate has not yet arrived, and I am discussing only individual, but weighty opinions; but we must unequivocally decline to accept or admit that claim of Privilege. I may say we should do that in no narrow spirit of selfish or exclusive regard to the Privileges of the House, though I hold the maintenance of the Privileges of the House the very first among the duties of its Members. This is a matter in which, in our view, the interests of the whole country and the interests of the House of Lords itself are directly concerned. If it be held, with respect to the constitution and duties of the House of Lords, that the House of Commons cannot initiate a Bill nor amend a Bill, but is reduced to the simple function of saying "Aye" or "No" upon the aggregate, what is the consequence? Among other consequences it immediately results that the House of Commons must make a corresponding counter claim, and we must say, with respect to every Bill which touches the constitution of the House of Commons, the mode of its choice, and the duties it performs, that the Lords cannot take the initiative. I need not remind the House how completely that w ill be at variance with the course hitherto pursued, because we almost all of us recollect what happened in 1867,

  161
  Many may remember what happened in 1832—and happened in principle, I think, with perfect propriety—when the House of Lords came to exercise its title to pronounce an opinion adverse to that of the House of Commons upon many provisions of Bills for reforming the representation of the people. As to the general doctrine, there can be no question, in our minds, as to the duty we ought to pursue; but I ask nothing of the House upon the subject at the present moment. I may venture, without impertinence, to say this is not the first time the subject has been touched during the existence of the present Government. There have been two cases—one of them in the present year and one in 1869. An hon. Friend sitting behind me (Mr. Stapleton) proposed to introduce a Bill to alter the mode of electing representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland—undoubtedly a question directly affecting the constitution and Privileges of the House of Lords, and I venture to refer to what I said on that occasion, the 9th of March, 1869, to show that at least I do not require now to invent or profess for the first time a doctrine applicable to the present occasion. No objection was taken to the Bill on the ground that it trenched on the Privileges of the House of Lords, and I said—
  "And yet if I might give a recommendation to my hon. Friend, it would be that he should be satisfied with the introduction of the Bill, and that he should not attempt, at the present time, to press it further. I should not certainly venture to make any recommendation of the kind in a manner implying the slightest derogation from the title of any Member of this House to introduce a Bill, or of this House to pass through all its stages a Bill affecting the constitution of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has at all times exercised its unquestionable right of passing and of modifying or rejecting measures affecting the constitution of this House. The rights of the two Houses in this respect are incontestable. At the same time, as a matter of policy, I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is desirable that the initiative should be taken by the House of Lords itself in legislation of this kind."—[3 Hansard, cxciv. 988.]
  That is the principle upon which Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to act in the present year in inviting the House of Lords to deal in the first instance with a measure which went directly to the question of the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. So much for the general doctrine; and now let
  162
  me consider the position in which we find ourselves. There has been made in the House a proposal which I may say met with general favour, and which was accepted by the Government, who anticipated any substantive Motion of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bouverie) with a declaration on their part that they had always regarded it as an improvement in this important Bill, and that the only reason which had prevented them from endeavouring to secure its adoption in the first instance as a portion of the measure had disappeared—namely, the presumed disinclination of the people of Scotland and Ireland. The question is this—can we gain the important objects we have in view of giving completeness to the Bill now before the House, with reference to appellate jurisdiction, and at the same time avoid any reasonable chance or apprehension of anything like a conflict with the House of Lords? I am bound to observe that this is an occasion upon which, if possible, the feelings of every Member of this House would induce him to desire to avoid any conflict with the House of Lords. There can be no mistake in our assertion of the rights of this House; but the circumstances under which we shall have to consider the application of them are peculiar circumstances, for the House of Lords itself has spontaneously tendered to us a Bill in which it has sacrificed the main part of this important jurisdiction as an offering to the public welfare. That, Sir, is a significant and an important fact, and it is one to which we desire to allow due and full weight. We consider it in conjunction with the public importance of passing the measure, and the great importance also of severing if possible the consideration of any measure involving large public interests from questions relating to conflict of jurisdiction between the two Houses. Now, we believe there is a mode of procedure which is not without sanction and analogy in the mode of procedure of Parliament, which will enable us to gain this end. If hon. Gentlemen will advert to the Amendments of which Notice has been given on the part of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, they will perceive that a portion of those Amendments touch directly the jurisdiction of the House of Lords; whereas the larger

  163
  portion of them embrace matters which, although I am very far from saying they belong exclusively to the House of Commons, yet they most properly belong to the House of Commons, because they touch the question of the judicial establishments of the country, with the charge they necessarily entail. I am not now going to speak of money Bills properly so called, for the questions of privilege and practice with regard to such Bills are so well understood that I need not refer to them; but sometimes in other Bills collaterally there arises in the view of the House of Lords the necessity for some provision which, if fully made, would entail a charge on the people of this country; and the House of Lords when it desires to attain the double object, first of all of indicating what they think public policy requires, and, secondly, of avoiding even an apparent trespass upon the province of the House of Commons, is in the habit of introducing into such Bills words indicative of its purpose, but yet, until they receive their complement by the action of this House, insufficient to give effect to those provisions. We propose to pursue an analogous course with regard to the Amendments of which we have given Notice. We propose to retain in these Amendments everything which relates to the complete and effectual constitution of the new Court of Appeal and to all matters collaterally incidental to that Court. I am now speaking, of course, of what we intend to ask the House to allow us to propose, if the House should accede to the Motion to re-commit the Bill. The whole of these provisions of the Amendments we shall ask the House to adopt. If that is done we shall at the same time forbear to ask the House to adopt those words which directly deal with the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and the transfer of the Appeals. If the House of Lords feels disposed on the merits to deal with these beneficial provisions and to accept them it will thus be able to pursue that course without finding itself entangled in any questions relating to the Privileges of that House. The Lords will find; ready made to their hands, a Court of Appeal evidently intended for the three kingdoms, and in truth only to be justified in its details, because it is intended for the three kingdoms. But they will find nothing which, by the force of the words contained in
  164
  the Bill, will either destroy or impair the jurisdiction of the House of Lords over Scotch and Irish appeals. That will be a mode of invitation from this House to the House of Lords to part with their appeals which is analogous to the invitation which the House of Lords addresses to us in certain cases to make provisions of law involving public charges, and it will enable the House of Lords to deal with the question entirely apart from perplexing matters of controversy. I may also say that this mode of procedure is one which I hope will not put the House to inconvenience by entailing any delay in our proceeding with this Bill. It is evidently for the convenience of the House thaw the proposal to re-commit shall be made immediately on the receiving of the Report and before the consideration of the Amendments, so that the House may have an opportunity of considering the Bill as a whole, instead of being obliged to consider the Amendments first in a fragmentary and then in a complete form. In the course of this evening we will make the necessary modifications in the Amendments which have been laid on the Table, and they will then be before the House in a form which we trust will be both effectual and pacific. We make this proposal as an act of courtesy and consideration, which we think is warranted and called for by the circumstances of the case. We are unwilling to enter into a conflict with the other House of Parliament on any subject, and we are most of all unwilling to run the risk of such a conflict—whatever we may think of any abstract proposal—when the challenge given would be in the form of a reply to a Bill by which the House of Lords has patriotically and wisely surrendered a portion of its own jurisdiction. We wish to meet and to requite, as far as belongs to us, that wisdom and patriotism of the House of Lords by an act of courtesy and consideration on the part of the House of Commons. By doing so we must express the reservation of all we think the constitutional doctrine requires with record to the title of this House and of the other House generally, and, for the purposes of legislation, to treat with great, and I might even say unreserved freedom, those classes of subjects which, as I have shown, have constantly been matters of consideration. I hope it will

