Commons Sitting of 2 August 1877

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For South Shropshire, v. Lieutenant Colonel Edward Corbett, Chiltern Hundreds; for North Northamptonshire, v. Eight Honble. George Ward Hunt, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading— Winter Assize Act (1876) Extension* [276].
Report of Select Committee—Public Health (Ireland). [No. 384.]
Committee discharged—Referred to the Committee of Selection—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hyde, &c.)* [263].
Committee—Report—Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance [229]; Sheriff Courts (Scotland) [209]; Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment * [264].
Considered as amended—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [260]; Canal Boats * [247].
Third Reading—Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters)* [257]; Crown Office* [241]; Trade Marks * [242]; Treasury Chest Fund * [253]; Superannuation (Mercantile Marine Fund Officers) * [224], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  BOARD OF PUBLIC "WORKS (IRELAND)—THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state the nature of the inquiry he has undertaken to institute into the office of the Board of Works in Ireland; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Treasury Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Department in 1872?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I cannot give the House the precise terms of the Reference; but the general nature of the inquiry was indicated in my remarks in Committee of Supply on the 13th of July. The Report of the Treasury Committee of 1872 deals almost entirely with the details of the distribution and arrangement of the work of the office. It is to some extent of a confidential character, and on that account there would be some objection to laying it on the Table. But, apart from this, I think there would be no advantage in now publishing it at a moment when further inquiries are about to be undertaken.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS CLERK — MR. RICHARD ARCHDEACON.—QUESTION.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House the circumstances under which Richard Archdeacon, formerly Petty Sessions Clerk for Mitchelstown, ceased to fill that office; whether Archdeacon resigned or was dismissed; if it is true that a sum of money, amounting to more than £100, received by him in fines that were imposed from time to time at the Petty Sessions of Mitchelstown and the Petty Sessions of two other districts in which also Archdeacon served as clerk, was accounted for by him; and, if it is true that since Archdeacon ceased to fill the office of Petty Sessions Clerk, he has been awarded a pension; and, if so, what is the amount of said pension?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Mr. Archdeacon was obliged to retire
    322
    from his office, having become mentally and physically incapable of performing his duties, and was awarded a pension of £33 5s. a-year on the recommendation of the magistrates of the district. All moneys received by him up to the time at which he ceased to act as Petty Sessions clerk were duly accounted for by him.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—TRANSMISSION OF SPEECHES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware of the great delay which has taken place in the telegraphing of important speeches made in Parliament and elsewhere to the London and provincial newspapers; and if any steps will be taken to avoid similar delay in future?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he was not aware that great delays had occurred in the telegraphing of important speeches, either to or from London. No doubt, delays might occur when there was unusual pressure of business or in unfavourable conditions of the weather; but nothing had occurred calling for special measures to avoid delays in future.

  ARMY—MILITIA AND LINE SERGEANTS.—QUESTION.
  SIR RICHARD GILPINasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Sergeant of Militia should receive one shilling per diem less pay than the Sergeant of the Line when they are all located together in the same Brigade Depot, and are liable to be called upon to perform similar duties; and, whether it is proposed to remedy this distinction?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he did not admit the assumption contained in the Question was quite correct. Line sergeants received—daily pay, 2s. 1d.; if re-engaged, 1d. extra; if they had served two years as sergeants, 2d. extra; if they were on the married roll, and were not provided with quarters, 6d.; and if they were not provided with rations, 6d.; making a total of 3s. 4d. When Militia sergeants were employed in Militia duties only, they received daily pay, 2s.; and their present rate of lodging money was 4d., making 2s. 4d.; but Militia sergeants employed on general

  323
  military duties would for the future receive—daily pay, 2s.; lodging money, if married, 6d.; free rations, or an allowance of 3d.; making a total of 2s. 9d. About 25 per cent of the Militia sergeants would be employed on these general military duties.

  INDIA—ACCOUNTS OF THE WAR OFFICE AND INDIA OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If any arrangements have now been made to provide for the settlement of the accounts in dispute between the War Office and the India Office, and to determine a basis for the home charges on account of troops serving in India for the present and future years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that an arrangement was in progress, with regard to which he hoped to be able to lay Papers on the Table before the close of the Session for the appointment of a tribunal of arbitration, to which both the Imperial Government and the Indian Government would be ready to submit this question.

FISHERIES—USE OF DYNAMITE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will be able to lay upon the Table the Reports of the Fishery Commissioners as to the use of Dynamite in Destroying Fish before the end of the Session?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not had time to look over the Papers he has received. This Report was delivered on the 24th of July.

  REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND)—A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, considering the number of uncompared and consequently comparatively unreliable documents existing in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, as shown by the Returns lately presented to Parliament, he will cause a searching inquiry to be made into the whole system under which
  324
  deeds are registered in Ireland; and, if he consents to such inquiry, how soon is there a probability of its being commenced?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government intend to cause an inquiry to be undertaken both into the law and the system, the machinery, and the operation of the existing machinery for the registration of deeds in Ireland. That inquiry is considered to be of so great importance that it will be undertaken by a Royal Commission; and I hope the names of the gentlemen to be appointed on that Commission will be shortly announced.

  ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT—THE ROYAL WARRANT.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in consideration of the important bearing on the future condition of the Army of certain provisions comprised in the comprehensive scheme to be embodied in the proposed Royal Warrant for Promotion and Retirement, he would take measures to lay upon the Table of the House a Draft of the proposed Warrant before the House is asked to consider the question?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, reminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Royal Warrant was an Act of Prerogative, and said it would be impossible to submit the Royal Warrant to the discussion of the House before it was signed by Her Majesty. The Royal Warrant went into a number of questions not connected with the subject of promotion and retirement. He had laid before the House the substance of all that would be in the Warrant in connection with promotion and retirement without the formal and technical language of the Warrant itself. He did not think that the House would have any difficulty in discussing the question.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in connection with the Army Retirement scheme, or otherwise, any steps will be now taken to provide for the employment of officers retiring from the Army in organising and promoting the efficiency of the Volunteer Forces, and thus meet the want of skilled training noticed in official Reports?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he would readily take any steps calculated to increase the efficiency of the Volunteer force, but at the same time, the Force was a peculiar one, and it would not do to impose officers on the corps against their will; but, with their assent, he should be glad to appoint retired Army officers to Volunteer commands, and there were provisions in the Army Warrant to facilitate such appointments. It would be a matter for consideration in each particular case whether such an appointment should be made or not.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—ALLEGED RUSSIAN CRUELTIES—COLONEL WELLESLEY'S REPORT.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Colonel Wellesley, as stated in the public journals, had addressed a Report to Her Majesty's Government categorically denying the cruelties attributed to the Russian soldiers by the Turks; and, whether Sir Arnold Kemball has not addressed a similar communication to Mr. Layard; and, whether Lord Derby has received any communication from the Russian Ambassador to the effect that, if the British Government desires that its interests shall not be compromised by aggression on the part of Russia against Egypt, it should use its influence to prevent Russia being forced, by the open hostilities of the Vice Regal Government, to protect itself by such aggression; and what Reply, if any, has been made to such Communication?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Report from Colonel Wellesley here referred to is contained in the Papers published under the heading—"Turkey, No. 24," which were recently laid before Parliament. With regard to the second Question, I have to state that no such communication has been received.

LOCAL TAXATION—GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL RATES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that contributions by the Treasury in lieu of local rates in respect of Government property are not applied to the purposes
  326
  for which they are made; and, if so, whether he will, before further contributions are made, take such steps as will insure the proper application of the money?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As the hon. Member's Question is worded in a way that may give rise to misapprehension, some explanation is perhaps necessary. The Government, in accordance with the engagement given to Parliament, contribute to the local rates of parishes containing Government property, and then cause the Poor Law auditors to be regularly informed of every contribution paid, so that they may see that the contributions are in all cases properly accounted for. The Government contributions are in respect of all local burdens; they are calculated on the fair rateable value of the Government property; and it is the wish and intention of the Government that the contributions should be so allocated by the parishes receiving them as actually to go to the relief of every local burden, in the proportion which the Government property bears to the rest of the property in the parish. It has, however, in one or two cases come to the knowledge of the Government that a parish to whose poor rates a contribution has been given on the rateable value of the Government property, has excluded that rateable value when calculating the parishes' contribution, according to rateable value to the county or borough, in respect of the county or borough charges chargeable on its poor rate. The parishes so acting have disregarded the spirit and intention of the Government's contributions to them, and as soon as the Government became aware of the fact, they introduced into the Valuation Bill clauses providing an effectual remedy for the abuse, by requiring that the rateable value on which the Government contributions to any parish are calculated shall be taken into account in calculating and distributing all local charges in regard to such parish. Owing to the pressure of other business that Bill has, unfortunately, to stand over till another Session. But if the Government should in the meantime have reason to believe in any case that a parish receiving a contribution in respect of its local burdens fails to apply it in relief of the several local burdens in respect of which it is expressely given, and alone given,

  327
  the Treasury will not hesitate to withhold further contributions from the parish so acting.
  MR. CHILDERSasked whether it would not be possible to prosecute the parish in such cases?
  MR. W. H. SMITHfeared that it was hardly possible to institute prosecution, inasmuch as the present law did not require the parish to return Government property.

  CRIMINAL LAW—COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, At what period of his imprisonment the propriety of continuing the sentence of penal servitude of a prisoner is brought under his notice; whether the case of every prisoner is considered at the end of fifteen years; and, whether there is any exception in the case of prisoners convicted before a certain period or in the case of prisoners sentenced to death whose sentences have been commuted to penal servitude for life?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the rule laid down by his Predecessor, Lord Aberdare, as to prisoners sentenced before 1864 was that their sentences were revised at the end of 15 years. The rule now was that convicts under life sentences, whether imposed by the Crown in lieu of capital punishments or by the Judges, were not released in any case in less than 15 years. Convicts were made to understand that they would not be liberated at any special period, but that every case would be considered and decided upon its own merits. As a matter of practice releases occurred at periods ranging from 15 to 20 years, depending on the facts and circumstances, and the general character and conduct of the convict during his confinement.
  MR. BUTTwished to know whether there was any rule as to the revision of sentences after a certain period?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is necessary at the end of 20 years that the Director of Convict Prisons should send up every case to the Home Secretary.

