Commons Sitting of 5 June 1873

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — John Charles Dundas, esquire, for Richmond.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Fisheries (Ireland)* [181]; Landed Estates Court (Ireland) (Judges)* [182]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3)* [183].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* [174]; Marriages Legalization, Saint John's Chapel, Eton* [179].
Committee— Juries [35]—R.P.; Law Agents (Scotland) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 2 and 3)* [163 and 169]; Juries (Ireland)* [166].
Considered as amended— Conveyancing (Scotland)* [178].
Third Reading—Registration (Ireland)* [165], and passed.

IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869)—CLAUSE 32.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state the number and amount of the applications that have been made under Clause 32 of the Irish Church Act of 1869, to enable owners of land in Ireland charged with payment of tithe rent charge to purchase the same by instalments extending over a period of fifty-two years; and, the number and amount of similar applications that have been made since the Act of 1872, c. 90 (35 and 36 Vic.), enabling the average poor rates and stamp duty to be deducted from the purchase money?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had obtained the information referred to, but thought it could be more satisfactorily given in the form of a Return; and if the hon. Member moved for it, it would be laid on the Table at once.

  CENSUS OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, In what order the detailed report of the late Census of Ireland will be published, and within what period the whole may be expected to be completed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had ascertained from the Census Commissioners that the counties were being published in alphabetical order, beginning with the Province of Leinster, and going on to the Provinces of Munster, Ulster, and Connaught. Seven counties had been printed, and two were passing through the press. The Commissioners expected that the principal work of the Census would be completed about the middle of 1874.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES —LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. HINDE PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, When he intends to introduce his promised Bill, comprising provisions for amending the Laws respecting compensation to workmen for injuries sustained in the course of their employment?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, he thought the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member demanded the attention

  515
  of the Government and of Parliament, but he did not expect to be able to introduce a measure relating to it during the present Session. He had found it necessary to include in the reference to the Royal Commission on unseaworthy ships all that portion of the subject of the liability of masters for injuries suffered by servants in the course of their employment which related to the sailors of this country, and he hoped they would have the advantage before next Session of possessing the views of the Royal Commission on that large part of the subject.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT — LEGISLATION — DECK LOADS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSK (for Mr. GOURLEY)asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps (if any) he intends adopting for the purpose of reenacting this Session the law which was repealed in 1862 regulating the carrying of timber deck loads; and, whether, if re-enacted, the prohibition will be extended to deck cargoes other than timber?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill which he had introduced dealt to a certain extent—to as large an extent as he thought it proper to attempt to deal under present circumstances—with the question of overloading; but the special question of deck-loading with timber from America and other countries was not embraced in that measure. That question formed part of the reference to the Royal Commission on merchant ships. When he made his statement on the second reading of the Bill, he would explain that portion of the subject.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (Exemptions).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYmoved, in line 8, after "schoolmaster," to add "schoolmasters of public schools, professors, and college tutors resident in the Universities to which they belong." Previous to 1870 all graduates of the University of Oxford were exempt by
  516
  charter. The exemption was not asked for as a favour to the persons themselves, but to prevent the inconvenience that might arise in the event of a schoolmaster being called away for some days in the discharge of his duties as a juryman. The privilege was asked for in behalf of those they had to teach.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 8, after the word "schoolmaster," to insert the words "schoolmasters of public schools, professors, and college tutors resident in the Universities to which they belong."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not oppose the Amendment out of disrespect to the persons named, but because the object of the Bill was to narrow exemptions and to bring as many as possible into the net of service, and thereby diminish as far as possible those numberless exemptions which in the sister country had gone to the extent of exempting all the persons most fitted to discharge the duties. On principle he objected to exemptions; but he had been obliged to retain many because he could not help it. He had, however, struck out two. Everyone ought to be liable to serve on a jury, except where it was plainly for the public interest he should not do so—as in the case of doctors.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the children at the public elementary schools had to earn certain money by attending a certain number of times, and if the masters were taken away to serve on juries the children would be unable to attend the requisite number of times to earn the capitation grant.
  MR. SCOURFIELDtrusted the Government would re-consider the question of qualification, with a view of fixing a maximum and a minimum sum, and leave any question that might arise to be decided by the local authorities.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,while admitting that the question of qualification was deserving of consideration, thought that it would be most inconvenient to narrow the area from which jurymen were obtained by increasing the number of exemptions.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 70; Noes 55: Majority 15.
  MR. HINDE PALMERmoved, in page 4, line 9, after, "officers," to insert