  165
  be seen that, although I began with a matter which might be considered a matter of contention and controversy this was not the end I had in view. I trust it will appear that this explanation was called for in consequence of the opinions elsewhere expressed, and that it has been warranted by the peculiar circumstances of the case. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. BOUVERIE: As it was the Notice which I put on the Paper of the House in reference to the extension of the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal constituted under the Bill that caused all this disturbance, perhaps the House will permit me to say one or two words on the subject. Having looked into the matter, it appears to me that the contention of Privilege on the part of the House of Lords in this matter is entirely unfounded. The best evidence of it is that the proposal which I submitted, and which has brought about this great difference between the two Houses, is a proposal respecting the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Irish and Scotch appeals. Now, that jurisdiction was conferred on the other House by Act of Parliament. The Acts of Union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, which conferred that jurisdiction, were both of them introduced in this House and carried through the other, without a single word being said, as far as I am aware of, with regard to the Privileges of the Peerage being interfered with. This, I think, affords conclusive evidence that there is no such Privilege in the present case as has been claimed. The fact is that the courtesy of this House has always been exercised in reference to many of the peculiar functions of the House of Lords as a Court of record and so forth, and the personal privileges of the Peers. The traditional feeling of this House has always been that legislation in regard to rights of Peerage ought, by the courtesy of this House, to be allowed to be initiated in the House of Lords; but there appears to be no claim to Privilege in this particular instance. With regard to the passage quoted from Blackstone, I may remark that Blackstone himself is not
  166
  considered a high authority unless his statements are confirmed by previous writers, and he gives no authority for his statement as to this Privilege, God forbid, however, that we should enter into any controversy on this matter with the House of Lords! for in the whole course of our history such controversies have never led to any good result or advantage to the public service. If we enter into this controversy there can be no doubt what the issue will be; but the question naturally arises, what is the prudent and proper thing for us to do in the circumstances of the case? I do not gather from my right hon. Friend the exact course which he now proposes. Though personally I am interested in the adoption of Amendments which were originally suggested by me, I think it would have been better, after this threatened dispute with the other House, to drop the proposal in the present Session, with a view to obtain the great good which the Bill, even in its imperfect state, offers to the public, being certain that in the ensuing Session the jurisdiction relinquished by the House of Lords over English appeals cannot be permanently maintained over Scotch and Irish appeals. I should, therefore, have willingly consented to drop these Amendments, and pass the Bill, dealing solely with the English appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. But my right hon. Friend proposes that we should make imperfect Amendments, indicating what we wish, and leaving it to the House of Lords to complete these Amendments, if they are so minded, by adding the necessary words, taking from them the whole of their appellate jurisdiction. The objection which I see at the first blush to that course would be that we should then appear upon the record to be admitting the claim of Privilege made by the House of Lords in this matter. To act with regard to this claim as the House of Lords act with regard to our undoubted money privileges by putting in imperfect clauses, to be filled up in accordance with their views of their exclusive rights and Privileges, appears to me to be an admission on our part that their claim of Privilege is a well-founded and a just one. Suppose, however, that they do not make the alterations we expect them to make, and the imperfect clauses are left as we insert them, the Bill would then be a lame and mutilated

  167
  one, creditable neither to us nor the other House. That is my first impression of the course proposed by Her Majesty's Government; but I concur with my right hon. Friend that nothing is more to be deprecated than a hot conflict with the other House of Parliament as to the Privileges of either House, because the history of these contests shows that they have impeded Public Business, created ill-blood, and have conduced to no one good result.
  MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman said he addressed us in a spirit of conciliation, for which I give him every credit. I think he has, at the same time, to a certain degree addressed us in a spirit of confusion, for though I listened attentively, it was with great difficulty that I gathered—and my infirmity was shared by others—the precise intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers. On reflection they appear to me to be these:—That the House of Commons are to furnish certain salaries to certain officials, and the House of Lords are to assign to those officials the duties they are to perform in return for their salaries. That is not an unfair statement of what is proposed, and I certainly think it requires the month of July to induce a Minister to make a proposal of that kind. Almost all the resources of the Government must surely have been exhausted before such a proposal could be brought before us. It is not now for us to enter into a discussion respecting the Privileges of the House of Lords. At any time that is to be deprecated, as it is equally to be deprecated that the other House should discuss the Privileges of the House of Commons. But it is most inconvenient to enter into a discussion of so abstruse a character without any Notice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to solicit the opinion of Parliament on the subject, as he has really solicited it now. It is difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman, who comes here armed with precedents when we had no Notice of his intention to produce or discuss them. So far as I can judge, however, there is—I will not say no analogy—but no identity between his precedents and the case before us. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman quoted a Bill introduced into the other House as to the vacating of seats by Members of the House of Commons
  168
  upon the acceptance of office under the Crown, and he treated that as an infringement upon our Privileges. ["No!"] Then the right hon. Gentleman treated it as a Bill which might have infringed our Privileges. But in that case there could be no collision, for the House of Lords never sent the Bill down here. So with the Bill introduced here and bearing upon the present constitution of the Scotch Peerage, there could be no question of Privilege in the House of Lords, because the Bill never left the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman cited one case which had the appearance of a precedent. I have heard it quoted before; but it is one founded upon an entire fallacy—I mean the Septennial Act. That Act was proposed in the House of Lords, and was not, it is said, thought an invasion of the Privileges of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman treated the Septennial Act as one referring peculiarly to the House of Commons. But it was really an Act referring to the Parliament of England, and concerned the House of Lords, as much as it concerned the House of Commons. ["No!"] The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) seems astonished to hear that the House of Lords is a part of the Imperial Parliament. This is a fact of which he may avail himself in his next historical address to his constituents, and it may, perhaps, interest him and be of value to them. Sir, I cannot agree that this is a convenient mode of raising this question, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made the statement with which he has just favoured us at a time when we might expect it—namely, upon the consideration of the clauses which are to be brought up on the Report. We should then have entered into the subject with a more mature knowledge of the relative positions of the two Houses than we at present possess. He excuses the abrupt and unusual course he has adopted by reference to proceedings in "another place," which he thinks authorize his present course. But those proceedings elsewhere were adopted after due Notice; and though even then Her Majesty's Ministers were totally unprepared to meet the question at issue, that does not alter the fact that due Notice was given. The right hon. Gentleman is acting in error if he supposes that the