  TURKEY—THE TREATIES—THE DARDANELLES.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drum-
  328
  mond Wolff), If he intended to bring on the following Motion, which stood in his name to-morrow:
  "To move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, stating that, while approving the neutrality observed by Her Majesty's Government in Eastern affairs, this House is of opinion that the present position of those affairs renders it incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to take steps for the preservation and maintenance of existing Treaty stipulations regulating the navigation of the Danube, and the right of passage through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles? "
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: When I put down the Motion for Friday, I hoped to arrange with the Government to obtain a day next week. I have not been able, owing to circumstances which have since arisen, to communicate with the Government; and owing to the news received from Turkey, as well as in consequence of private information, I shall have to consider what course I should now take, as I hope to obtain a day from the Government in case I should go on with my Motion. If not, I shall endeavour to find an opportunity myself; but I do not intend to bring on the Motion to-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE —OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—NOTICES.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I wished to put a Question to the Leader of the House of which I gave him Notice, but he has requested me to defer it. I therefore give Notice that I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention, as Leader of the House, to propose any means by which this House may mark and record its sense of the great inconvenience to which it was yesterday and the day before put by the obstructive conduct of a very small minority—about one-fiftieth part of the Members in attendance? I will put the Question on any day which the right hon. Gentleman may indicate.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that after the Notice given by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he would on an early day ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as Leader of the House, he intended to propose or adopt any method whereby the unprotected and independent Members of that House might be protected from the constant interruptions to which they were sub-

  329
  jected while endeavouring to address the Chair on the subject-matter before the House, and also whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in view of the practice which had lately been common of originating discussions on points of Order when Members were addressing themselves to the subject before the House—intended to adopt any means for preventing this practice?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 229.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) should, either at this stage or some previous stage of the Bill, have stated the grounds on which he asked the House to continue this Board of Education for Scotland for another year, because if the Board was simply to be continued under the present Act, he should be able to show very clearly that there was nothing for the Board to do; and if at some future period it was resolved to constitute a new Board for Scotland, with new powers, the questions should be considered when that Board was proposed. He would ask the House to listen for a short time to the history and duties of this Board. When the Education Bill for Scotland left that House there was no provision in it for such a Board as now existed; but in "another place," where they did not seem to entertain the same confidence in the governing powers of the people of Scotland, a proposal was introduced for a Board for the purpose of organizing the school supply for Scotland. It was said that, with a view to the greater efficiency and convenience and the organization of school boards, an Education Board should be appointed. Its duties were to settle the school supply throughout Scotland, as well in individual cases of parishes as in the joint parishes where joint schools were
  330
  agreed upon as more convenient than special schools for each parish. The Board was invited by the Act to make proposals for raising and maintaining the educational standard of Scotland, and they were to decide any question or dispute between school and schoolmaster where there appeared to a school board to be a necessity for the retirement of the master. For the purpose of carrying out these duties it was provided that the Board should exist for three years, at the end of which time its existence should determine; but Her Majesty's Common Council had the power to continue it for two years further. It was contemplated that the whole of the work would be accomplished by the Board in three years; but in case it should not, power was taken to continue it for an additional period. That additional period would expire in the course of a few days, and hence it was proposed to continue the Board for another year under the provisions of the Bill now before the House. The Board was constituted, and got to work according to the provisions of the Act. It had to make a yearly Report to Parliament, and there were now upon the Table of the House four annual Reports, by which they might judge how the work had been performed. According to the first Report, the Board had considered the proposals of 398 boards, and settled them; in the second Report—for 1874— they disposed of the proposals of 355 boards. In 1875 they dealt with 72 proposals; and last year they dealt with 94—making altogether to the beginning of this year a number which left only 65 boards to be considered; so that, assuming the Board had continued to work this year at the same rate as last, there would not at this moment be more than a dozen proposals left to be dealt with. Then, as regarded the recommendation of any proposals to be submitted for the maintenance and elevation of the standard of higher education in Scotland, the Board made a Report in 1873, in which they submitted to the Privy Council certain proposals. He would not refer to them in detail, but he was entitled to infer that their alterations on this subject had been exhausted; because in their subsequent Reports they had made no additional proposals, and the other day they simply referred to the proposals they made in 1873, to which

  331
  they said they still adhered. One of the remaining points over which they had power was with regard to the retiring schoolmasters. He had examined the Report for any statement of the work under this head, and although those Reports were very full with regard to the amount of the work which the Board stated it had done, there was no reference to the work which the Board had accomplished in this direction. Therefore, he inferred that these matters were chiefly settled by the school boards themselves. Certainly, five years had now well passed since the Act came into force, and they therefore had reason to suppose that all the inefficient schoolmasters had retired, and that this part of the work had been accomplished. Most of the work of the Board, therefore, being accomplished, the few matters of detail which remained ought to be accomplished by the Privy Council Department in London. The proposal now was that the Scotch Board should be continued for another year, at a cost of some £5,000, and the sole work remaining before them was to consider a very few proposals by school boards in Scotland which might have been considered and resolved upon before this time. It was quite true that several cases had occurred of school boards having gone to the Education Board for advice, and the Board had not been niggardly. In many cases that advice had not been adopted; but it seemed to him it would have been quite as well if the Board had attended to the duties actually imposed upon it rather than giving gratuitous advice, which comparatively few, so far as he could find, of the boards had adopted. He had also observed that many of the school boards had referred for advice to gentlemen of standing—Professors and others—who had acted as umpires for them; and if that course was desirable he should say that gentlemen connected with the Universities, and conversant with educational matters, could be found in the various localities who would attend to those matters quite as well as the Education Board itself at its offices in Edinburgh. But it was not specially for the purpose of saving this £5,000 that he objected to the passing of this Bill. He objected to the Education Board altogether, because it was an interference with local self-government in Scotland. The manner in which the
  332
  local boards in Scotland had carried out their work showed that they could do very well without the supervision of the Board elected under the Act, and the proposal now was to create a Board with new powers of interference with the local government of Scotland, a course which was extremely objectionable. He did not wish to make any special complaint about the Board; but he could not help referring to one or two cases which had been specially brought under his notice. One of them the Board itself referred to in its Report for last year for the purpose of justifying its action in the matter, and it would give the House an opportunity of judging the nature of the interference which this Board in Edinburgh was entitled to carry out in Scotland. In two parishes in Aberdeenshire a proposal was made of a joint-school in a particular country district. The school boards arranged to buy the site, and the proprietor of the ground agreed to give the site; but when the title deeds were submitted to the Board, it was found that the condition was made in it that there should be no religious services whatever in this school, with the exception of the teaching of a Sabbath school. The boards were not influenced by sectarian motives, but they objected to the spending of the Board money in the purchase of a site with such a limited condition; and, in the second place, very great difficulty would arise in determining what were religious services. Under those circumstances the boards resolved to look out for another site, which was found, and the two boards considered the second site would be equally convenient. The distance between the two was not much over a quarter of a mile. They obtained the consent of the proprietor of this new piece of ground to give an absolute title without any such conditions as were stipulated in the other case. The proprietor of the first piece of ground, who was the Chairman of the two school boards, had a correspondence with the school board in Edinburgh, whose Secretary came down to see the ground, and then the Education Department in London was recommended to give no money for the second site, and the sole reason assigned was that, in the opinion of the Secretary, this site was not quite so convenient as the first. The whole of the members of the two boards, with the exception of the Chairman,

  333
  were of opinion that the one site would be equally as good as the other, and equally convenient; but in this case we see that this opinion was overruled by the Secretary of the Board on his making a flying visit and consulting with the proprietor of the ground on the spot. There was a second case in which the school board of a parish had made arrangements for supplying the school wants of the parish in such a way as was acceptable to all the members of the Board except one. This member entered into correspondence with the Board at Edinburgh. The Board sent down some official not responsible to that House, so far as he could understand, or to any one in particular, who, after making a flying visit, in the same way overturned the decision of the school board, and fixed upon an arrangement which compelled this parish to join with another parish and to incur an unnecessary expense of £700. Advantageous arrangements were thus overturned by the flying visit of an Inspector in Edinburgh, who came down in the afternoon and returned and reported to the Education Board, and overturned the opinion of the school board, who were certainly the best judges, and upsetting all the economical and judicial arrangements they had made. The school board of Dundee, he thought, would be admitted to be composed of the best educationalists and business men of the country, that could make such arrangements as were no doubt most advantageous for Dundee, but they found their plans were obstructed by the Education Board in Edinburgh; and in consequence of the obstruction met with there they had to come to the Education Department of the Privy Council, which found a school board so highly qualified as the school board of Dundee being obstructed and overruled by the Board in Edinburgh, who could not know so much about the business of the Board as the Board itself. It would be seen what discouragement there was to gentlemen in the way of putting themselves to the trouble in carrying out the work provided for the school board. He might refer to the strong disposition the Board or its Secretary manifested to correspond with dissenting members of school boards. In several cases which had come to his knowledge correspondence was carried on with individual members of school
  334
  boards not satisfied with the opinion of the majority, and dispeace and tumults were fomented in the school boards because the Education Board in some of these cases supported the minority, and enabled them to obstruct the majority. He did not complain of the individual members of the board. If they could not in the cases he had mentioned visit the locality themselves they sent down an official, who made his report, and practically overruled the local board. It was the system, not the individuals on the Board, he complained of. No doubt many Petitions had come up in favour of the continuance of the Board, but they were almost all, so far as he could recollect, in favour of a permanent board with large powers, and the ground on which it was demanded had been the ground that the higher education of Scotland was rapidly deteriorating. Others, more cautious in their statements, said the tendency was towards deterioration. This was a serious charge, and he had put himself to much trouble to ascertain the facts in support of this assertion. Those who made the assertion did not support it by facts. The statement had been made in several of the Reports of the Education Board itself, and yet the same Reports contained what he presumed were facts which clearly disproved the statement that there was any falling off or degradation in the standard of education in Scotland. He hoped the House would indulge him in stating a few facts with regard to the progress of education in Scotland of late years. In the first place, as regarded the teachers, he found that in 1867 there were 2,161 certificated teachers in Scotland, and that in 1876 the number had increased to 4,140; and that fact alone showed that the statements which were frequently made on this subject were of a very gratuitous description. With reference to the capacity of the schoolmasters of Scotland, he had no hesitation in saying that at the present time they were possessed of greater power as regarded teaching than at any previous time in the history of the country. The emoluments which they received were not a bad test, and he found that these emoluments had been steadily increased. In 1874 they averaged, as far as male teachers were concerned, £115; but in 1875 they had increased to £120, and in 1876 to £129.