  517
  "of both Houses of Parliament." Officers of Courts of Law and Equity were already exempted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would accept the Amendment if the words "during the Session of Parliament" were added.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he would agree to that Amendment.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that a case might happen in which an officer of the House of Commons might be put upon a jury a week before Parliament met, and the jury continue to sit on.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT,having voted with the majority in the division on the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) wished to be consistent; but he really could not see why, if this Amendment were agreed to, the Committee should not also say that Professors and college tutors were to be exempt during term time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, any Judge would readily excuse such persons on their own application.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. MUNTZmoved in line 12, at end of line to add "justices of the peace for any county or borough, mayors and town clerks of boroughs," on the ground that, as regarded the borough magistrates, they should not be asked to sit on a jury, and so pronounce judgment upon the very men they might have committed for trial, and also because it would be inconvenient they should be taken from their duties.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment. Justices of the peace were now not exempt by law, and as they were intelligent gentlemen he did not think they ought to be exempt. The same observation applied to the mayors of boroughs. If these exemptions were allowed they would very much lower the character of special juries. Nor did he think the mayors ought to be exempt—the boroughs might get on without them for a few days; and as to the town clerk, if he were an attorney or a solicitor, he was exempt already.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WEST (for Mr. BIRLEY), moved in page 4, line 14, after "same," to insert—
  "Members of the council of any municipal borough, and every justice of the peace assigned to keep the peace therein, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of every
  518
  such borough, so far as relates to any jury summoned to serve in such borough, or in the county where such borough is situate."
  This was an existing exemption, and, considering the onerous public duties discharged by those gentlemen, the exemption ought to be continued.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  MR. LOPESsaid, that no ground had been laid for the exemption, and there were strong reasons why it should not be granted. The professional or social status was abolished, and a great change had been made in persons called upon to serve on special juries. It was therefore essential that they should not withdraw from them any such individuals as were mentioned in the Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that the members of municipal councils did a great deal of hard work, and serious inconvenience might arise if they were compelled to serve on juries.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the exemption might with equal propriety be extended to members of boards of guardians. They were quite as hard worked as town councillors.
  MR. LEEMANremarked that it was not only the monthly meeting of the town council, but the attendance at committees which should be considered.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSbelieved that no practical inconvenience would arise from making these persons servo on juries, and that if they were withdrawn the result would be greatly to impair the value of this Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there were two or three counties in which the names of the special jurors had been returned. From the Return, which he admitted was two years old, it appeared there were in Sussex 197 special jurors; in Kent, 400; in Lancashire, 1,450; and in Gloucestershire, 276. He asked the Committee to consider what would be the effect on the special jury list if they were to take out the whole of the town councils of the boroughs in Sussex, and everybody employed in municipal affairs in Lancashire, and the names of the persons proposed to be exempted by this Amendment. He would not deny that it was an invidious thing to stand against such an Amendment as this. He conceded that if it were merely a question of whether these gentlemen were not fully occupied, there was a

  519
  great case for them; but if they were to go to every person who was fully occupied, and say that he was therefore exempted from serving on a jury; they would have a class of professional jurymen—people who had nothing to do, and with loose and inaccurate minds—the mere hangers-on of society—the very worst class they could possibly have for special jurors. It was because he desired to keep intelligent men on the jury that he objected to this Amendment.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, the figures quoted by the Attorney General were likely to mislead. The lists to be composed under this Bill would be very much larger than those at present in force.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that most of the gentlemen who were giving such good advice to the Government and the Committee in this matter had never served on juries; but he hoped the Attorney General would not make the clause too stringent and allow little latitude.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 42; Noes 126: Majority 84.
  MR. ASSHETONmoved, in page 4, line 14, after "public," to insert "or private." The private asylums were licensed and inspected by the magistrates, but they were supported by the friends of the inmates. There were greater reasons for the exemption of the keepers of these private asylums from service as jurors than for the exemption of the keepers of the public institutions. In the larger and public institutions there were many sub-warders having charge in the absence of the principal, but not so in the smaller and more private.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the keepers of these private asylums were already exempted from serving as jurors, either as physicians or as surgeons.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsuggested that the best mode of attaining the object would be to strike out the word "public."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALassented.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that as there were so many exemptions he proposed to make another, by inserting, in
  520
  line 24, after "respectively," the words "also members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons actually in practice."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that veterinary surgeons in some country districts were very scarce, and lived a great many miles apart. If, therefore, the Amendment was not adopted, he did not see how the House could look the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the face.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the Government would consider the peculiar position in which the country was now placed with reference to cattle. Heavy penalties were imposed by recent legislation with a view to prevent the spread of disease among cattle, and great risk would be incurred if a veterinary officer were not present to certify that cattle were free from disease. It should be borne in mind that in many districts properly qualified veterinary surgeons were not so plentiful as attorneys or other doctors. If the veterinary officer at a landing place for cattle happened to be absent serving on a jury, were the cattle to be kept on board ship or landed without inspection? Under the circumstances, the Government ought seriously to consider whether it would not be expedient to exempt veterinary surgeons.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, that during the Assizes last year about 700 sheep and cattle on his own farm were attacked by disease in one week, and the loss he sustained would have been far greater had the veterinary surgeon been called away to serve upon a jury.
  MR. SCOURFIELDremarked that, although large numbers of cattle were landed in the county he represented (Pembrokeshire), there was only one properly qualified veterinary surgeon in the whole county.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he thought it unnecessary to make a special exemption in the case of veterinary surgeons, as under Clause 20 the Justices were empowered to revise the jury lists and make such exemptions as they might deem expedient.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could see no ground for the exemption asked for. In the ease of these gentlemen being engaged in the discharge of public duties, they would be exempted by the magistrates, who would have power under the provisions of the Bill to revise the list, The Bill did not