  169
  Privileges of the House of Lords in this matter are built up merely upon a passage in Blackstone. That passage was brought in in an illustrative manner—merely to illustrate a position and enforce an argument to show what was the opinion prevalent in the time of Blackstone. But all the precedents of the right hon. Gentleman refer to this passage in Blackstone, and have no reference to the alleged Privilege of the House of Lords. We shall, no doubt, have another opportunity of discussing the matter when the House, having received due Notice of and time to digest the queer propositions of. Her Majesty's Ministers on the matter, will be better enabled to come to a conclusion which I have no doubt will maintain the Privileges of this House and respect the Privileges of the other House of Parliament.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he believed it would be much more in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people if the consideration of the appellate jurisdiction was postponed until next year, and he would tell the House why. The English Bill did not treat simply of appeals, but was a great measure, designed to effect extensive and beneficial reforms in all the superior Courts, and if such a Bill was required in England it was much more required in Ireland. The Government itself had recognized this, for in 1869 they passed a Bill through the House of Lords which had for its object the assimilation of the Irish system of Common Law in many important points with the English system; but that Bill did not get further than a first reading in the House of Commons, and had since disappeared entirely. No harm could possibly arise from postponing the question of Irish appeals, because the Judicature Bill could not come into operation until after next Session, and therefore the Government would have the opportunity of dealing with the Irish judicature in a thorough and efficient manner. The House had heard the opinion of the Judges and the Bar of Ireland; but there was another class of persons to be considered, and that was the suitors and the public generally—and they had very good reason to be dissatisfied with the present state of things. He, for one, was not in favour of overworking the Judges; on the contrary, he thought
  170
  that those eminent persons ought to be amply sufficient in number to discharge their duties with comfort to themselves, and without undue strain on their mental and physical powers; but there was no getting over the fact that a Parliamentary Return had shown that Ireland provided only one-fifth of the amount of legal business that England did, whilst there were 12 Judges to do it, as against 17 in England. The Irish people, therefore, would object to additional expenses being incurred in new appointments until it was shown that they could not be done without. The present system was enormously expensive and cumbersome to the suitor, for the practice of a single Judge sitting at Chambers and disposing of motions of course, hardly existed in Ireland; but the time of the full Court was taken up in hearing trumpery applications in which counsel appeared on both sides, at great expense, which in England would be disposed of for a few shillings by an attorney's clerk going before a Judge in Chambers. Moreover, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Martin) had shown last year that the Government gave away not less than 150 legal appointments, amongst the 400 Irish Barristers who practised their profession; and they could calculate for themselves what the result would be in. England if the same proportion was maintained. He thought, therefore, that he had given reasons which were unanswerable in favour of the postponement of this question of Irish appeals; but he did not say anything respecting Scotch appeals, for he did not understand the question, and spoke only in the interests of the country of which he was one of the representatives.
  MR. GORDONwished to remind the House that Scotch appeals were not introduced to the House of Lords by statute: About the year 1680 there was a discussion as to the right of appeal from the Scotch Courts to the House of Lords. A serious discussion arose between the petitioners to the Courts and. the Judges, who went so far as to banish the advocates from Edinburgh unless they acknowledged that the judgments of the Court of Session were final and. conclusive, and that there was no appeal to Parliament. There was, however, a protestation made that the subjects should have the right of appeal against the sentences pronounced in the Courts

  171
  of Session. The result was that the appeals to Parliament were recognized in Scotland without any transference by the Act of Union or any statutory provision whatever. The system was, in fact, a simple continuance of a custom which existed in Scotland before the Act of Union between the two kingdoms was passed. All he wished to insist upon was that there was nothing in the Act of Union which set up the House of Lords as a tribunal for the review of Scotch decisions.
  MR. GLADSTONEstated that the modified Amendments would be placed upon the Paper to-morrow morning, in order that hon. Members might have the earliest possible opportunity of understanding what was intended. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was in error in stating that Notice was given of an intention to raise a discussion in "another place" on a question of Privilege on the Judicature Bill. Neither he nor his Colleagues had any knowledge of any such intention; but it was not a point of sufficient importance to detain the House with.
  MR. DISRAELIwished to know whether it was intended to proceed with the Judicature Bill at the morning sitting on the following day?
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTwished to know whether it was intended to consider the Amendments about to be put upon the Paper on the Report, before the re-committal of the Bill, or whether the Bill would be recommitted, and the Report be proceeded with after the re-committal? He wished to express his satisfaction with the entire and absolute terms in which the Prime Minister had repudiated the claim of Privilege set up by the House of Lords. That seemed to be the main question; what course would be taken with reference to the subject of the Bill was a secondary matter. It was not only satisfactory to have heard what the Prime Minister had said on this subject, but it was equally satisfactory to know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), Leader of the Opposition, did not maintain the doctrine of Privilege asserted by the House of Lords. He should have been much surprised if a person occupying a position so eminent as that of the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to lay the Privileges of the House of Commons at
  172
  the feet of the House of Lords. It was most important that both parties in the House should enter their protest against the doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) spoke with great wisdom in respect to the authority of Blackstone, which had been cited. The right hon. Gentleman, did not seem disposed to rely upon the authority, and it would be, indeed, strange if the authority of either House of Parliament was to be made to depend upon a text-book of Common Law. On the occasion of the impeachment of Warren Hastings it was proposed to take the opinion of the Judges as to whether the impeachment abated by reason of a dissolution; but Burke, in declining to be guided by the ruling of the Judges, said he would not think of taking the opinion of a rabbit on the proper time of gestation for an elephant. That was a criticism which might properly be applied to an attempt to import the authority of Blackstone in order to determine the Privileges of either House of Parliament. The same question arose in 1856 on the occasion of a Bill being sent down to the House of Lords, the object of which was the creation of life Peerages for the express purpose of conducting the Appellate Jurisdiction. The Bill was strongly opposed in the House of Commons, and among others by the present Prime Minister. The Attorney General—the present Lord Chief Justice—rather faintly recommended the Bill to the acceptance of the House, remarking that it was not the best plan, but it was one which ought to be adopted, because the House of Lords would not consent to any other plan. Upon that argument of the Attorney General Sir James Graham said—
  "The Attorney General, who proposed the second reading of this Bill, if I mistake not, told us that the defects of that tribunal were glaring, and that it was on account of those defects that the Government proposed this Bill. I am bound to add that there were several observations made by the Attorney General which filled me with amazement and fear. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the defects of this tribunal were glaring; that a better course might possibly be adopted than that proposed by this Bill: and he added, as a reason for passing this Bill, that the House of Lords would not surrender its Appellate Jurisdiction. I said some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations filled me with fear and amazement. Have we arrived at that point that we, the Commons of England, if we shall be satisfied with