  335
  With regard to the provision for the future, the Education Board had said that the training of the pupil teachers should be more intellectual than formerly; but, strange to say, the Board proposed to ignore scientific subjects, and to confine educational training to classical subjects and to ancient and modern languages. Turning to the students themselves, he found that in 1867 the number of passes in elementary subjects—that was to say, in reading, writing, and arithmetic—was 264,000; while in 1873 it had increased to 370,000, and in 1876 to 560,160. As regarded elementary education, therefore, he did not think anyone could deny that very satisfactory progress had been made. With respect to the specific subjects for which the Education Department paid specially, he had ascertained that in 1874 3,338 students had passed in such subjects; while in 1875 the number had increased to 10,053, and in 1876 to 14,368. That was real evidence of the satisfactory progress made in Scotland in the matter of higher education. Again, if they turned to the particular subjects, and inquired what the passes were in, they would fail to discover that there had been any falling off in the education. In 1875, for example, the number instructed in Latin was 7,239, while in 1876 it had increased to 8,320. In Greek, again, the number had increased from 420 in 1875 to 479 in 1876; and in French from 4,410 to 5,260. One, therefore, was at a loss to comprehend upon what ground it was insinuated that during the last two years there had been a falling off in the higher education of Scotland. He thought that a considerable amount of misunderstanding existed with reference to the duties of the Board of Education in Edinburgh and the Scotch Department of the Privy Council in London. For himself, he objected to having education in Scotland controlled either by a Board in Edinburgh or by a Department in London; but as some misapprehension appeared to exist as to the real nature of the control which was exercised, he would endeavour to explain what the position of those two Bodies really was. Parliament voted a certain sum of money for education in Scotland. That money was applied to promote elementary education, and a certain sum was paid per scholar for all those who came up to the requirements
  336
  of the Department; but, besides this, the Department paid what it could for specific subjects, and these were ancient and modern languages, English literature, and various sciences, chemistry, physiology, botany, and the like. The Department in London made no prescription as to what the students should be taught, but simply said that if the schoolmaster and the parents of the children arranged that the latter should be taught, and were taught any one of these subjects up to a certain degree of proficiency, a particular sum would be paid for each of the students who attained that proficiency. The school boards and schoolmasters, therefore, had perfect freedom as to what the children should be taught, and that instruction was given which it was thought would be most useful to them in after life. The Board of Education in Edinburgh, however, had its own opinion as to what education should be. In the proposals for a Code which the members of that Board submitted in 1873 they did not embody scientific subjects at all, and he thought this was a point upon which issue ought to be taken, for the Board was still of the same way of thinking. Specific arrangements were made, and specific payments arranged in connection with the teaching of ancient and modern languages, of English literature, and of mathematics; but those scientific subjects which had done so much, to place Scotland in the position she occupied were to be entirely ignored. He confessed he was surprised that the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), who had such an acquaintance with the practical business of life, should have supported such a proposal as this, which he believed to be one of which the majority of the people of Scotland did not approve. He thought it was simply preposterous that the Board should propose to ignore those subjects; and there could be no more conclusive argument against any Department, whether in Edinburgh or London, having the control over education in Scotland, than that such a proposal should have been made, and that after the lapse of two years it should still be adhered to. Well, it was frequently stated that the education given now-a-days in the parish schools was not equal to that which was given formerly. He himself was educated for eight or ten years in a parish school

  337
  in the north-east of Scotland. That school was considered to be one of the best in the district; and, remembering what was taught in it, he had no hesitation in affirming that with the slight exception of some Latin, which was taught to two or three pupils, in a desultory sort of way, there was not a single subject of education in that school which was not now embraced in the elementary Code. He thought the Education Board ought to have an opportunity of showing upon what grounds the statement was made that it had always been the wont to teach in parish schools Latin, mathematics, Greek, and French. Well, he had said that elementary education had been making satisfactory progress, but he was sorry he could not say so much for what he might call the higher secondary education in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman alluded to this point at some length, and after some remarks moved his Amendment, that the House go into Committee on that day three months.
  MR. E. JENKINSrose to say a few words in support of the Resolution just moved by the hon. Member. It was much to be regretted that the Government should have yielded to the fussy agitation which had been got up in Scotland on the subject, and should have assented—most needlessly as he thought—to the continuance of the Education Board for another year. Nothing could more strongly stultify the action of the Government in this matter than the fact—which, he presumed, the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate would both admit—that this policy was being pursued in the teeth of the opinion of the Privy Council. It had been shown that, in the opinion of the Privy Council, the Board was rather an obstruction than an authority. Undoubtedly, when originally instituted it had good work to do; but the objects for which it was created were now done away with. He would not follow his hon. Friend into all the arguments he had used in going into the question he had very properly raised. The Board, if continued, would be continued in the teeth of the general feeling of Scotland and the opinion of the majority of the highest authority on matters of education; and, in the second place, it was an unnecessary burden of £5,000 a-year imposed for the maintenance of an in-
  338
  stitution that was clearly unnecessary. He had carefully read all that had been published by those who had made an appeal to prejudice in favour of the Board, and he confessed he never saw a case supported upon such flimsy grounds. It was argued that secondary education was suffering under the operation of the existing Code, and that the Scotch Department—which, of course, meant the Privy Council in London—was not willing to frame the education system of Scotland upon a Scotch basis, but would in the course of years reduce the level of Scotch education to that of England, instead of levelling up the English to the Scotch standard. But what evidence was there of the truth of that? The Department in London had shown itself perfectly willing to recognize what he might call the historic educational institutions of Scotland, trying to meet and carry on the great educational system which began so far back as the time of John Knox. What was it that they had asked? He did not know. They seemed to have been able to mesmerise a considerable number of people, among others the hon. Member for Glasgow. They had also mesmerised one or two Dukes and Marquesses; and altogether he must say again, looking at the manner in which the movement had been supported and got up, he did not think there ever was a movement which was called a movement of a great national character supported upon such flimsy grounds. The real object was to create in Scotland a Department which should be practically free from the control of that House. He thought no Government would be allowed to bring in a measure which had for its object the establishment of an irresponsible Department. Parliament must have the control, regulation, and supervisions of the action of any Department, whether in Scotland or Ireland, which had charge either of the primary, the secondary, or the higher education of the people. For that ground, if for no other, he felt it was somewhat deplorable that the Government should, in a moment of weakness, and giving way to influence of various kinds which had been brought to bear upon them, have yielded to the attempts being made for the withdrawal from the supervision of this House, and from the control of the Minister respon-

  339
  sible to this House, of all the education of Scotland. Upon that ground, and upon others which he would not go into, he seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Forfarshire.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. James Barclay,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR EDWARD COLEBOOKEsaid, that he was very glad the question had been raised, as he had long thought an opportunity might be afforded to Scotch Members to express their opinions as to the continuance of that Board. He was aware that great pressure had been brought to bear on the Government by Memorials, Petitions, and deputations for the continuance of the Board, and for the establishment of a permanent Board of Education in Scotland. From those views he dissented entirely. He considered that the Education Board had rendered great service to Scotland in putting the Act into operation; and if he thought that their work was complete he should say that the time had arrived when the Board ought to cease its functions, and that any future action with regard to the extension of education should be left to the Education Department. But it was understood that their work was incomplete, and in putting the law into operation had not been completely carried out. Other evidence had been given for its continuance, and, as he understood it, the statement on the part of the Government was that the Board should be continued for that purpose; and that, in the meantime, the consideration of the Government should be given to those other questions which were raised at the same time by the Memorials and Petitions upon that question. He, for one, was quite content with the continuation of the Board for a short time, upon the clear understanding that neither the Government nor the House were to consider themselves in any way committed to the state of education in Scotland, upon which the Board of Education had been founded. Now,
  340
  in the first place, it was said that it was necessary to have a Board for the purpose of controlling the local boards throughout the country. He thought it was very much to be regretted, and he thought it was very extraordinary that among the charges made against those local boards was one that they had shown too much zeal, and that they had given too much attention to the subject of higher education. He considered that in the last few years during which the Act had been in operation they had rendered good service to Scotland, and that they ought not to endorse the charge against them, and particularly that charge of degrading the secondary education in Scotland. With regard to the question of higher education, he thought that there was a great misunderstanding upon the subject. He did not believe in the fear which had been expressed by the Ministerialists. He did not wish to revert to past times. He thought that the Education Act had rendered a great service to the country by placing the elementary schools upon an efficient footing, and he did not think that higher education would suffer in consequence. Undoubtedly, there was a tendency in the present system of education which led to Latin and Greek not being so exclusively cultivated as they were in former days. Other questions had come to the front—such as physical science and modern languages—and he tendered his humble thanks to the Education Department for the exertions they had made in giving free scope to those branches of education. Again, he would say with regard to their local schools that he could not deny a certain truth in the allegation that in the demand for teaching of the lower branches there was less time given to the higher branches, but he considered that they ought to rejoice at that. When the leeway in this respect had been made up, then the higher branches might have their full sway. He would only make one remark with regard to the secondary subjects, because he thought that the objects of a memorial which he had the honour to send in on the part of a certain Association for the promotion of secondary education was somewhat misunderstood on the occasion of the deputation being received. He only knew what had taken place from the public papers. The Duke of Richmond and