  521
  propose in any way to change the law with regard to the liability of this class of persons to serve, and no instance had been brought forward to show that any inconvenience had resulted from their having to serve.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that, although these gentlemen had hitherto been legally bound to serve on juries, the Sheriffs, in the exercise of their common sense, had never summoned them. The present Bill, however, proposed to deprive the Sheriffs of their discretion in the matter.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he thought it was impossible for a man properly to discharge his duty as an Inspector of cattle and a juryman at the same time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALgave way with considerable reluctance; but thought that, after the opinions which had been expressed with regard to it, it would be useless to go to a division on the question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DILLWYNmoved, in page 4, line 25, at end, to insert "general managers of Railway Companies."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, being of opinion that no sufficient case had been made out for the exemption of railway managers.
  MR. LOPESreferred to Clause 20 of the Bill, which empowered the Justices to strike off the list the names of those persons whose business engagements were incompatible with their serving on juries.
  MR. BOWRINGobserved that managers of railways appeared always to have sufficient time to attend before Committees upstairs when Railway Bills were being considered. If the Directors of Companies were able thus to spare the managers year after year from their regular avocations when their interests required it, he did not see why they should not serve on juries.
  MR. LEEMANsupported the Amendment. Under Clause 20 the lists would only come before the magistrates for revision once a year.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsupported the Amendment on the ground that the whole of the work on the railways depended on the constant attention of managers, and their absence might lead to mismanagement and accidents.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that the same arguments would
  522
  apply to managers of mines and other responsible positions. Railway managers were absent from their duties through the ordinary accidents of life and attendance before Parliamentary Committees, when their places were efficiently supplied by deputies.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CRAWFORDmoved, in page 4, after line 25, to insert "the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England," with a view to their exemption. He had known three gentlemen fill these offices who during four years were not absent for a single day. He did not, however, ground the Amendment on their Bank duties, but on their duties with regard to the State. They were Commissioners of the National Debt, and he would appeal to Gentlemen who had been Chancellors of the Exchequer whether at times they did not require immediate communication with the Governor and Deputy Governor, and whether delay would not be to the public detriment?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 25, after the word "service," to insert the words "the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England." — (Mr. Crawford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the exemption was only for two persons serving a period of four years, it was hardly worth while to oppose it.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was disappointed at this concession on the part of the Government. He objected to an exemption which would benefit the shareholders of the Bank, and believed it would have been to the public advantage if these gentlemen had been drafted away yesterday to serve on juries.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the Amendment was based solely on the public duties of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 88; Noes 57: Majority 31.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought that in accordance with the proposition of the Government in the case of officers of the House, that the exemption should not exist during the recess of Parliament, it would be proper

  523
  to add to the exemption now granted that it should not operate during bank holidays, so as to make it consistent and sensible in every respect. He moved that the words "except on bank holidays" be added.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were really beneath himself. He was turning a serious proposal into ridicule. The Governor and Deputy Governor might be employed on public duty during bank holidays.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, after line 27, to insert "the members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board." The Masters and Wardens of the Trinity House, who were exempt, were well paid, while the members of the Mersey Docks Board discharged important duties without remuneration.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that in the event of this exemption being allowed he should move to exempt the River Commissioners of the Tyne and Wear.
  MR. GOLDSMID,with reference to the exemption of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, said, they were only two members of the Board, and he understood they were not present at all the meetings.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that there were acts which only the Governor and Deputy Governor could discharge. During four years he had not been absent for a single day, except on one or two occasions from ill-health.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that a great deal might be urged in favour of this Amendment; but if this exemption were permitted every public body having a great deal of business to discharge might put forward the same claim. The Master and Wardens of the Trinity House were exempted because they had special jury work of their own to discharge in the Admiralty Court. He (the Attorney General) was very unfortunate—because if he did not give way, he was called obstinate; and if he did, he was called weak. In this instance he must stand firm.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was the largest trust in the world, and the members administered gratuitously a property worth £20,000,000, which was every year increasing in value.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved, in page 4, line 41, after "officers," to insert Commissioners of Income Tax," a body of men not, he believed, the most popular in the kingdom. They performed a public duty, which they undertook under Act of Parliament. The proposal was no new one, as they were exempted by the Act 34 & 35 Vict. c. 103. He had no doubt the Attorney General would accede to the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry to disappoint his hon. Friend's expectations. He had considered the Amendment, but felt that there was not sufficient reason for the exemption.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that before being elected as a Member of that House he had been exempted from serving on juries as Commissioner of Income Tax; but if at any future time he should cease to be a Member of that Assembly he had no objection to the liability.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had placed on the Paper a somewhat similar Amendment. The Commissioners of Income Tax were by the Act of 1870 liable to serve on juries; but so much inconvenience was found to result that a special Act was brought in to exempt them.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the offer of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) was one which did not deserve much gratitude, because in all probability the hon. Gentleman, before ceasing to be a Member of that House, would be exempt on account of his age under another clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEnext moved to exempt Aldermen of London, who, he contended, ought in that respect to be placed in the same position as stipendiary magistrates and officers of the Courts. The Aldermen had many duties to perform, and they might be summoned to serve on a jury at the same time that they were called upon to serve as magistrates at the Central Criminal Court.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 42, after the word "magistrates," to insert the words "Aldermen of London." —(Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JAMESsaid, he thought it would be very advantageous to every class of