  173
  the judgment of the House of Lords itself as to the inefficient mode in which it now exercises its judicial functions, are to be told, when called upon to supply a remedy, that, though a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, we are not to exercise our own right of decision with respect to the remedy, and that we are to be coerced by the assertion of Her Majesty's Attorney General that the House of Lords will not surrender its Appellate Jurisdiction, and consent that a new tribunal shall be erected which, it was admitted, is not one that will fulfil all the requirements of such a Court. Have we arrived at such a pitch of degradation?"—[3 Hansard, cxliii. 436.]
  That was the language of Sir James Graham, and it was the language and the sentiment of every man who deserved to occupy a position in the House of Commons such as Sir James Graham held.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The course proposed by the Government was an entirely new one, and if it were adopted it might create a precedent which would be embarrassing at some future time. He thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be well to let the Bill stand over until next Session.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEasserted that the appeal to the House of Lords depended upon the Act of Union only. There was no express provision on the subject; but it was only by virtue of the statute that the appeals which formerly went to the Scotch Parliament were afterwards taken to the Imperial Parliament.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government would adhere to their proposal of the re-commitment of the measure. He should propose to proceed to-morrow with the Judicature Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.— [BILL 154.]—(Lords.)
  (Mr. Attorney General.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).

  PART IV.—Trial and Procedure.
  Clause 54 (Power to direct trials before referees).
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 29, line 14, after "thereto," to leave out "and also without such consent in any
  174
  such cause or matter." The House had a right to know who these official referees were to be, and what particular causes were to be referred to them. Were they to be barristers, solicitors, or experts, and were they to be permanently attached to the Court or appointed. pro hâc vice? He protested against all delegated authority, and trusted that the Committee would support him in. his Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would make the trial of certain causes impossible. What the clause proposed to do was done in every ease at law which was referred, and it was done also in some cases by the practice of the Court of Chancery. Referees were to be appointed without the consent of the parties for conducting any inquiry which could not, in the opinion of the Court, be properly conducted in the ordinary way. The Bill proposed, as regarded documents, to continue the present practice of the Court of Chancery, and it was quite impossible that questions of detail should be examined in Court, except on appeal. Accounts in Chancery were never taken in Court, but were referred to Chambers in some way or other, and were taken by an officer termed a Chief Clerk. At Common Law such matters were referred to a Master, or to an arbitrator. They could not be taken in Court at all. He had yesterday before him a Government ease, an action the account in which contained 400 items. The case was referred as soon as it came into Court. It was referred by consent, but only after the expense of the counsel for the Crown and three for the other side, and of several attendances and heavy briefs, had been incurred. The intention of the clause was to prevent useless expenditure of that description, and that references should be made without the consent of the parties. Clients were often disgusted at finding that heavy expenditure incurred in the preliminary stages of a trial were thrown away, on their case going to arbitration. As regarded cases for scientific investigation, they proposed a slight alteration. In Courts of Common Law, such cases were only referred by consent; but the Courts of Equity had power to refer them not in form but in effect to parties named by the Judge. That power had had the

  175
  most beneficial effect, and he should be glad to see it exercised more frequently than it was. In one case it had saved many thousands of pounds expenditure. It was a case of pollution of water. The Lord Justice James ordered the case to be referred for report to an eminent engineer, whose report he adopted, and nothing more was heard of the case. As the Bill was intended to fuse Law and Equity, it would extend this power to Common Law. Then, as regarded cases for local investigation, it was intended to get rid of the necessity of having "juries to view." A Lord Chancellor, in a suit for the obstruction of light, once said that since the case was before him on the previous day he had been to see the place for himself, a shop in the Strand. For this he was called to account, and he had no power to do what he did; yet there could be no doubt that it was a very useful power. They proposed that the Court should have power to send an officer to view. The hon. Member for Sussex would find, on reference to the Bill, that it provided sufficient checks against the appointment of incompetent referees, or of more than were needed. At the same time, they were not wedded to these particular definitions and proposals, but would be willing to consider any others that could be suggested. These experts attached to the Court would be permanent officers of the Court, holding a position of responsibility and professional honour, and therefore giving the Court a greater hold over them than over ordinary experts. The payment of these exports would also be more moderate.
  MR. HUNTregarded the question raised by the hon. Member for Sussex as a very important one, and the remarks of the Solicitor General had by no means convinced him that the view of the hon. Member on this point was wrong. He fully admitted that official referees should be appointed to hear cases which could not properly be disposed of in Court; but, at the same time, he strongly objected to the Judge having a statutory power to order cases to be referred, because the exercise of such a power by the Judge might prove most oppressive to the suitor. He also objected to the appointment of scientific experts to whom cases should be compulsorily referred, on the ground that scientific men usually held theories of their own on scientific
  176
  matters, and that justice would be more likely to be done if such persons were called as witnesses than if they were to be made Judges of the cases involving scientific subjects of which they were assumed to have peculiar knowledge. He also objected to cases involving local investigations being made compulsorily referable, because nearly every case which came before the Courts might be held to involve a local investigation. It would be wiser to leave the parties at liberty to try or to refer their cases at their option, trusting to their common sense and to the advice of the Judge to induce them to refer where necessary.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that the Judge had now a statutory power to order a case to be referred where it involved a question of account.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he thought that the power to order a case to be referred ought to be exercised before it came into Court, so that parties might be saved the expense of paying counsel's fees. If the clause were agreed to in its present form, we should have a crowd of official and salaried chemists, doctors, mathematicians, and other scientific persons in the employ of the Government. That all cases might be compulsorily referred to official experts seemed to him to be a dangerous proposal to make, because such men, however honestly disposed they might be, would be liable to act upon theories of their own, and not to deal with the questions which came before them from that common-sense point of view from which juries, though less acquainted with the subject, would consider those questions. He was not prepared, therefore, on such short notice to accept that part of the clause.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he thought the clause one of the most valuable improvements in our system which had been devised. It provided for just those cases which could not be properly tried in a Court of Justice, but which ought to be dealt with in a private room by an arbitrator. He, however, concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken in the objection which he had taken to the scientific referee.
  MR. LOPESsaid, the clause dealt with scientific and technical cases, as well as questions of account, but there were many railway cases which would come under that description which ought