  341
  Gordon having mentioned him by name, went on to say that there were some Gentlemen who knew a great deal of the matter, and that they had rendered due justice to the Education Department. These statements were perfectly true; but the noble Duke had failed to say that those Gentlemen had put in a word to point out the danger under the present system of distribution that these subjects requiring the most labour and the most exertion would not be fairly dealt with. He did not wish to draw a distinction between ancient languages and modern languages and scientific subjects. He wished well to both; and he wished parents to have the choice of both; but he did think that under the action of the Government there was a great power of giving little and superficial teaching. He trusted upon the whole question that the Secretary for the Home Department would stand to the announcement he made last year, that the Government were alive to the importance of the question, and that they would take the earliest opportunity in their power of dealing with the subject.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the opinion of the people of Scotland was that the Board should continue to exist. He would not attempt to make any defence of the Board, neither would he occupy the time of the House by entering into the details which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had put before them, but would merely refer to one point. He had mentioned a case in which a school board, after having selected a site for a school, had changed their mind when they found that the proprietor of the ground in question had determined to introduce a restriction, to the effect that there should be no religious services conducted there on Sundays, except those of the Sunday school. Well, if the hon. Member had been as well acquainted with the Education Act as he was with the details of that case, he would know that no school board had the right to use those premises for religious purposes on Sundays, and he therefore attached very little importance to that matter. Then in regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Dundee, regarding the proceedings of the school board of that town. Having visited Dundee at the request of the Board of Education, he was willing to
  342
  add his testimony to that of the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Forfarshire as to the excellent character and the energy and efforts put forth by the members of the school board of Dundee; but when the hon. Member complained of the action of the Board of Education in regard to the proposal of the school board to borrow money, he forgot that their application was for an amount in excess of the sum they were entitled to. They asked for authority to borrow £20,000, when they were only entitled to £12,500, and in those circumstances the Board of Education could not be fairly charged with obstruction for resisting that which was illegal. Then the hon. Member had spoken of the number of certificated teachers as an evidence that education generally had not deteriorated; but he had forgotten that certificates for teaching in a public school did not offer the slightest guarantee that those teachers were able to deal with the higher subjects. The schools of 1866 were not inspected; they were not buildings entitled to receive grants, nor taught by certificated teachers, and, therefore, could not be compared with those of 1876. He thought it only necessary to state that there was a further grave misapprehension in the minds of many hon. Members as to the prominent place which the Board of Education had always given to the higher branches which were usually taught in their best class of parish schools. Those were Latin, Greek, mathematics, and the modern languages. Well, the only reason why the Board of Education did not attach as much importance to the teaching of science in the elementary schools as some of his friends would desire was simply that for children of 13 years of age the Board of Education was under the impression that the minds of such children were more likely to be developed by the acquisition of knowledge of Latin, Greek, or mathematics than they would be if they were to be devoted to physical geography or domestic economy, or any similar branches, which were calculated more to exercise the memory than to develop the mental powers. But nothing was farther from the wish of the Board of Education than to put anything like a slight upon anyone of the special subjects. He had nothing to say for or against the Bill; but he hoped the Government would see their

  343
  way to the establishment of a system which should be the means not only of making elementary education universal, but of placing instruction in the higher branches within the reach of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The whole purpose of the Bill is to continue in office the present Board of Education in Edinburgh for one year. It is not expedient that I should enter into any detailed discussion of the numerous and important educational questions that have been raised in the course of the debate, and for this reason—that all these matters form part of a great question—namely, whether there shall be any, and if so, what new arrangements made for conducting not only elementary but higher education in Scotland for the years to come. That is a matter which must necessarily come under the consideration of the Government shortly, and it is a matter which occupies the minds of the people of Scotland at this moment; and I should not like in this place to say anything to prejudice a question that must ultimately be determined according to the feelings of the people of Scotland and their Representatives. I am aware there are Members of this House, and also constituents elsewhere, who hold very different opinions on the subject; but the fact that there is so great a difference of opinion in a matter of so much importance to the interests of education in Scotland, is of itself a reason why all these questions should be thoroughly sifted and carefully attended to before any decision is arrived at with reference to them. The Bill before the House is promoted by the Government for this reason, in the first place, that the work of the Education Board is not yet completed; and, in the second place, because there are many who are vitally interested who contend that it ought to be maintained, and opinion on these subjects is really so strong that I think it would be doing violence to that feeling if we did not give some effect to it. I have already stated that I have no wish to say or do anything to prejudice the question. There is a great difference of opinion on the subject, and there is a great deal of influential opinion on the one side and on the other. Under these circumstances, I trust the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, if they were to go to a division he should feel it to be his duty to vote with the Government, who, under the circumstances, could not have done otherwise than recommend that the Scotch Board of Education should be re-appointed for another year. But if the question before them were not that, but whether the Scotch Board of Education should be re-appointed permanently, he, for one, should have agreed strongly with the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay). That discussion, though short, would, he was sure, be productive of great good in Scotland, if for nothing else than for having elicited from the hon. Member for Forfar, who spoke for a very large portion of the farming interest of the north-east district, a statement to which it had been a pleasure to listen. As to the differences between the school boards and the Board of Education to which the hon. Member had alluded he (Mr. Grant Duff) knew nothing, but with the rest of the speech he heartily agreed. Nothing was less true than to say that the higher education in Scotland was declining. It was steadily advancing; but what was happening was, that the people of Scotland were giving every year a wider, and, if he might say so, a wiser meaning to the phrase "higher education " than was given to it by those old-fashioned educationists who identified higher education with Latin, Greek, and mathematics. Though he agreed generally on Scotch questions with the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), he disagreed with all he said as to the un-fitness of children of 13 for elementary instruction in science. He (Mr. Grant Duff) hoped to see the day when in every school in Scotland there would be some provision for elementary instruction in science. He thought the minds of young children would be more cultivated by things which they could see and be brought into contact with than by the abstractions of grammar; and he thought that experience in Scotland was more and more tending to make that the opinion of the people. He would press on the Home Secretary the promise which he made a short time before, when a deputation waited upon him with respect to endowed schools in Scotland. Scotch elementary education was going on exceedingly well, and he was sure it was in perfectly safe hands, but secondary

  345
  education was very far from going on well. They had large endowments which were at this moment running waste; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, with so powerful a majority behind him, and with the assistance of Scotch Members on the other side, would do a most wise thing for Scotland if next year he grappled with the very difficult and important question of improving secondary education.
  MR. YEAMANsaid, he agreed with the clear statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke); but with regard to the difference between the school board of Dundee and the Education Department, he was a member of the school board at that time. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) had stated that the Board wanted a larger sum than it was in the power of the Department to grant. Well, he dared say it was a large sum at one time, but ultimately they got the sum they wanted, and in a short time afterwards it was expended on schools. They had a system of schools in Dundee under the board which would bear comparison with any other board schools in Scotland. They had on the board men of the highest culture, refinement, and educational qualifications, and no board conducted its business better than did the board of Dundee. Another difference which arose was that they wanted to have the money repaid in 50 years. That was generally the case in England, and the Dundee board could not understand why the Education Board of Scotland should give them a less number of years than was generally allowed over England. He presented a Petition in that House against the course taken by the Education Board. He was quite willing that the Board should continue for another year, and it was useless for him or any other Member to contend against its continuance. The Board had done good service in the past, and he hoped it would do good service in the year to come, and when it came to an end he hoped the education of Scotland would be left to the school boards throughout the country, who were quite competent to attend to it.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion, as his purpose had been attained by the discussion which had taken place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  [BILL 209.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Appointment of salaried sheriffs substitute vested in Her Majesty.)
  MR. LEITHsaid, there had been some reason to think that a foregone conclusion had been arrived at in regard to this Bill, and that due consideration would not be given to Amendments. But that impression had been removed, and he approached the subject in full confidence that the Amendments proposed would receive a fair attention. The clause had reference to the appointment of sheriffs substitute. The Crown would, under this Bill, have the power of appointing them instead of the sheriffs, a provision which all approved of. But the House would see that an invidious distinction would occur with respect to those sheriffs substitute who were now exercising their judicial functions, compared with those who would be subsequently appointed. It was supposed that questions might arise which would prejudicially affect the status of the existing sheriffs substitute. He had an Amendment to provide against such difficulties arising, and to place the present judicial officers in the same position, to give them the same status and relative precedence as those who might be appointed afterwards. He therefore moved in page 1, line 14, after "Secretary of State," to add—
  "Every person now holding the salaried office of sheriff substitute shall he deemed to have been appointed in like manner."
  There was a precedent for the course which he asked the House to adopt. In 34 & 35 Vict. c. 69, which took from Lord Lieutenants of counties certain appointments, and transferred them to the Crown, the same words occurred which he now asked should be added to the