  525
  the public that Aldermen should sit upon juries. There were good Aldermen and bad Aldermen. The good Aldermen found their way into the House of Commons, and were, therefore, exempt from serving upon juries. As regarded bad Aldermen, it was desirable that by serving on juries they should obtain some acquaintance with their jurisprudence. The six Aldermen who were in the House of Commons might very well take the duties of such of their Colleagues as were compelled to serve on juries.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought that, considering the various ways in which the Aldermen of London served their fellow-citizens, it would be only fair to exempt them from liability to servo on juries.
  MR. CRAWFORDpointed out that the Aldermen were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and that unless the Amendment were acceded to it might happen that an Alderman might be summoned to serve on a jury before the Court of which he was a member.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKbelieved that the employment of Aldermen on juries would seriously interfere with the business of the London Police Courts and the Central Criminal Court, in fact they were Judges in the latter Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not himself see any very good reason why the Aldermen of London should be exempted. He believed, however, that they could claim exemption under the 5th clause of the Bill. He had once argued this question in "another place" upon the point of the constitution of the Central Criminal Court, and he believed it was decided that the presence of Aldermen there during the trials was essential, and that the trials could not go on legally without them. His own impression was that they would come within the definition of Judges, and upon that ground he objected to the Amendment as unnecessary.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEinsisted that the Amendment was necessary, not only for the Aldermen, but for the officials and clerks of their Courts.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) ought to remember that Aldermen performed their duties in Court gratuitously, while attorneys and counsel were well paid, and therefore he should not be so hard on them.
  MR. J. S. HARDYwas of opinion that the Attorney General's interpretation of the words quoted by him as to Judges presiding at any trial to be decided by a jury would wholly exempt all magistrates sitting at Quarter Sessions from serving on juries.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the exemption would apply to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions only.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEobserved that the Aldermen of the City of London were members of the Commission under which prisoners were tried at the Central Criminal Court.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that without the presence of an Alderman the Court could not be constituted. The Lord Mayor was head of the Commission.
  MR. JAMESsaid, it was very desirable that this matter should be made clear, and gave Notice that at a later stage he would move that the clause should not apply to the Aldermen of London, except to those sitting as members of the Central Criminal Court.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 17; Noes 81: Majority 64.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (for Mr. OWEN STANLEY)moved, in page 4, line 44, after "Members of the Executive Government," to insert "Any person who can neither understand, read, or write the English language." It was a common thing in Wales to summon jurors who could not understand the evidence of English witnesses, or the charge of an English Judge.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought it would be more respectful to Members of the Executive Government, who were exempted from serving by the clause, that the persons mentioned in the Amendment should be placed in the next clause among those who were disqualified from acting as jurors.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSobjected to this exemption, and believed it would be extremely difficult to give effect to it. He had met men in Wales who could neither understand nor read nor write English, and yet who made most excellent jurymen.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, it appeared to him that no person should be allowed to serve on a jury in Wales who did not understand the Welsh language.
  MR. LEEMANreferred to Yorkshire, where, he said, such an exemption as that proposed would be most unjust.
  MR. LOPESasked whether the overseers were to institute an examination in order to ascertain whether or not a man really understood English, and could read and write it. Moreover, it was not improbable that many men would claim the benefit of the proposed exemption who were not actually entitled to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, if this exemption were to be allowed they might as well abolish altogether trial by jury in Wales.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOWRINGasked what was meant by the words "members of the Executive Government" in the clause. They appeared very elastic, and might extend to the whole of the civil establishments, including not only the higher officials, but all clerks, and even temporary writers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he proposed to meet that criticism by the terms of the Interpretation Clause.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERmoved in page 5, line 3, to leave out "seventy" and insert "sixty." Everyone would admit that it was desirable a jury should be composed of men in full health, and capable of discharging the duties before them. It seemed to him that 60 was a sufficient age for people to be compelled to discharge such arduous duties, and that persons in their declining years were entitled to exemption.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 3, to leave out the word "seventy," and insert the word "sixty."—(Mr. B. N. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seventy' stand part of the Clause."
  THR ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the exemption was absolute at 70, but there was nothing to prevent a person from claiming to be exempted at 65. There were many men between 65 and 70 in full possession of their faculties mentally and bodily, and who at that time of life would be particularly useful as jurors. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. LEEMANsuggested that the provision as to age should be struck out altogether, as it would be exceedingly
  528
  difficult, in large parishes especially, for the overseers to ascertain whether a man was 70.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKhoped that the Amendment would be pressed.
  MR. GREGORYwas also in favour of the exemption above 60 years of age.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think that the labours of a juror were generally very heavy, and submitted that the line which he had already drawn in the clause was a fair and reasonable one.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 54; Noes 18: Majority 36.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Men of 65 years of age and upwards to be exempt, if exemption is claimed in time).
  MR. GREGORYmoved in page 5, line 24, at end add—
  "and any man who shall be liable to serve in any borough or county in respect of his place of business, and who shall have a separate place of residence, shall be exempt from service in respect of such place of residence, if his claim to exemption be in like manner duly made and established."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  A man ought not to be liable to serve twice. His discharging double duty would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not accede to the Amendment. If he were to do so, it would almost destroy the jury panel in the City of London, because all who resided out of London would elect to serve where the work was likely to be the lightest. If a man had two qualifications he ought to be liable to serve for both.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, his Amendment would only give a man a right to say that being on the City list he was not liable for the country. A business man should only be called upon to serve where his business was carried on.
  MR. LEEMANsupported the Amendment. It was not reasonable to call upon a man to perform double service as a juryman, when the two summonses might sometimes clash.
  MR. WESTsaid, that a man having two qualifications ought to be liable to serve on both.
  MR. LOPESconsidered the Amendment a very reasonable one. It was unfair to call upon persons to discharge the same duties in a borough and also in a county.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, his Amendment was confined to persons in business, and was not intended to apply to persons of independent means having qualifications in different places.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he had known instances where persons had been summoned to appear at two different places on the same day and hour.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the answer to one was that he was engaged on the other.
  MR. REEDsaid, that without the Amendment persons of Yorkshire and Lancashire having business premises in London would be liable to serve in London as well as where they resided.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that a man having two qualifications was no reason why he should not be liable to serve in both places.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 46: Majority 30.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Juries in particular places).
  SIR JOHN HAYcalled attention to the wording of the clause. As it stood, although the jurors of a borough would be exempt from serving at the county quarter sessions, the justices would not. Justices who were not eligible to serve as jurors at the borough general or quarter sessions, and who had to attend the county general or quarter sessions as justices, would be liable to serve there as jurors. It had been suggested to him that the clause should be amended by inserting the words "burgesses of" in place of the words "jurors in." As the law now stood, "jurors in every borough in and for which a separate court of quarter sessions shall be holden, so far as relates to any jury summoned for the trial of any issues joined in any court of general quarter sessions of the peace in the county wherein such borough is situate" were exempt.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the term "burgess" would not meet what the hon. Baronet had in view. He would undertake to meet the objection
  530
  by inserting proper words in a subsequent stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WESTsaid, that the object of the clause was to exempt jurymen in boroughs who had to serve at borough sessions from being called upon to act at the county quarter sessions. He did not object to jurymen serving in boroughs being relieved from serving in counties; but the Bill provided no machinery for having separate lists for these separate services.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there were certain boroughs which had limited jurisdictions of their own, and where jurors were called upon four times a-year to serve in these boroughs it was fair and reasonable that they should be exempted from performing analogous duties in counties. The Sheriff would be required in all cases to summon juries, within the jurisdiction of the authority from whom he received the precedent. The Bill did not interfere with either the limited jurisdiction, or what he might call for the purposes of this Bill the more unlimited jurisdictions now existing.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Making out lists in the City. Secondary to issue precepts.)
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved the rejection of the clause. In the City there were 98 or 99 parishes, and the lists were at present made out by the authorities of the different wards—by the clerks of the 25 wards. By the present Bill a new machinery would be set up and a considerable expense incurred. At present the City was treated as one parish; but the present Bill would resuscitate the several parishes. There was no reason for altering the existing machinery and throwing an additional duty on the vestry clerks. The clause did not apply to any place outside the City, and he proposed its omission with the view of hereafter inserting a clause providing that the Act should not affect the present mode of forming the jury list.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not agree to the proposal, which was intended to except the City of London from the operation of the Bill and leave the City exactly in its present state