  177
  to be tried by a jury. As the clause stood he thought it would confer a very dangerous power.
  MR. JAMESsaid, the effect of the clause was that almost every case that could be conceived might be referred. He hoped that the Committee would be disposed to consider the interests of suitors, and not give Judges an unlimited power of referring all the causes, or as many of them as they might select from the list to arbitrators.
  MR. AMPHLETTsaid, he thought the clause went too far, and might offer a great temptation, in the hurry of Assize business, to both Judges and counsel, to get rid of a case by referring it. He hoped the Solicitor General would agree to the insertion of words requiring the reference to be made before notice of trial, and also to the omission of the words "any scientific or local investigation."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN,said, that if he had to choose between a properly qualified official referee and an ordinary arbitrator, he would prefer the former, as the latter had all the duties and none of the powers of a Judge. That clause, however, as it stood was far too sweeping, and would practically enable Judges at any time to shift from themselves the burden of trying every case. Scientific referees would generally be inclined to decide according to their preconceived theories. The Court of Chancery had now the power of taking the evidence of scientific witnesses; but here it was proposed to substitute the man of science for the Judge.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLapprehended that under this clause there would be an uncertain number of referees, and that the Judges would be able to refer such causes as they might think proper. In his opinion, any cause which could be properly tried by a Judge should not be delegated to any referee.
  MR. HINDE PALMERregarded this clause as one of the most important in the Bill, and hoped its main principle and object would not be destroyed, for many causes which related to matters of account and to subjects of scientific importance could not be properly tried by a Judge.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTquestioned whether the advantages offered by the clause might not be bought at too great a price. He considered that
  178
  one of the greatest scandals of the profession was the present system of reference. If the cause were to be disposed of at the Assizes, it would soon be over and done with; but in the case of a reference there were almost invariably postponements—now for the convenience of counsel, now for that of the arbitrator—and the result was dilatory proceeding, heavy expense, and great anxiety. He hoped that in the Bill the number of cases in which reference could be resorted to would be limited, and that the Committee would have some idea given them of what the expense of the new system was likely to be.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause was an important one, and ought to be approached from the suitors' point of view. The discussion seemed to have proceeded on a distrust of the discharge of their duty on the part of the Judges. It was apprehended that if the Bill passed as it stood the Judges would refer cases which ought to be disposed of by juries in their own Courts. In that view he, for one, could not concur. The Judges had power at this moment to refer not only all cases of account, but also all cases which involved "partly matter of mere account." It was true that no such reference could be made at Nisi Prius; but he had known cases in which causes were adjourned at Nisi Prius, and summonses subsequently taken out for a reference of each instance. He was bound to say that the cases in question ought originally to have been referred. What was now sought to be done was this—to provide that, before great expense was incurred in the giving out of briefs and otherwise, such cases should be remitted, not to arbitrators to be paid by the parties, but to a tribunal to be appointed by the Government and paid by the State. With respect to the expense of such a tribunal, he need only say that year by year the charges consequent upon it would be before the House in the Estimates, so that Parliament would have the opportunity of exercising complete control over them. The worst, therefore, that could happen—and even that he did not contemplate—would be an extravagant payment for one year.
  MR. GREGORYobserved, that the question before the Committee now was simply whether a man should have a right to be tried by Judge and jury, or

  179
  have his case sent to a referee, whether he would or not. He proposed to withdraw his present Amendment, and, instead of that, to move to strike out from the clause the words "or any scientific or local investigation."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 16, to leave out the words "or any scientific or local investigation."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  DR. BALLsupported the Amendment. He objected to giving irresponsible power to any scientific persons. You might have them to assist, but he would have a legal mind present to guide and control them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—— Ayes 76; Noes 55: Majority 21.
  MR. MATTHEWSproposed, in page 29, line 20, to insert after "at any time" the words "before notice of trial." His object was to prevent the scandal of persons being sent to a reference after they had gone to all the expense of preparing for a trial.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to the Amendment as limiting too much the discretion of the Judge. It was not the suitor but the attorney that objected to a reference. He opposed the Amendment in the interest of the suitor.
  MR. LOPESobserved that references now were made in matters of account before trial.
  MR. JAMESsupported the Motion, which was really made in the interest of suitors. If an attorney was sincere and honourable to his client he would endeavour to prevent a reference on account of the expense inevitably caused thereby. If, on the other hand, he wished to increase his bill of costs, he would act in the contrary way. He must, .however, make one remark. It was very hopeless and almost heartbreaking work for Members who remained in their places and took great pains to improve as far as they could a measure which was not a party one, to have themselves set aside by other
  180
  Members who came in for the division and voted without hearing or understanding the question, but were merely told which were the "Ayes" and which were the "Noes." In the case of the last division the Members in the House were almost unanimous in favour of the Amendment. Yet it was lost, and he had little doubt that if a division took place on the Amendment now moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan, the result would be the same.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry to hear the observations of his hon. and learned Friend, but he would endeavour to keep his temper, and would not retort.
  MR. HUNTmust say there was some ground in the last division for the observation of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James). No independent Member had supported the view of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had spoken on that side.
  MR. HUNTadmitted he had made a mistake. The Government had the support of one independent Member. But certainly the division lobby did not represent the opinion of those who had heard the debate. He thought this Amendment would require some modification. He hoped, however, it would be pressed; if it were not, he should take the sense of the Committee on the whole clause.
  MR. JAMES,in explanation, said, he had criticized only the conduct of Members who were absent from their discussions.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that in technical discussions of this kind the lay Members of the House ought either to have confidence in the Law Officers of the Crown, who were only actuated by a desire for the public interest, or else rely upon the opinion of such other lawyers as might be accidentally in attendance. The adoption of any other course would not be satisfactory either to the House or to the public.
  MR. HUNTdenied that this was a mere technical matter, but a broad and intelligible proposal whether a Judge was to have the statutory right of driving litigants to arbitration. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should be