  347
  clause. He trusted the Home Secretary would see that he was asking nothing but what was reasonable.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that if he thought the Amendment proposed was necessary to effect the purpose in view, he should not object to the addition of the words to the clause, but it appeared to him that they were unnecessary. He did not think the difference of status which the hon. Member apprehended was possible. The present sheriffs substitute, if the Bill passed into law, would occupy the same rank, be under the same rules, be subject to dismissal only in the same manner, and have the same precedence beyond their own Courts as any person who might be appointed after the passing of the Bill. He should be very sorry if it were otherwise. With regard to the precedent referred to, there were in that case some more or less substantial benefits which it was then necessary to secure; but in the present case there were no practical or other distinctions between the two classes of judges. He would ask his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
  MR. LEITHsaid, that in consequence of the explanation given by the Lord Advocate, he did not see that he ought to persevere, as they had heard from the Lord Advocate what was tantamount to the introduction of the words which he had moved. He therefore begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcalled the attention of the Lord Advocate to what took place on a similar question in regard to the Education Act. The Lord Advocate of that day made an explanation which was assumed to be equal to a provision in a clause, just as the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Leith) had assumed the Lord Advocate's explanation to be equal to his Amendment; but when during this Session he (Mr. Barclay) asked the Lord Advocate a Question on the same point, the Lord Advocate declined to make any statement or explanation on what had been said by his predecessor in office. But he presumed this was not a question of particular consequence.
  MR. MACDONALDasked if a sheriff substitute for the time being, acting in the absence of the sheriff substitute, was also to be appointed by the Crown?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was proposed to leave the appointment of unsalaried sheriff substitutes on the same footing as at present, as there were many cases in which such an appointment was necessary, and in which it would be quite impracticable for the appointment to be made by the Crown.
  MR. M'LARENmoved, in page 1, line 14, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided, That it shall not be lawful to appoint any advocate or any member of any other branch of the legal profession who is of less than five years' standing in his profession."
  The present law fixed three years, but the officers now likely to be appointed were of more responsible rank, and he thought it would be wrong to appoint very young men.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thoroughly concurred in the propriety of this Amendment; but in looking into the Statute Book he found it would be necessary to repeal a provision of an Act of Geo, IV. To give effect to what the hon. Member desired, he would bring up a Proviso at a later stage of the Bill.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was satisfied with this undertaking, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to make a few remarks on the powers now entrusted to Government of not only appointing members of the Legal Profession to fill offices in the Sheriff Courts, but also to pay those officers by salaries not voted by Parliament, but by salaries out of the Consolidated Fund which was not subject to the annual Vote. And as that power was given in a previous Session in another Act, in order to put himself right he would conclude with an Amendment if he thought it necessary. He reminded the Committee that Parliament would now have no power to raise any objection to these appointments, and consequently could not raise any objection even on the Vote for funds to pay the parties. He, therefore, submitted to the Home Secretary that it would be a wise and constitutional thing if he would advise the Lord Advocate to bring up a clause by which that constitutional objection would be obviated, so that Parliament could have

  349
  some control either over the number of these appointments or of their cost.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he might perhaps be permitted to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to this fact—that the Sheriffs Court Bill of 1870 was really designed and was only calculated to enable the Home Secretary to reduce the number of sheriff substitutes, except in the case of a very populous city like Glasgow, where they might be required. The Secretary of State had no power to increase the number of these officers; and practically, therefore, the power given to him to regulate the number was a power to decrease that number when a proper opportunity offered.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcontended that the clause in the Act of 1870 gave the Secretary of State full power to appoint any number of sheriff substitutes he pleased. It gave him, moreover, full power to appoint any number of Courts. The exercise of this power should, however, be subjected to a vote of Parliament.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and gallant Member that there was no Question before the Committee.
  On Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill?"
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had abstained from putting any Amendment on the Paper because he did not desire to delay the progress of the Bill; but he hoped that on the Report the Lord Advocate would bring up a clause that would enable Parliament to control these appointments, as well as their cost. The Consolidated Fund was not subject to the vote of Parliament, and therefore all outlays chargeable to that Fund should be distinctly and specifically sanctioned by Parliament, and no additions or charges made without affording Parliament an opportunity of expressing their opinion thereon.
  MR. RAMSAYthought that the question was one of great importance, and trusted that the Lord Advocate opposite would give it his best consideration. A vacancy had occurred in the course of last autumn in a district of the country where it did not appear to him that there was any great reason for a sheriff substitute being appointed. Within a radius of about 10 miles in the district to which he referred there were seven sheriff sub-
  350
  stitutes, whose joint salaries amounted to £4,074, and the total number of cases tried in their Courts was only 5,800. Now, seeing that in Glasgow anyone of the sheriff substitutes had about on an average upwards of 5,000 cases brought before him annually, there surely could not be within such a limited area as he had referred to any justification for perpetuating so many offices, and he was sorry to learn that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after delaying some months to make the appointment, had at length consented to make it, without any endeavour being made to provide otherwise for the wants of the district. It was very costly for the country to have these gentlemen scattered throughout Scotland in such a manner. He would really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to exercise the power which was conferred upon him by the statute, and take care that unnecessary appointments should not be renewed. In the locality to which he referred, the number of these officers might be reduced without impairing the efficiency of the provision for the administration of justice.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that if the duties of the sheriffs substitute of Scotland were confined exclusively to the determination of civil causes he should agree with every word that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ramsay), but he must remind the Committee that in Scotland the unpaid magistrates were very few, and their jurisdiction was very limited in extent, and therefore all higher offences were taken cognizance of by the sheriff or the sheriff substitute. The latter were, in fact, not only judges in civil causes, but they were resident stipendiaries; and he ventured to say that the administration of criminal justice by these stipendiary magistrates in all cases had given great satisfaction. Wherever they had numerous centres of population, as in the district to which his hon. Friend had referred—namely, that region which was divided to the North and South by the Firth of Forth —when they found a numerous and thriving population, collected in a great number of separate towns and villages, some inland others seaport, it was impossible to estimate the requisite number of sheriffs substitute, simply by taking the sum total of the population, as if they all

  351
  lived in one city. He quite admitted that a much smaller staff would dispose of the whole civil business of that region; but there were many maritime places where it was essential to have a magistrate resident, if not on the spot, at least in the immediate vicinity. Although it was very easy to move a Civil Court from one place to another, it was a very different thing when they required on the spot a magistrate prepared at once to issue warrants upon proper cause shown, and to investigate crime. No doubt the salary assigned to these places was small, and for this reason—that the class of cases to be tried in the Civil Court were of a nature that did not require eminent legal attainments. But, on the other hand, the class of criminal business, and the amount of time required for the discharge of that business, were very considerable, and he thought it was fairly though not over-remunerated by the salary at present provided.
  MR. M'LARENwished to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary. The only objection of any weight which he had ever heard made against giving to the Government the appointment of these Judges was that they might become political appointments. At present the sheriff substitutes were of all kinds of political opinion; but if the Government were to appoint these men for the future because of the political opinions which they entertained, and seeing that they were to be both criminal and civil Judges, he thought it would be a very great evil. If the Home Secretary would express his opinion that such should not be the rule of his Government, it was very likely that other Governments would follow the example. It should be the duty of the Government to select the best man, totally irrespective of his political opinions.
  MR. RAMSAYobserved that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate took exception to his statement of the facts on the ground that the sheriffs substitute were not only employed in civil causes, but had also the criminal jurisdiction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman either was not aware of the fact, or had ignored it, that the number of cases which he gave as coming before these seven sheriffs substitute was the total number of cases of all kinds, including the cri-
  352
  minal, and taking that into account, his remarks were fully justified. At-though the right hon. and learned Gentleman was better able to judge of the qualifications necessary for the office of sheriff, he (Mr. Ramsay) would suggest that the higher the judicial attainments of the gentlemen appointed to that office were, the better satisfied the people of Scotland would be. He thought that if economy could be secured, and at the same time men of higher attainments, it was desirable that they should endeavour to attain that end; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who had the power of reducing the number of these Judges would take an early opportunity of carrying out these views.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Home Secretary if he had no avowal to make in regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren)?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope, as regards the appointments I shall have to make under this or any other measure, that the best men will always be appointed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Tenure of office of salaried sheriffs substitute).
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEmoved, in page 1, line 15, after "sheriff substitute" to insert "or procurator fiscal," the object of the Amendment being to provide that the procurator fiscal should only be removable from office by the Secretary of State. He wished this Amendment to be considered with the Amendment of which he had given Notice to omit Clause 5. He was quite willing to accept any assurance that the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate might give as to his desire to make the best appointment in his power; but any such declaration would be binding only upon their own consciences, and not upon the consciences of their successors. He had no objection to leave the appointment of sheriffs substitute to the Government; but he held that the case of procurators fiscal was different from that of the sheriffs substitute. The Government could have no knowledge in regard to these local appointments in distant parts of the country, and they would be amenable to local influence. The learned

  353
  Lord Advocate had pointed to the anomalous position of the sheriff as chief executive officer of the county having the power to dismiss the procurator fiscal. He quite admitted that the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had raised was well worthy of consideration; but the difficulty which he had raised might be easily met by accepting the Amendment which he proposed, that the procurator fiscal should hold his appointment from the sheriff, and only be removable by the Secretary of State. He thought that there should be no alteration in the state of the law, by which the Sheriff's Court not only had great judicial duties, but high executive functions to perform. He thought that Scotland had derived the greatest advantage from the existence of these county functionaries. It very rarely happened that the sheriff directed a prosecution and sat as Judge in the case; and, if it were otherwise, he confessed that the evil would be so great as to justify a change in the mode of appointing the procurator fiscal. But the question might be considered quite independently of its connection with the judicial and executive functions of the sheriff, and he contended that the present system had worked well. The sheriffs had invariably made excellent appointments, and he saw no reason why there should be any change in this respect. There was considerable danger that these might become essentially political appointments, and when they were giving to the Government considerable patronage in the case of the sheriffs, he thought the Committee should hesitate before it made over to them these numerous appointments. This was no new question. Anybody who had attended to the subject knew that in England this had been one of the difficulties connected with a change of the law. The question of giving the Government such large patronage had rather startled people, and led to various devices and suggestions being introduced into the various Bills brought forward to meet the difficulty. A Committee which sat for the purpose of considering the mode of appointment and other matters with reference to a public prosecutor, came to the conclusion to confine the power of the Crown to some limited area connected with the neighbourhood of London, and that in regard to the rest of the country, the
  354
  occupants of these offices should be appointed by local functionaries.
  MR. MONTGOMERIE, as one who had had some experience in conducting public prosecutions in Scotland, remarked that the present system had worked uncommonly well up to the present time, and he saw, therefore, no great reason for altering it. The sheriff had the best means of knowing the qualifications of the persons from whom the procurators fiscal were usually selected. He should be glad if the Government would give a favourable consideration to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, it was important that the appointment of public prosecutors should not become a political appointment, and that the persons who held them should not be too much under the hands of the Government. In Scotland there had of late years been no political excitement; but occasionally in the annals of Scotland political offences had been committed, and prosecutions had taken place, and in such cases as those it would be highly undesirable that the public prosecutors, who were entrusted with very large powers, should be entirely under the hands of the Government for the time being. He thought there was a great deal of force in what the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Cole-brooke) had stated.
  MR. MACDONALDthought the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was a fair one.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not see any difference between the position of sheriff substitutes and procurators fiscal which would justify the appointment of the one being vested in a Minister of the Crown directly responsible to Parliament, while the other was left in the hands of the sheriff, who might be too apt to regard it as private patronage. No doubt the sheriffs had hitherto done reasonably well, or quite as well as could be expected, but cases had been brought to his knowledge in which relationship had been the guiding motive in making the appointments. A great safeguard in respect to these appointments was that the Minister of the Crown should be responsible for them. The Minister was responsible to Parliament, whereas the sheriffs were responsible to no one. Political considerations might, in the case of the Minister of the Crown,