  531
  There were nominally 93 parishes, but by co-operation and amalgamation the number had been considerably reduced, and the number of persons to be employed under the provisions of the Bill would not much exceed the present number. The object of the clause was to assimilate the condition of the City to that of the large towns and the rest of England, and he saw no reason why the City should remain in its present peculiar position.
  MR. LOPESobserved that there could be no doubt that the present state of things in the City of London was exceptional, and no reason had been shown for perpetuating that exceptional state of things. The case made for the City of London had been fully considered by the Select Committee, and the proposal made by the hon. Alderman had been rejected by a large majority.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER,believing that the proposed change would create many difficulties and inconveniences, supported the Amendment.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought it would be impossible to make the City of London like the other parts of England, and was of opinion that the affairs of the City were very well managed. The lists wore better made up, to his knowledge, in the City of London than in Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
  MR. JAMEScomplained that the commercial juries had been getting worse and worse in London every year. The Select Committee which had lately sat had tried to trace that fact to its source. They found that the ward clerks selected these juries, and the clerks, he believed, were themselves appointed by the Court of Aldermen. The Committee had come to the conclusion that it was better to place the making up of the lists in the hands of the overseers. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), however, clung to the ward clerks; but it was impossible to understand why the City should have the distinction of having bad juries.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE,in reply, attributed the unpleasant experience which hon. and learned Gentlemen had had of London juries to the difficulty they had found in convincing them in cases where the juries were really in the right. Allowance was always made in the City for the inconveniences and mortifications encountered by gentlemen
  532
  of the long robe. This was the first time he had heard an imputation thrown on the returning officers of the City of London. The charge was a very grave one, and he denied that the lists were selected from the worst citizens in the City of London. He agreed, however, with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James), when he stated that the lists had depreciated. The Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) had deteriorated the juries, and it would go on deteriorating them unless some alteration was made. He contended that the lists for the City of London had been made up with great impartiality. The City in this matter was asking for no privilege, but for the retention of satisfactory and inexpensive machinery.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 97; Noes 19: Majority 78.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 30 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Corrections of the lists both in the city and elsewhere to be made every three months).
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved, in page 12, line 32, after "lists," to leave out "for the city of London and elsewhere," and insert "elsewhere than in the city of London." It would be impossible for the overseers to fulfil the duties cast upon them by this clause.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he thought that in many large parishes it would be impossible to carry out the provision.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSalso thought that the proposed plan could not be carried out, and that persons would not be found to become overseers if so many extra duties were attached to the office.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALupon reflection, agreed that perhaps the clause would cast too heavy a burden upon overseers in populous places. His object had been to keep the lists as clear as possible of the names of persons who would not appear when summoned. He would consent to the clause being negatived, and would probably bring up a new clause upon the Report.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Overseers and vestry clerks to be paid for making out the lists).
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved, in page 13, line 29, after "the" to insert "Secondary of the city of London," his object being to afford the Aldermen an opportunity of awarding that functionary remuneration for the additional duties that would be cast upon him by this Bill if they thought it advisable to do so.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to this proposal, because he did not think that the Secondary should be placed in a better position than he was at present, or than the town clerk, who performed similar duties in respect to those lists.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the Bill would impose additional duties upon the Secondary, and it was only fair that he should be paid for them. It appeared to him that hon. Members did not understand how justice was administered in the City of London.
  MR. JAMESobserved, that the hon. Alderman was quite right in saying that they could never understand how justice was administered in the City of London, inasmuch as it was the only city in which 26 Aldermen administered the law.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the hon. Member for the City of London whether he was prepared to say what the salary of the functionary referred to was?
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEwas unable to say; but he knew that the fees of the Secondary had been greatly reduced by the Act which abolished imprisonment for debt.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the late Secondary received about £1,000 a-year; whereas the present officer was only paid about £500 to £600 a-year, chiefly from fees.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Overseer and vestry clerks to present their accounts to the courts of revision).
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he had an Amendment to propose of which he had not given Notice; but, nevertheless, he hoped that the Government would accede to it. He thought that if there was one charge which ought to be borne by the Imperial Revenue it was the
  534
  charge incurred for the due administration of justice; and with that object he proposed in page 14, line 8, after the word "from," to omit "out of the first moneys thereafter to be collected for the relief of the poor in the several parishes," in order to insert "from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as provided in respect of prosecutions by 31st and 32nd of Victoria."
  THE CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Member that a proposal throwing a charge on the public revenue required the Queen's consent to be signified, and it was also requisite that the House should go into Committee for the purpose.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he hoped that, under these circumstances, the Attorney General would consent to postpone the clause.
  MR. GOLDNEYsuggested to the hon. Member for St. Ives, that he might effect his object by proposing to omit the latter part of the clause, leaving the Government to find the means to defray the expenses to be incurred under the Bill.
  MR. MAGNIAC,acceding to the suggestion, moved to leave out all the words after "from" in the eighth line to the end of the clause.
  MR. MUNTZconsidered that the question raised -by the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac) was far too serious to be discussed without due Notice. Moreover, he thought it would be a great pity if the question of the expense of preparing the jury lists under this Bill were allowed to enter into the consideration of the important subject of local taxation when all these expenses had hitherto been defrayed out of the poor-rate.
  MR. W. ORMSBY-GOREprotested against the Imperial Revenue, to which Ireland was an important contributor, being called upon to pay the expenses in connection with jury lists in England alone.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcould not help hoping that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Magniac) would, upon consideration, not press his Amendment. The cost of preparing jury lists and all the expenses connected with juries were a purely local matter; and further, they constituted a charge that had hitherto been borne without any question whatever by the different localities of the