  181
  more careful, and not attribute improper motives to those who opposed the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had not had any such intention.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he could not vote for words which would deprive the Judge at a trial of the power of directing a reference.
  MR. F. S. POWELLvindicated the right of lay Members to discuss matters affecting the interests of suitors.
  MR. C. E. LEWISopposed the Amendment on the ground that practically it would operate as a denial of justice.
  MR. MATTHEWSexpressed his willingness to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and to substitute for the word "time" the words "at any time by consent, and without consent before notice of trial."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan would allow his Amendment to be negatived, so that a division might be taken on the original clause, which he desired to see expunged.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 25: Majority 41.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Powers of Court with respect to proceedings before Referees) agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Her Majesty may establish District Registries in the country for the Supreme Court).
  MR. F. S. POWELLmoved, in page 30, line 8, to leave out "to be thereby defined," and insert, "which shall be such as are hereinafter described." His object was to ask the Government to define and limit the area on the face of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MATTHEWSmoved, in page 30, line 10, after "issued," to leave out to "after-mentioned" in line 11. The object was to confine district registries to ministerial steps in an action, and to take away from them the contentious proceedings which were given by Section 60.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it would be better to take the discussion of this matter on Clause 60, which raised the whole question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Seals of District Registrars) agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Powers of District Registrars) agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Proceedings to be taken in District Registries).
  MR. RATHBONEmoved in page 31, line 9, after "proceedings," to insert, "including proceedings for the arrest or detention of a ship, her tackle, apparel, furniture, cargo, or freight."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he had great objection to the clause, and moved its omission. These district registries would have jurisdiction, unlimited, both as to subject-matter and geographical extent. Under the new system anyone might issue a writ in the District Registry against anyone living anywhere. If the proceedings were not removed the cause would go to judgment in the district; and the decision of the District Registrar was practically without appeal. It was true that application might be made to the Judge, who might remove the whole proceedings. But there was no inherent right of appeal, and this power of applying to the Judge was a perfect illusion, for the Judge would be too apt to think the Registrar a competent person, nor could the grounds of objection to the Registrar's jurisdiction always be stated to the Judge. The Registrars would have to exercise judicial duties, to settle pleas and issues under a new system of pleading, to deal with particulars, to decide whether interrogatories should be administered, to decide also as to discovery and inspection of documents and the taking of partnership accounts. These were matters now dealt with by Judges and Masters, but hereafter they would be dealt with by Registrars, who would be practising attorneys within the district, unassisted by any Bar. What were the benefits to the suitors to be accomplished by this sweeping change? It was said that this localization would save expense and prevent delay. As to expense, the only

  183
  difference would be that hereafter under the Bill the local attorney would put the whole of the fees into his pocket, instead of dividing them with the London agent. If a man living at Truro were to bring an action against a defendant at. Newcastle, the defendant must employ a person at Truro, of whom he knew nothing, to conduct his case; and as the District Registrars would decide differently all over the country upon points of law and practice, there would be the utmost confusion. He denied that the local solicitors favoured this local jurisdiction. He knew they did so with regard to the issue of writs and the dealing locally with mere ministerial matters; but they did not desire that contentious and judicial business should be disposed of locally. The example of the County Palatine was not in point, for an easy appeal existed there, and the writ did not run beyond the County Palatine, so that both plaintiff and defendant lived within the same jurisdiction. If the Government would be content to confine these District Registries to ministerial proceedings, and to remit contentious proceedings and judicial matters to be disposed of in London, or to give the parties the option of removing them upon mere application, a considerable part of his objections to the clause would be removed; but if the clause remained as it was, the practical effect would be, whilst endeavouring to redress an alleged grievance, to create one of much larger proportions, to the injury of the general body of suitors.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, the country solicitors in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, and many other of our large towns, were of opinion that if there was one portion of the Bill from which the community at large was likely to derive great benefit, it was that portion which gave to local communities the power of putting into operation the provisions of the Bill. The establishment of the County Courts was almost an analogous case to that which was proposed, and they had conferred such advantages upon the community that it had been thought advisable to entrust to them Equity, Admiralty, and Bankruptcy jurisdiction. It was the crying evil of our law that the moment they got a Chancery suit, however small might be the amount it involved, into the office of the Chief Clerk of the Court in London,
  184
  they could form no idea of the time when they would get it out of that office. If, however, as proposed by that Bill, District Registrars could, by directions from the High Court of Justice, go into and take accounts, there would be far less delay and expense incurred than if the business were entirely done in London. As to District Registrars not being able, especially in the absence of the Bar, to deal with contentious business, he would remark that it was only in difficult cases that country solicitors required to consult the Bar, and that they were obliged by their education to make themselves acquainted with the practice of both Law and Equity. He hoped the Government would hold by the clause they had proposed, which, in his opinion, would work satisfactorily.
  MR. RATHBONEobserved that the profession in those districts where local courts existed were anxious that the clause should be adopted, and that thereby the advantages existing in certain localities should be widely extended.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsaid, that no objection was taken to a certain amount of jurisdiction being conferred on the District Registrars. The objection was to the magnitude of the judicial power which it was proposed to confer on gentlemen who, however well qualified to discharge the offices which they at present filled, did not possess the qualifications which usually belonged to Judges of the Superior Courts. The clause enacted that all proceedings down to the trial might be taken before these District Registrars, and they might even exercise, in certain cases, a jurisdiction equivalent to the issuing of an injunction. The duties of the Registrar ought to be limited to purely ministerial functions: He did not believe that the public were aware of what was now proposed to be done, otherwise there would be a great out cry against it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought he could relieve his learned Friends from some of their apprehensions by pointing out that the powers to be conferred upon Registrars would be subject to rules framed under the 64th clause by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and a majority of the Judges—subject to the approval of Parliament. That was a guarantee that no powers would be given them which they were not qualified to

  185
  exercise; and it was out of the question to suppose that they would be entrusted with the power of issuing injunctions. It had been found in practice in the County Palatine that the powers conferred by the clause had been of the greatest use, and had saved enormous expense. Sixty per cent of the writs issued by the Registrars never went any further. The causes became undefended actions, and all further expenses and costs were saved, which was a mercy to the defendants. The Committee might safely leave the power of making these rules in the hands of the Judges.
  MR. MATTHEWSopposed the clause, observing that it allowed absurd and irrational things to be done, which the Judges were to endeavour to prevent by the framing of Rules of Court.
  MR. TORRsaid, this seemed to be a contest between the London and the country lawyers. But the suitors were the persons to be considered. He regarded it as a most important and valuable feature of the Bill that it did away with the extensive centralization, which in legal matters now existed in London.
  DR. BALLsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to limit the jurisdiction in which these writs should be issued. He would suggest that the District Registrars should be left as they were, and the power of issuing writs retained; but that no writ should be served on a defendant who resided more than a certain distance from the particular Registry from which the writ proceeded. It would place a vast power of annoyance in the hands of litigants if some such limit was not fixed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the power which his right hon. and learned Friend sought was contained in the 4th sub-section of Clause 64, which laid down rules for the conduct of the practice and procedure of the Courts.
  MR. C. E. LEWISpointed out that the 7th rule in the Schedule would work harshly in many cases. For instance, a London merchant served with a writ issued out of a County Court in Dorsetshire would have, if the writ had been specially endorsed, to obtain permission from the Judge to show that he had sufficient primâ facie evidence for a good defence before he could be allowed to proceed in the action. It would be a hardship upon a man to compel him to
  186
  go to long distances and incur considerable expense in order to take the initiatory steps towards meeting what was perhaps an illusory claim.
  MR. WHALLEYcomplained that the Bill was being passed through Committee without any Member being able to understand it who was not a lawyer. In his opinion, the Government were bound to explain what was the precise grievance to suitors with which this clause proposed to deal. It was quite a new thing to lay down in an Act of Parliament rules for a system of procedure for a purpose that was not strictly necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 61 (Power for Court to remove proceedings from District Registries) agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Accounts and inquiries may be referred to District Registrars) agreed to.
  Clause 63 (30 & 31 Viet. c. 142. ss. 5, 7, 8, 10, to extend to actions in High Court).
  MR. MATTHEWSmoved, in page 32, line 6, to leave out the word "fifth," the object being to omit the continuance of the 5th clause of the County Courts Act, as it was now unnecessary, upon the ground that under the present Bill the question of costs would be in the discretion of the Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it would, in his opinion, be necessary to retain the 5th section of the County Courts Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 64 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART V.
  Officers and Offices.
  Clause 73 (Transfer of existing staff of officers to Supreme Court).
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (for Viscount MAHON)moved an Amendment to entitle District Registry Clerks of the Court of Probate to the same progressive salaries and the scale of superannuation as were enjoyed by the clerics of the principal Registry Office, and to secure retiring allowances to those persons. The case of these men well deserved the con-