  355
  influence the appointments; but the sheriffs themselves were not free from those influences. He therefore thought that the appointment should he made, as the Bill proposed, by the Minister of the Crown, and hoped the Lord Advocate would stand by that proposal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the appointment should be as free as possible from political bias. He thought the sheriff substitute as well as the procurator fiscal should be irremovable except by the act of a Minister of State; but he thought they should retain the provision of the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 119, s. 187, by which the sheriff substitute could not be removed from his office without the consent of the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk. By the drafting of the present Bill that safeguard against unfair or prejudiced and insufficient inquiry was changed, however, and the present Bill only required a Report from these two officers of State without any expression of assent to enable the Secretary of State to remove a sheriff substitute. He thought the change was unnecessary and open to grave objection.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. and gallant General's attention to the fact that the Committee was not considering the question to which he referred.
  MR. LEITHthought it would be an improvement to the clause if the words "procurator fiscal" were included, so that he should be removed in the same manner as the sheriff substitute.
  Amendment agreed to.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he desired to state—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would not be in Order unless he made a Motion.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURrepeated his objection to the clause, which was drafted in a very different spirit from the clause of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 119, and moved that the Report of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice of Scotland as to their assent being given for the removal of a sheriff substitute should be expressed in writing, and given to the Secretary of State before the removal took place. This was a just and proper protection to public servants against the exercise of arbitrary or hasty decisions on the part of a Secretary of State.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment, for though it might be very proper to require the consent of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk to the action of the sheriff, who was an immeasurably inferior officer of the law, yet he thought that in the case of the Home Secretary, who was directly responsible to the House, it would be hardly fair to fetter his action by giving them the power of veto. It was quite right that the Home Secretary should have a Report from those two chief Judges as to what influenced them in their action.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that as the Government were opposed to his Amendment, he would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEITH, in moving in page 1, line 21, after " the time being," to add "that in their opinion such persons ought to be removed for inability or misbehaviour," said, the clause was for the purpose of directing in what manner the sheriff substitute should be removed, and he thought the mode proposed was unexceptionable. It proposed that it should be by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Justice Clerk for the time being. But there was something omitted—an essential part of the clause. The words which he proposed to add were the same as those which appeared in 9 & 10 Vict. c. 5, s. 18, which gave power to the Lord Chancellor to remove County Court Judges for "inability or misbehaviour." He might mention that it would be really giving greater latitude with regard to the removal of the sheriff substitute than that required in the case of a sheriff clerk, who held his tenure of office aut vitam ad culpam.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should not object to the Amendment in a somewhat different form. He could not accept anything to make the action of the Secretary of State depend upon the opinion of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk; that would leave with them the determination of the question, leaving the Home Secretary to act not upon the facts stated in the Report, but the opinion it expressed. If the hon. Member would, in line 28, after the words, " one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," add " for inability or misbe-

  357
  haviour upon report," he would not object to it.
  MR. LEITHaccepted the suggestion.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Appointment of salaried procurators fiscal vested in Secretary of State).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) for the omission of the clause. He thought Clause 4, as amended, would be sufficient to meet the object they had in view.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYexpressed disappointment at the Lord Advocate having given way on the clause. It had been stated that the sheriff principal and the procurator fiscal should work in harmony together; but, if the proposed transfer were made, the sheriff would be frequently acting with the procurator fiscal whom he had himself appointed. He did not wish to divide the Committee upon the question; but he must enter his protest against any difference being made between the two appointments. The great safeguard against appointments being made improperly was that the officer of the Crown with whom the appointment rested should be responsible to that House. It was important that the clause should be allowed to remain, or the appointments would be as much guided by political influence and private considerations as ever, because the sheriffs would consider that this was a piece of patronage left to them, for the exercise of which they were not to be responsible to anyone. They would think that the matter was left absolutely to their discretion; and therefore there would be greater risk of abuse than there would be if the appointment rested with the Secretary of State.
  MR. LEITHagreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire that the striking out of the clause would be a retrograde step, and a violation of the well-known principle, admitted by the Home Secretary, that Judges, magistrates, and Ministerial officers, who were paid by the Crown, should be appointed by the Crown. It seemed to be an anomaly which they were getting rid of, that the
  358
  sheriffs substitute should be appointed by the Judge; and now they were going to continue the anomaly with regard to another officer, who, it was equally important, should be independent of the Judge. He therefore objected to the clause being withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this matter was considerably discussed in respect to the appointment of a public prosecutor for England, which was very much of the same character. In England the question had not yet been settled whether a public prosecutor should be appointed by the Crown; and he therefore proposed to strike out the clause, and in that way postpone the matter until he had considered the larger question with regard to England. He thought it most likely that the appointment would rest with the Crown.
  MR. RAMSAYcould not agree with the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) that the clause should be struck out. They were all of one mind as to the expediency of the sheriffs substitute being appointed by the Crown, and yet they were going in the same Act to continue to the sheriff the appointment of the procurator fiscal. It seemed to him that the appointment of procurator fiscal was nearly as important as that of the Judge himself. It was of great importance that Parliament should do away with the office of sheriff depute altogether.
  MR. ERNEST NOELthought that if the clause was struck out they might reasonably expect that the question would be postponed for a long time. He thought it would be a pity that the matter should remain so long unsettled.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, a Bill for the appointment of a public prosecutor for England was actually prepared, and but for pressure of Business would have been introduced this year. He trusted he was not too sanguine in hoping that it might be carried next year.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURadvocated the retention of the clause.
  COLONEL MUREthought that, on the whole, these persons should be appointed by the Home Secretary. He hoped the Lord Advocate would re-consider his decision, as this was one of the most important clauses of the Bill. The appointment proposed by the clause would

  359
  have been a good precedent for England when the question of an English public prosecutor came before them, and it was a bad argument to apply a bad principle to Scotland on the ground that the matter was being considered in regard to England. If inquiries were instituted in Scotland, it would be found to he the general feeling that the arrangement proposed in the clause was a good one— namely, that these officers should be appointed by the independent authority of the Home Secretary. He earnestly hoped the Committee would divide on the Amendment.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire had stated that if this clause were struck out it would be introducing a new precedent in Scotland. [Colonel MURE: I said nothing of the kind.] The hon. Member's remarks appeared to bear that construction, but it was immaterial. He (Mr. Anderson) was rather in favour of giving the appointment of procurator fiscal to the Crown; but he did not think it a very important matter whether at present it was left in the hands either of sheriffs or the Crown. The strongest reason he saw for transferring was that they hoped some day to get rid of the double sheriffship.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked whether it was competent to move an Amendment to the clause?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it was not, inasmuch as the Question before the Committee was that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the office of procurator fiscal was much more important than that of sheriff substitute. The former official acted in secret, and made his examination in regard to offences privately, and a great deal of responsibility therefore rested upon him. The sheriff substitute sat in public, and his acts and doings could be challenged and commented upon by the public. He trusted the Home Secretary would retain the clause, and not submit to its being struck out to the detriment of the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he proposed to bring up on the Report a clause making some provision for the appointment of deputies, assuming the patronage of the office of fiscal to be left with the sheriff.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 67: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 291.)
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 6 (Procurator fiscal may appoint depute with consent of Lord Advocate).
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Perhaps I ought to explain to the House that the result of carrying the clause now after the disposal of Clause 5 will be this—that neither the Home Secretary, nor the sheriff, nor anybody will be entitled to appoint the procurator fiscal.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the position of the Government is not very intelligible. I think the Government ought to make up their minds, and in order that they may do so I beg to move that Progress be reported.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped the hon. Gentleman would do nothing of the kind. They all wanted to get business done. He might point out that there was a considerable staff of clerks employed in the office of the procurator fiscal, and he hoped the Secretary of State would take care that these men were not only properly remunerated but properly selected, after full inquiries as to their characters and fitness. The only way to ensure efficiency amongst a large class employed in the duties of the Scotch Law Courts was to constitute them public servants of the Civil Establishment, with all the liablities common to this class of public servants.
  MR. RAMSAYtrusted the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn.
  MR. M'LARENalso joined in the appeal. There was another Bill yet to come on, and it was necessary that they should all condense their observations.
  MR. M'LAGANtrusted that Scotch Members would not become obstructives.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought the Government ought to make up their minds, and should not have changed front at the last moment. At the same time he did not wish to go against the feeling of the Committee, and would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 7 (Sheriffs jurisdiction extended to certain questions of heritable right or title, &c.)
  DR. CAMERONmoved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "including," to the end of the sub-section, and insert "relating to a question of heritable right or title." The Amendment, he said, was one of the most important on the Paper. Certainly the most important question in connection with this Bill was the question of restriction of the jurisdiction of the sheriffs in respect of heritable property. The Royal Commission, as had been stated more than once, reported that if the jurisdiction were abolished for property, it should be so without respect to value. The opinion of the Legal Profession on that point was, he believed, unanimous. He held in his hand a Report made last year by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. The Sheriff Courts in Glasgow were by far the most important in Scotland, and a large proportion of the work done in those Courts in Scotland was done in Glasgow. The Faculty of Procurators desired that the Courts in which they practise should be as effective as possible. The limit proposed in the Bill last year was considerably higher than that in the Bill this year. It was last year £2,000, as against £500 this year. This, so far as Lanarkshire and Glasgow were concerned, would render the Court practically useless. The Faculty of Procurators in Dundee held that the jurisdiction proposed was illusory and quite insufficient. As the Sheriff Courts possessed unlimited jurisdiction on personal rights, it was anomalous that they should be restricted in relation to heritable rights and title. The Amendment he had placed on the Paper would carry out what was proposed by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, in a Petition which he presented the other day to the House. The matter was fully discussed on going into Committee, and he should not waste time further upon it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word " actions," to the word "year," in line 23, inclusive.—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsupported the Amendment, and trusted the Lord Advo-
  362
  cate would accept it. If a pursuer came to the Sheriff Court he did it of his own free will, and if the defender was not satisfied with the Sheriff Court he could remove the case to another. It was clear, therefore, that it was not in the interests of the public that this limitation was proposed. He hoped the Home Secretary would relieve the Lord Advocate of a difficulty and grant this Amendment. The step would be highly acceptable throughout Scotland, and would open the way to further law reform.
  MR. MONTGOMERIEsaid, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) overlooked the fact that the sheriffs in Glasgow had several thousand cases before them, and that by this Amendment an amount of work might be thrown upon them from all parts of the country which they would be absolutely unable to undertake. He ventured to say that all the practitioners in the Supreme Court were opposed to this Amendment. He knew he should be met with the answer that it was in their own interest. It was too much the practice to say that, whenever a lawyer got up on law reform, he was entirely actuated by his own interest. One witness whom he could cite, however, was not actuated by interested motives, and that was the Lord Justice General of Scotland, a man of large experience, and one whose opinion would have weight in that House. The Lord Justice General took occasion last year to protest against this alteration, and on that opinion he relied.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would agree to the Amendment, which the Lord Advocate might be unable to do, owing to professional reasons. The highest legal authorities were in its favour, including Lord Colonsay, than whom no man lived whose opinion on all legal questions was more highly esteemed by the people of Scotland. If the Amendment was adopted he was sure that they would take a great step in the direction of law reform in Scotland.
  MR. LEITHsupported the Amendment. Reason and principle were in its favour, and it would save delay and expense to the suitor. He knew that Petitions had been received objecting in the strongest terms to the proposed Amendment; but in that respect Edin-