  535
  country. This matter had been expressly considered by the Select Committee, which was unanimously of opinion that it would be most unfit in a Bill of this kind to change the incidence of a charge of this nature from counties and parishes to the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the House, after its Resolution of last Session respecting local taxation, had a right to expect long before this definite proposals from the Government. It was natural, under these circumstances, that an hon. Member interested should take the first opportunity of raising the question.
  MR. LOPESsaid, the Attorney General had not stated the case correctly. Up to the present time, the overseers had been paid the pocket expenses incurred, but had not been entitled to receive remuneration for preparing the jury list. No doubt they ought to be remunerated; but the remuneration ought not to be charged on local taxation.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplying to the statement of the Attorney General that this was an eminently local charge, said, that anyone who was acquainted with the Northern Circuit must be aware that the cause list of Liverpool was anything but local. The question was one deserving the consideration of the Government when they came to investigate what charges were local and what Imperial.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKremarked that seeing by the Bill as it now stood 95 new officers, at great expense, would be required for the City of London, he must support the Amendment.
  MR. MAGNIACexplained that his object was to prevent any fresh charge being laid upon the poor-rate. He must go to a Division.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, as a Scotch Member he supported the Resolution of last year with regard to local taxation, and he hoped this Committee and also the House would for the future resist any further imposition of local taxation until the Government had thought fit to give effect to the Resolution of last year.
  MR. GLADSTONEprotested against a division being taken upon such a question without Notice. The hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) regarded the Amendment as a Vote of Censure on the Government for not
  536
  having acted on the Resolution of last year. Would it be satisfactory to deal with the large question of local taxation by allowing small charges of £2,000 or £3,000 to be thrown on the Imperial Revenue, while the main grievance remained untouched? What would be more contemptible than for the Government to endeavour to stave off the obligation resting upon it by making small concessions? The hon. Member for North Hants was ready to take credit for the reduction of the income tax and sugar duties. Was his financial genius equal to the task of making these reductions and at the same time relieving local burdens by the same means? It was untrue the Government had overlooked the Resolution of last year. In deference to the feelings of the House the Government had announced that it was prepared to deal with local taxation, and had described the order in which they thought it should be dealt with. Proposals were now before the House relating to matters which must first be disposed of. Was it the duty of the Government to overlook that which was necessary for the effectual dealing with the question merely to make a show of prompt obedience to the Resolution? The Government had gone to great lengths in committing themselves to the proposed transfer of local taxation to Imperial funds. The scheme of the Government would involve a large financial displacement, and the reconsideration of the principles which regulate the distribution of taxation between real and personal property, and between property and labour. It was not fair, nor was it a wise and prudent recommendation to make to the Committee that, in lieu of raising the issue directly in a straightforward manner, a Motion of this kind should be made which was totally insignificant with regard to the amount it involved, and which, if adopted, could have no other effect than that of neutralizing, or of destroying altogether, the attempt of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to amend the state of the law with reference to juries. Whatever was done should be done broadly and fairly. The question now raised was a very important one, and he hoped that the Committee would not adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend. If the House saw any desire on the part of the Government to shrink from dealing