  187
  sideration of the Committee. He therefore begged to move the insertion of the Amendment which stood in the name of his noble Friend (Viscount Mahon).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 36, line 29, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "District registry clerks of the Court of Probate shall moreover be entitled to the same progressive salaries and scale of superannuation as are enjoyed by the clerks of the principal registry office: and it shall he lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to grant to any clerk in a district registry attached to the Court of Probate, who from age, infirmity, or other causes may desire or have to retire from his duties on the coining into operation of this Act, or at any time thereafter, who may have had continuous employment in such district registry, and in the office of any registrar of the courts formerly exercising jurisdiction in matters and causes testamentary (abolished by the Court of Probate Act, 1857), for twenty years and upwards immediately before such retirement, an annual allowance of two-thirds of the salary and emoluments of his office."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MONKsaid, he thought the case of the District Registrars one of great hardship. They ought to be placed on the same footing with regard to superannuation as the other Civil servants.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Viscount who proposed this Amendment had run away from it. It had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The reason why they were not placed in the same position as the clerks in the principal Registry was because they did not do half the work.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmaintained that the District Registry Clerks were entitled to he placed in the same position as the Registry Clerks in the Chief Court of Probate, and were as much entitled to proper superannuation as Equity Judges.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not see any hardship in the case of these men. They had hired themselves on certain terms, and they got what they bargained for. They were not Civil servants. Every Civil servant must produce a certificate from the Civil Service Commission which none of these individuals could do. In the next place, Civil servants were the servants of the Crown, but these men were appointed by the Registrars.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 171: Majority 122.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 74 (Officers of Courts of Pleas at Lancaster and Durham).
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, that as there was no chance of the Bill passing this Session he would move that the Chairman report Progress. It was important that the Turnpikes Acts Continuance, &c., Bill, which stood on the Orders, should not be brought on, as it had hitherto been, at the small hours.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could hardly think that the hon. Member was serious in making the proposal. It was wholly without precedent, on a measure of first-rate magnitude for which the Government was responsible, to move until midnight, or until after midnight, and in the absence of any special cause, that the Chairman should report Progress. In all his experience he never knew such a proposal being made, and as it was the first, so he hoped it would be the last. The hon. Member was entitled to the credit, whatever it might be, of the originality of the step; but as it broke up the uniform practice of the House he trusted the Committee would not adopt it.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the reason why it was desired that the further progress of this measure should be stopped at that point was the desire on the part of many hon. Members that they should proceed with the Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c., Bill—a Bill of such importance that it should be considered before the small hours of the morning.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he would pledge himself that if the Bill referred to did not come on until an hour after midnight he would not proceed with it, and that, as far as he could, he would give a full opportunity for its consideration.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, that under the circumstances he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAIKESmoved to amend the clause to the effect that vacancies in the Courts should be filled "with the concurrence" of the President of the Division of the High Court of Justice, who was more likely to understand the re-

  189
  quirements than was the Lord Chief Justice, whose name stood in the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 37, line 20, to leave out the words "Lord Chief Justice of England," and insert the words "President of the Division of the High Court of Justice to which such officer is attached,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he proposed to leave out that portion of the clause requiring such concurrence, so that the concurrence of the Treasury would alone be required.
  DR. BALLobserved that it would cause great dissatisfaction among the Judges if the Lord Chancellor and the First Lord of the Treasury, who were both Members of the Cabinet, should be given the power of abolishing offices connected with the Courts.
  MR. JAMESthought that the convenience of some one of the high legal dignitaries should be required.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKinquired whether the section would affect the extensive patronage of the Master of the Rolls?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that when the Report of the Select Committee which had inquired into the subject was carried into effect it would practically abolish the extensive patronage.
  MR. COLLINSremarked that it was taken too much for granted that that Report would be acted upon; the fact being that the House usually reversed the decisions of its Committees.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he must ask again what would become of the patronage of the Master of the Rolls, which was very considerable, both legal and literary? It was no answer to say the question had been dealt with by a Committee upstairs.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALintimated that the question was under the consideration of the Government, who would deal with the Report of the Committee. As to the Amendment, he would agree to the words "Lord Chief Justice" being left out of this clause; but he could not agree to the insertion of the other words, because he thought that the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury might be trusted to do what was right with offices as vacancies occurred.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that the Committee had reported, and the question was whether the Government would take action on it?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwished to know whether it was intended to separate the patronage now vested in the Master of the Rolls?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government would be responsible for any alterations that might be made; but he could not give an intelligible answer until after the Government had carefully considered the Report of the Committee. When that had been done, he would give the best answer he could.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 160: Majority 61.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Personal officers of future Judges).
  MR. LOPESmoved in page 38, line 34, to leave out "secretary," and insert "principal clerk." The effect of the clause would be to lower the status of the clerks to the Common Law Judges. This proposal of the Government was on the score of economy, but upon a principle which he thought unwise. His Amendment was intended to retain the salaries and positions of the officers of the Judges as they now were as nearly as possible.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would deprive the Equity Judges of their secretaries, who were barristers, and capable of performing legal duties.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that the services of the clerk were invaluable to the barrister; that it was he, and not the country, who ought to reward him.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HINDE PALMERmoved, in page 38, line 38, after "justice," insert—
  "Who shall belong to the Chancery division, a secretary whose salary shall be four hundred pounds per annum, a principal clerk whose salary shall be three hundred pounds per annum, and a junior clerk whose salary shall be one

  191
  hundred and twenty pounds per annum, and to each of the other judges of the High Court of Justice."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSmoved that the Chairman report Progress, as there was a desire on the part of many hon. Members that reasonable time should be afforded for the discussion of the next Order—the Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c., Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if it were the wish of the House he would consent to reporting Progress.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH,as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill, said, that many hon. Members were in attendance in anticipation of the Bill coming on.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE. &c. BILL. [BILL 199.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Stansfeld.)