  363
  burgh was peculiar compared to every other town in Scotland. The Law Societies had petitioned in favour of the Bill; but it was well known that none of the conveyancing was sent to Edinburgh. It was admitted that the Judges were sufficient for the purpose of entertaining such questions. They had a Bar which was sufficiently qualified to fulfil all the duties thrown upon them. The Bill proposed a limit in regard to land which did not exist in regard to personal matters. Although the same Judges and the same Bar were at liberty to deal with sums of hundreds of thousands of pounds of personal property, yet with respect to land they were only to have jurisdiction to the extent of the paltry sum of £25.
  COLONEL MUREthought it right to point out to the Home Secretary that the arguments in favour of the clause as it stood were very feeble, and had been stated over and over again. Every large town in Scotland was in favour of the Amendment to the clause with the exception of Edinburgh, which was against it. As had already been stated, the clause would be advantageous by giving the pursuer the right of moving that his case be tried where he pleased; but what he wanted to be put before the Committee was the case of a pursuer who was a poor man, who could not afford to enter into litigation. Did it not seem an extraordinarily anomalous state of things that they should be debarred from bringing their cases before their excellent magistrates, sitting in a neighbouring town, who in other cases might decide cases to the amount of millions?
  MR. HERMONhoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept this Amendment. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay), if a person wished to take his case before the sheriff substitute, he could do so, and if he did not desire, he could then take it to one of the Superior Courts. He thought the effect of the Amendment would be to effect the saving of considerable expense, and therefore hoped the Government would consent to adopt it.
  MR. M'LARENthought the hon. Member who had last spoken would do well to look at home first. If it was so good a thing for the Scotch people that questions of real property should be referred to County Court Judges, why
  364
  should it not be good for England? In England the barrister prepared the title-deeds and all other important deeds; but in Scotland they did nothing of the kind, all those deeds being prepared by the solicitors. English barristers who were County Court Judges must therefore be well versed in the law of real property, and also be men of considerable standing and position for they received salaries of £1,500 a-year; whilst most of the Scotch County Court Judges only received £600 to £800 a-year. The hon. Member (Mr. Hermon) seemed to think it would be a good thing in Scotland to give questions of real estates to barristers, who had very little knowledge of feudal law, and who had had no conveyancing practice, but that in England barristers of greater knowledge and experience, and of higher position, should not be trusted. He thought he had never heard a more illogical argument. It was quite true that the legal men of Edinburgh, from the Chief Judge downward, had petitioned against any such Amendment in the Bill, and it was quite true that they had some interest in the business being carried on in the Court of Session; but was it not equally true that the solicitors in Aberdeen and Glasgow and all the towns in Scotland had an interest in keeping the business in their several towns? It was those gentlemen who were agitating, and not the landed proprietors of Aberdeen-shire or Lanarkshire or any other shire. It was not they who were asking the change, but the local lawyers. It seemed to him that the proposal did not hold water in any way whatever; and he thought that if Government were to give way to this Amendment, they would inflict a very great evil on Scotland. He had no doubt that many of those sheriffs substitute were young men who had never in their lives prepared a single conveyance of real property, or even advised on one.
  MR. GOLDNEYwas glad to hear from the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) what he had never heard admitted before—that there were men in England who were wiser than Scotchmen. He thought if the Amendment were adopted it would jeopardize very much the rights of Scottish property, and would be a very dangerous precedent.
  MR. ANDERSONhoped the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon)

  365
  would not consider that Scotch Members were jealous of English Members taking part in their debates. On the contrary, they were very glad to hear them express their views on Scotch questions. It was impossible to discuss the 7th clause of this Bill without keeping the 8th clause in view. By that clause any suitor could at once take away an action to one of the Superior Courts. Why should it matter any more about land than personal property? Nobody proposed to give a final jurisdiction to the sheriff. Even without the 8th clause there would be the fullest power of appeal, as at present, in all personal matters of property; but with the 8th clause there could be really no ground for objecting to the Amendment which had been proposed. This was the most important clause in the Bill. The Scotch Members felt so strongly upon it, that if the Bill had been left in the position in which it was drawn it would have been obstructed. They would not have allowed the Bill to go on at all; and it was only on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he would be willing to extend the jurisdiction, that they were willing to allow the Bill to go on at all. But, although they agreed to an extension of the limit, they did not renounce their opinion that no limit at all would be infinitely better. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman intended to retain Clause 8, he would do well to extend the limit beyond what was proposed in Clause 7. If, on the other hand, he intended to abide by his Bill, and what was in Clause 7, he might abandon Clause 8 altogether. He hoped the Government would see the necessity of extending the limit which was proposed in the Bill; but he thought it would be much better if there was no limit at all.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the Committee might fairly consider the question before it without imputing motives of gain, or personal motives of any description, to members of an honourable profession, who, he firmly believed, were exceedingly desirous of promoting reforms in the law. He could not accept the principle which this Amendment laid down, that no limit should be fixed to the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs Court in cases affecting heritable property. Of course, he could not hope to convince the hon. Member for
  366
  Aberdeen (Mr. Leith) and other hon. Members, whose views were very strong upon the subject; but he thought in the course of the argument the distinction between judgments upon questions of heritable right and judgments upon movable property had been plainly ignored. Nothing could show more clearly that the difference was ignored than the references which were made to arbitration. In many cases the decision of the Law Court and the decision of an arbitrator were upon a par, and where the judgment of the one was equivalent to the judgment of the other then the jurisdiction should be the same. But that principle could not be carried further, because there were cases where the judgment of a Court had a different effect altogether from the award of an arbitrator, where the judgment of the Court had a perpetual effect, and changed and moulded the system of landed rights. Therefore, in questions of land rights the Court and the arbitrator were not upon a par. He quite conceded that they might refer to arbitration questions of heritable right and title; but if a person did so, and if he then came to sell his property, the judgment of the arbitrator would not be worth the paper on which it was written as determining the character of the title to the estate. It was easy to keep in view that distinction; it had been pointed out again and again, and he hoped it would be borne in mind and attended to in the discussion, because the difference was a very essential one. Questions of title to land must be thoroughly sifted and judicially settled, and speed was not so necessary as soundness. Questions of that kind determined the fortunes of families, while, on the other hand, questions of money might be settled at once. There were Sheriff Courts which were competent to deal with cases of real property; but he rather doubted the competency of all of them. It was said that Clause 8 stultified the measure, but he did not assent to that assertion. The argument upon that point was very much founded upon the idea that going to a Sheriff Court was very much like going to an arbitration. He said, if they wanted to go to the Sheriff Court, in many cases they would get something quite as valuable affecting the title of land as if they had gone to arbitration.
  MR. YEAMANpointed out that a great many Petitions had been received