  537
  with the subject which it had greatly at heart, it could inflict upon them any mark of its displeasure which it thought fit. A Motion of this kind was totally unsatisfactory, and the only effect of it would be to leave the present measure without any provision for meeting expenses in themselves proper and reasonable, to cripple a useful Bill, and to discourage an energetic, laborious, and well-considered effort to improve the jury system.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved that, as a matter of fact, he did object to the remission of the sugar duty, and if he had had an opportunity he would not only have given his voice but his vote against it. He contended that any Gentleman who took part in the division of last year was justified, when a new charge was proposed, in telling the Government that they were proceeding in a course which was objected to by the majority of the House. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Magniac) was moderate and reasonable. As for the Bills now before the House, they quite failed to carry out the Resolution of last year, and it seemed to him as if the subject was relegated to an indefinite future. He would certainly support the hon. Member if he went to a division, or if the Committee wished that Progress should be reported he would not object.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he hoped the Committee would be cautious before adopting any such decision as it was invited to take by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Who could have thought that on a Bill dealing with the jury laws the question of local taxation would be raised? The Committee would not wish that a question of such importance should be decided, as it were, by a snatch division. His hon. Friend had given no Notice of his Amendment, and was the Committee to anticipate what ought to be its deliberate judgment in the way now proposed by the hon. Member? Nothing could be more unwise or imprudent.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had looked at the matter fairly. The question before the Committee at present was this: when the Government were bringing forward a scheme for the improvement of the judicial arrangements of the country, were the expenses to be thrown on the rates?
  538
  What the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) proposed was, that the matter should be dealt with in the same way as the expenses that would arise under the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill would be dealt with. What he contended for was that no new charges should be thrown on the local rates.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that a very important issue had been raised upon a very small matter. It would be monstrous if the House were to attempt to dispose of the subject of local taxation on a point such as this.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was proposed to give to every petty sessions, without any directions whatever, the power to make an order on the rates. There ought to be some provision to secure at least uniformity in a county, but there was nothing of the kind. He trusted that the Government would re-consider the question.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, this charge was shown, and could not be denied, to be a new one; and it was on that account he objected to it most strongly. As the Bill would not come into operation until the 1st of November, ample time would be given for bringing the charge on the Imperial funds. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that he had not given Notice; but that had arisen from circumstances over which he had no control. Still, he felt it would be pressing unduly an important question on the House without Notice if he insisted on a division. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped the Committee would resist the imposition of any new local tax, unless the Government consented to report Progress.
  Mr. MONKsaid, he did not think they should snap a division on an important question. He did not see why the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) should not be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that there were many inconveniences attending the practice of taking a division without Notice, and among them was this—that many hon. Gentlemen could not know what they were voting about. Everybody seemed to think that the 46th clause applied only to a single payment, for making out the jury lists. But if hon. Members turned

  539
  to the 45th section, they would see that two payments were contemplated. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: That has been struck out.] That made no difference. The proposal was that the charge at present made for expenses incurred should be transferred from the local rate to the Consolidated Fund. The object was not a small sum; but to make a ground-work on which a hold could be made for the future. This was a fair object, but not one which ought to be achieved without Notice. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he understood the Amendment was limited to what had been laid down as a new charge. If there was any dispute about it, and if the Government was in the least taken by surprise, they should move to report Progress. He had not the slightest disposition to snap a division. The Committee should vote on the question with full knowledge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcontended if there had been the slightest intention to raise the question of local taxation on this Bill it should have been raised on the 43rd section. He put it to the candour of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was fair to come to a conclusion wholly inconsistent with the earlier part of the scheme, which had been agreed to without opposition.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the Committee had got into a dilemma he thought the best course to pursue would be to report Progress, so that the matter should be considered when there was a larger attendance. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. LOPESsaid, he could not agree with the Attorney General that the present clause was not the one on which this question ought to be raised.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government would not at so late an hour resist the Motion for reporting Progress if the Committee desired to carry it. In the interval, however, before the consideration of the Bill was resumed, hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to consider whether the proposal supplied or constituted a form in which they wished to assert the principle which they
  540
  entertained with regard to local taxation. As to the Amendment, his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) put upon it the construction he desired it to boar—namely, that it was a protest and a warning. It would have been far better if his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) had been allowed to withdraw his Amendment. The intention of his hon. Friend was that the charge should be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. With respect to that the Government said the question of local charges ought not to be dealt with in this manner. The other branch of the question was, that there was a new charge created, which it was proposed should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. This charge was the remuneration to the overseers for their trouble, and this charge, it was proposed by the Amendment, was to be fixed by the local authority.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the proposition hardly amounted to this, as the first Amendment had been withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the amount must be paid from either local or Imperial funds. The Committee had constituted this charge in Clauses 43 and 44, and they had committed to the local authority the power of determining the charge which was now sought to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. If the local authorities were not to pay from local funds they must come upon the Imperial funds.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the Amendment had been carried, no charge on the Consolidated Fund was of necessity entailed; but these three clauses must have been altered on the Report.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that the Prime Minister having asserted that he had only moved his Amendment as a protest, he wished to explain that he intended it to the best of his ability to be an effective protest. The only reason why he withdrew his Amendment was that it had been made without Notice.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought it just as improper that the local authorities should fix the charge on the local rates as that they should fix the charges to come out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, unless objection were taken at the time when local taxation was proposed, those who wished to relieve local burdens were told