  COMMITTEE.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd July],
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for rendering compulsory in England and Wales the Highway Acts 1862 and 1864."—(Lord George Cavendish.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. WELBYsaid, there were three objections raised to the Instruction before the Committee —namely, that the Highway Acts themselves ought to be first amended; that if they were to be made compulsory, it should be by Bill, not by Instruction; and that it was too late in the Session for either. This last was no fault of the Committee which sat on the subject, and of which he was a Member, nor of the Government. The Bill might have been read a second time on 26th of June, but for the Notice of opposition given by the noble Lord the Member for south Wiltshire (Lord Henry Thynne). To proceed by Instruction was the only course open to the Select Committee after the Government had said they could not find time for a Bill, and to insist on amending the Acts first was equivalent to refusing to do anything. The hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) had suggested that the Government should even at that late period take up the
  192
  question; but that course was not now practicable, and if the matter was to be dealt with at all this year, it must be done in the way now proposed and no other. The Select Committee had to provide for the extinction of the trusts referred to them as speedily as was consistent with the repayment of a fair proportion of their debts, and with the proper maintenance of the roads for the future. For this purpose the whole or most of the toll-income must be applied to the debts, and the maintenance provided from other sources. There was nothing new in this, as alleged. It had been constantly done for many years. Out of 503 trusts under the Continuance Act in 1867, 107 were wholly or partially repaired by the parishes; and 19 out of the 65, which after certain deductions, had been dealt with by the Select Committee this year. But the Committee thought that when the repair of roads was thrown on the individual parishes, very severe hardship often resulted; but if it were thrown on a highway district instead of the parish, a great portion of that hardship would disappear. Where the district through which the turnpike trust ran was partly under the operation of the Highway Act and partly was not, the greatest difficulty was experienced in coming to any equitable arrangement under those circumstances, and if the Act was made compulsory, many of their difficulties would be removed. Indeed, making the Highway Act compulsory appeared to afford the best and almost the only chance of maintaining the roads in anything like efficient repair. Parishes allowed them to decay partly from the expense, partly from the incompetence of overseers. The Highway Acts were already in force in 34 counties out of 40; and the sooner they wore made compulsory the cheaper it would be, because the expense of them lay not in maintaining, but in bringing up to a proper state roads which had been allowed to decay. When well worked the Acts were economical. He therefore hoped the Committee would adopt the instruction.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he was in favour of highway districts, and should like to see the Highway Act made compulsory; but he objected to effect even good objects by a side wind, and he should certainly vote against the present Bill.
  COLONEL BRISEthought the present highway system worked well, but under it there were instances of jobbery. The old parochial system, with a proper county administration, would prove, in his opinion, most effective in highway districts. To the present Bill he should offer every opposition.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEwas in favour of the proposed Instruction to the Committee. In his district the highway system had worked well.
  LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, the Government seemed to have an utter disregard of the rights of the ratepayers. He maintained that the ratepayers ought not to be taxed for the benefit of those persons who did not maintain the roads in a proper state. The subject could not possibly be discussed at that hour (it was now five minutes past One A.M.) and he moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Henry Thynne.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, they were placed in an unfair position—a position that the Government ought not to place the House in. He maintained that this Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill was brought forward by a sidewind, by which the Government were trying to impose a heavy compulsory tax upon the whole country. It was now past One o'clock, and he hoped the Government would withdraw the Bill.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that this was the natural supplement of the Highway Act, and the turnpikes could not be altogether done away with till the area of taxation was enlarged and fairly adjusted.
  MR. PELLsaid, the Highway Act was most defective. It encouraged jobbery, and if amended there would be no necessity for the Turnpike Continuance Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTasked that the Motion for adjournment should be withdrawn, in order that the Instruction might be discussed. ["No."] The Government would be guided by the opinion of the House, and, as far as he was able to judge, the House was in favour of the Instruction. The Government were of opinion that the Highway Acts ought to be amended, and would be prepared to introduce a Bill for that
  194
  purpose at a sufficiently early period next Session.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 115: Majority 57.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that they were at half-past One in the morning discussing a measure which was of more importance to the rural districts of England than many matters which were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It was most unfair to attempt to introduce into a Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill by a sidewind a proposal so important as this which would render the Highway Acts compulsory throughout England and Wales. He protested against the House being called upon to proceed with this important Bill at so advanced an hour. He therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Clare Read.)
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHexpressed a hope that the House would consent to divide on the Instruction, and that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSalso expressed a hope that the House would divide on the Question. The Government in a very little time would become more potent to carry their measures than they were at present, and the present was the best opportunity to divide on the Question.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 116: Majority 72.
  Original Question again proposed.
  It was now Two of the clock A.M. The discussion was continued by hon. Members, in a continually diminishing House, with alternative Motions for the Adjournment of the House and the Adjournment of the Debate. The opponents of the Motion persistently urged the impropriety of making the existing Highways Acts compulsory, and imposing a permanent burden of Local Taxation, by the "sidewind" of introducing an "Instruction" into a Bill for Turnpike Acts Continuance.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Parker.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 104: Majority 58.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 99: Majority 55.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 94: Majority 54.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 91: Majority 50.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would consent to the adjournment of the debate, on the understanding that the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Brise) would withdraw his Notice to move—"That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," and that it would not be put down on the Paper by any other Member.
  COLONEL BRISEwas understood to agree to this arrangement so far as his Notice was concerned; but said he could not be answerable for the action of any other hon. Member.
  Motion made, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Frederick Walpole.)
  At length,
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned, at half-past Three A.M., till this day (Friday).

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHALLEY, Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the third and fourth years of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-six, commonly called "The Church Discipline Act," as deprives the Laity of the power of prosecuting the Clergy for offences against the
  196
  Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Church of England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. JONES PARRY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (RETURNS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to make further provision for the Regulation of Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCCE and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 232.]

  TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE, Bill to reduce the limit of the available Balance of the Treasury Chest Fund, ordered to be brought in by MR. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 233.]
  Then the other Orders of the Day, 46 in number, having been disposed of,
  House adjourned at Four o'clock.