  541
  they were too late. This charge was part of the administration of justice.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked when the Bill would be taken again?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, Monday was to be given to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, and on Tuesday the House would begin the consideration of the Local Taxation Bills. He was afraid that the present measure must now stand over until the more urgent Business was got rid of.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Adam.)
  [BILL 150.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Interpretation of terms).
  MR. GORDONhoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would state the understanding on which he wished the discussion to proceed, and particularly, whether he proposed that the rights of the existing corporations should be destroyed altogether, or whether the corporations which at present had the power of passing practitioners should have their powers continued?
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Admission, enrolment, and powers of Law Agents).
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, there was one point he wished to call attention to. The Bill proposed to open up all the Law Courts to qualified practitioners, but there was one privilege which was not interfered with—no person could issue summonses or take out processes in connection with the Superior Courts, without obtaining the signature of the Writer to the Signet. He believed, although it was that on which the name of the Society was founded, the privilege was a small one, and one from the continuance of which no advantage could be expected. Indeed, the Law Commissioners, as would be remembered, recommended that it should be done away with. He proposed, therefore, to move the addition of a Proviso to that effect.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, there was another point on which he wished to get
  542
  information. The clause provided that no one should practise in the Law Courts except those qualified in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The qualification was a general one for all the Courts, and it undoubtedly seemed to be the proper system to have one door through which all solicitors should be admitted. In another portion of the Bill, however, other modes of admission were provided. He was informed that they were eight or nine in number, and he wished to know how matters really stood; because, on the first blush, it seemed to him that the exceptions were not reasonable ones. In order to elicit an answer to his queries, he would move the omission of the first part of the clause.
  Amendment moved to leave out "From and after the passing of this Act no person shall be admitted as a Law Agent in Scotland except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) for giving him an opportunity of making such a statement as was desiderated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon). According to the system which had prevailed for a very long time in Scotland, solicitors were not admitted over the whole country by the decree of a Superior Court, but were admitted by the Courts in their several localities; and their privileges as regarded practice related solely to those Courts, whether superior or inferior, by which they were admitted. There was thus one body of solicitors before the Supreme Court in Edinburgh, another body of practitioners in Glasgow, a third in Perth, and so on. Another feature of the system was that in the various localities there existed Societies having exclusive privileges. In Edinburgh there were the two Societies of the Writers to the Signet and the Solicitors before the Supreme Court, and they had the exclusive privilege of practising before the Court of Session. In Glasgow, again, there was the Faculty of Procurators, with the exclusive privilege of practising before the Sheriff Courts of Lanark, and with the power of admitting practitioners. There were other bodies having corresponding powers in other parts of the country. The

  543
  general and main object of the present measure was to put an end to this system of partial admissions to practise before particular Courts, and to substitute a general admission by the Superior Court in Edinburgh for the whole country. Its second object was to terminate all existing monopolies, so that the right to practise would no longer depend on the will of local Societies, and these Societies would no longer have the right to say who was qualified. The 19th clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had referred, did not continue any of the monopolies in question. It proposed—and it was a proposition merely, for there was an Amendment on the Paper which might or might not be adopted—that the Court in Edinburgh should be allowed to accept a certificate of admission to any of the Societies referred to—they were nine in number—as equivalent to a certificate of qualification and fitness from examiners appointed under the Act, provided they were satisfied that the conditions of admission were such as to show a satisfactory qualification. It was proposed to empower the Court to accept certificates of examination by the Society of the Writers to the Signet as equivalent to an examination by their own examiners, if—and only if—the Court should be satisfied that the examination of the Society was sufficient to afford qualification and guarantee to practise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CRAUFURDmoved the insertion of words, the effect of which was to take away from the Writers to the Signet the exclusive privilege of signing writs and summonses.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he entirely approved of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr. The Lord Advocate had stated that the object of the Bill was to destroy all monopolies. He (Mr. M'Laren) agreed that it was desirable to effect that object, and this Amendment was to destroy a small monopoly which now existed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEhoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. He admitted that a great deal might be said against Writers to the Signet enjoying the exclusive privilege of signing writs which passed the Signet, but that was not the proper occasion to deal with the subject. To do
  544
  it now, without its having been under the consideration of the body interested, would be a somewhat objectionable proceeding. He quite appreciated the views of his hon. and learned Friend, and he should be prepared to give them favourable consideration at a fitting period; but he did not think the present was the occasion. It was a sentimental grievance; and he believed there was no difficulty in getting the summons signed by a brother practitioner; but there was a feeling of sentiment in asking for a favour of this kind, and he should be glad to consider the matter at a future and more appropriate time.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, though it might be a sentimental grievance, the Lord Advocate had said nothing to show that it ought to be retained.
  MR. MILLERhoped the Amendment would be persisted on. If it was a sentimental grievance, it would be easier to redress than a real grievance.
  MR. ORR EWING,on the other hand, hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he felt the force of the argument, that he had not given Notice of his Amendment; but he hoped that some other opportunity would be given him of raising the question. He should withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Provisions as to the qualification of applicants or admission as Law Agents in future. Cases in which service for the term of three years will suffice).
  LORD ELCHOproposed as an Amendment, in page 2, line 25, after the word "Agent," to add the words, "or sheriff clerk." The object was to compensate the sheriff clerk when an alteration was made imposing new duties upon him.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that was not a matter to which he attached much importance, and he was inclined to give way to the feeling of the Committee. It was quite true that heretofore sheriff clerks had been permitted to receive apprentices; but he did not think it was a fitting training school for solicitors, who would have to practise in a Superior Court.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the present proposal would work very great hardship and inconvenience to the sheriff clerks. They would be deprived of a source of emolument without any corresponding compensation. He therefore proposed that the present sheriff clerks should have the privilege allowed them.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, on the Report, he would bring up words to carry out the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  MR. CRAUFURDmoved as an Amendment, in page 3, line 11, after "Agents," to add as a separate paragraph—
  "A person who either before or after the passing of this Act shall for three years have been in practice as a notary public, or shall for five years have been a clerk to and engaged under the superintendence of a notary public."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it applied to notaries public for all future time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Inland Fisheries of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

  LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND) (JUDGES) BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to reduce the number of Judges in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLAD-STONE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, relating to Upper Gully River Drainage District, Queen's County, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 183.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.