  367
  from Scotland in favour of the Amendment, many being from owners of heritages who were interested in the matter. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) opposed it, as he might not be returned again for Edinburgh if he did not do so.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to say that I never was indebted to the lawyers of Edinburgh for anything; they always opposed me. [Laughter.]
  MR. YEAMANsaid, there was a strong feeling in Edinburgh on the subject. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had stated that the sheriff substitutes received £600 or £800 a-year; but he knew that many sheriff substitutes in Scotland received £1,500 or £2,000 a-year. He thought it was only justice to Scotland that the power of the sheriff in inquiring into questions of heritage should be largely extended beyond what was proposed in this Bill. The people —heritors, not lawyers—were anxious that this extended power should be conferred. He should support the Amendment, and he trusted the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary would make a much larger extension than the Bill proposed.
  MR. TREVELYANobserved, with reference to the attendance, that this was one of those cases in which it was to be regretted that a good many Members would take part in the division who had not heard the debate. They came to the House to be convinced; and he ventured to say that no Gentleman who kept his mind open to argument and had heard the speeches on the question could doubt what part he ought to take on the subject. He had listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), and also to that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who advised him to set his own house in order before he interfered to set the Scotch house to rights. But it might be answered that Englishmen went to Scotland not only to set the Scotch house to rights, but to take example from Scotland; and he hoped that as England must borrow from Scotland the institution of compulsory education, and as he hoped that some day it would borrow the institution of a public prosecutor, so he hoped the day would come when England would borrow from Scotland the im-
  368
  portant reform of enabling County Court Judges to deal with questions of heritable property. He had also heard with interest the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), whose arguments had been spoken to with much gravity by the Lord Advocate, and if seriousness of tone and authority of gesture could have overcome his reason, it would have been overcome. But he should venture to analyze one or two of the Lord Advocate's arguments. They were told that the precedents of a judgment relating to matters of personal property were not so important as those of one relating to heritable property. He ventured to say that transactions on the Stock Exchange and on the coal and iron markets of our great capitals were quite as important, and were every year becoming more important than transactions on landed property. There was one single city in Scotland in which the personal property was, he ventured to say, worth the fee-simple of the land in any three Scotch counties. They lived in a country in which commerce increased by leaps and bounds, while the landed interests were not increasing at that rate, if at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the fortunes of a family being at stake on a judgment relating to heritable property. Did he seriously believe that if a man knew that the prosperity of his family and the fortunes of his children were dependent on a judgment as to personal property, he would not take an appeal to a higher Court; and would it not be the same with regard to heritable property in a Sheriff Court? He had listened carefully to the authorities adduced on either side, to the extremely important recommendation of the Report of a Royal Commission. What was the authority on the other side? That of the practitioners before the Supreme Court of Appeal. He would just as soon accept the public opinion of all the turnpike keepers of the country in regard to the Roads and Bridges Bill. What they had not heard, except from the mouths of non-legal Members, was the opinion of the people of Scotland. It might be said that the common people had not much to do with questions of real property; but that was not at all the case. The common people, he was glad to say, were now rising out of the position they

  369
  had been, in so long. The most hopeful of the many signs among them was that they were laying up their money by means of building societies, and gaining feelings of ownership and responsibility and independence by becoming owners of small portions of land. It might be said as to building societies that such a portion of land was generally confined to a single house; but the operations of the building societies sometimes extended to large transactions; and it was a shame that when a case arose of sufficient magnitude a society composed of men who earned their money by work, and saved it with pains, should be sent to Edinburgh instead of to a Sheriff Court. He had now, he thought, answered every reason which had been brought against the proposal; and he could only say that having regard to the authority urged against it, that if they did not pass the Amendment, against which not one valid reason had been stated, they would be paying court to what he was ashamed, in the presence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), to call one of the very worst forms of trade unionism.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this was not a poor man's question at all; the poor man was provided for. The Bill gave sheriffs jurisdiction up to £1,000, and when a man was worth more than £1,000 he could hardly be called a poor man. [Mr. TREVELYAN: I referred to building societies.] Building societies might have property exceeding £1,000, but they did not go to law about the whole of their property at once. Nor was he aware that building societies had made representations in the direction of the proposed Amendment. The only question was, how far should they go? The Bill, as originally framed, went to the extent of £500, and he said that while he was not willing to admit an unlimited amount, he was willing to double the amount in the Bill, which he thought was a fair offer to make to secure the rights of the poor. With regard to country practitioners, he thought that in the long run they would not lose but gain.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, the limitation in the Bill was nothing else but carrying out in that House a distinct form of legal trades-unionism, reserving certain rights to the advocates and the Courts of the city of Edinburgh that
  370
  were not extended to the entire country. The Home Secretary had not answered the contention of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who, he trusted, would go to a division.
  MR. RAMSAYregretted the time occupied in the discussion. He thought the Lord Advocate had trailed a red herring to divert them. But no reason had been shown why the suitors should not have the right on appeal to choose the Court in which they had the greatest confidence. He did not see how any complication of the law could arise. The system of conveyance in Scotland was so simple that any honest man who could read could tell whether his title was clear. He had himself the original charter granted by the Crown for his lands some 250 years before, when they were taken by force of arms from the then owner, and a ship had been sent from England to destroy the old castle, the ruins of which were there to that day. That charter had ceased to be of any use; 40 years possession validated their titles. Anything more simple could not be attained to. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen would agree to the extension of jurisdiction which they asked for the Sheriff Court.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the Sheriff Courts already possessed an extensive jurisdiction, which would be considerably extended by the Bill, but their constitution would, by the proposed Amendment, be entirely changed. There was a distinction between the jurisdiction as regarded real and as regarded personal property. The decisions of the sheriff on questions of title to land would never be acquiesced in, and would be appealed against, as of course, since an appeal would be necessary to make the title marketable. The change now proposed would not, therefore, benefit the suitor, but would simply cause delay and lead to additional expense. He should support the Government, because he thought that in principle they were right.
  MR. ERNEST NOELappealed to the Government to give something that the Scotch people really wanted, and not merely to attend to the views and wishes of those who were interested in the chief city of the country.
  Question put,
  " That the words' (including actions of declarator, but excluding actions of adjudication,

  371
  save in so far as now competent, and excluding actions of reduction,) relating to a question of heritable right or title,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 39: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 292.)
  MR. ANDERSONmoved to substitute £40 for £20, the object of the Amendment being to provide that the jurisdiction of the sheriff should extend to questions of heritable right or title where the value of the subject in dispute did not exceed £40 per annum.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "forty."— (Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. ERNEST NOELmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by the substitution of £100 for £40. This matter could not be argued as one of principle, as the Government had admitted that there were cases of heritable right which might be taken into the Sheriff Court. If they took £40, why not £100? In Scotland the opinion was that what the Government were now conceding would be a very small boon. There was a strong feeling among Scotch Members in favour of the extension of the jurisdiction which he proposed.
  Question, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'forty' be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "forty," in order to insert the words "one hundred."—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that although the question was not one of principle, it was a matter of considerable detail. In the original Bill the figure was £20; but in order to meet the views of those Scotch Members who sat on the other side, he agreed to double that amount. Having done that, he must take a stand somewhere, and he thought he was bound to take it at this point.
  MR. RAMSAYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten what he had led hon. Members from Scotland to expect. Last Session there
  372
  was a distinct understanding arrived at that the jurisdiction was to be extended during the present Session. The proposal contained in the Bill of last year was that it should be extended to cases where the value did not exceed £2,000—and could they have expected that the right hon. Gentleman, would this Session have restricted the jurisdiction below the point which he had fixed in the Bill which he had himself introduced?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was not usual to refer to conversations that took place outside the House; but as they had been referred to, he must say that he told everyone to whom he had spoken on the subject that he could not consent to the figure which was in the former Bill.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he readily bore testimony to the good faith which had always been, manifested by the Home Secretary. At the same time he must avow that he fully understood and expected a much larger extension of jurisdiction in cases of heritable rights than the amount now proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Noel). He urged the Government for their own sake to yield to the wishes of the Scotch Members on this point. Indeed, it was difficult to understand why any restriction need exist as to the powers of the Sheriff Courts, so long as the greatest facilities were given of appeals to higher Courts by either of the parties.
  DR. CAMERONtrusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries would go to a division on his Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENthought the Scotch Members were almost unanimous on the question, and that, therefore, their wish might be conceded.
  MR. GOLDNEYremarked that the proposal of the Home Secretary was identical with that which was adopted in the English County Courts. If there were properties of a very large description to be dealt with by these Courts, their decisions would be constantly appealed against, and the Court would thus be brought into disrespect.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he disliked restriction, and also disliked to see Parliament laying down a rule as to the amount which should be involved at trials in certain Courts, as if it had

  373
  an idea of the importance of the question to be decided. The question of an unlimited amount had been decided, and he deprecated voting upon different amounts, and thought the Government should consent to fix the amount at £50.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that as the proposal before the Committee had the support of all the Scotch Members, he thought it should be agreed to, or, at any rate, that the Government should propose a compromise.
  MR. KNATCHBTTLL - HUGESSENsaid, unless the Lord Advocate could show some cause why he should not make a concession, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. HERMONsaid, the Committee was in this difficulty—that they did not know what the Scotch Members really wanted, as they had mentioned various sums.
  MR. ANDERSONdeclared that the £40 had been put down, not because he approved of it, but because it was a compromise assented to by the Home Secretary.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING MAXWELLsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow, which was assented to by the Government, was a considerable change in the law and practice of Scotland. He was perfectly aware that in many of the large towns of Scotland £40 was perhaps rather too low a sum to fix, because there was a large amount of property in the hands of individuals to whom an appeal to the Court of Session would no doubt be expensive, and which might be brought into litigation. He admitted that in the large towns the sheriffs might be perfectly able to deal with cases involving large amounts; but they had the interests of the country parts to consider as well as those of the great towns. Hon. Members were aware that there was no class of gentlemen connected with Scotland who differed more widely in their capacities than local Judges. Many of them were men of the highest attainments, who were able to grapple with the difficulties and niceties of legal questions; but, on the other hand, there were some of those gentlemen who had not had so much experience, and many people would hesitate before they went before them on matters of this kind. The Government, he thought, had acted wisely in
  374
  accepting an Amendment which was proposed, as they were given to understand, as a compromise, and he hoped the Committee would rest there.
  MR. LEITHpointed out the fallacy upon which the whole of the arguments of the hon. Member were based. It was said that there were persons in Scotland to whom jurisdiction and power would be given who were not competent to deal with heritable right. This was the whole question. If such were the case no such jurisdiction should be given. He had yet to learn the distinction there was in the hon. Gentleman's mind between questions of heritable right, which would arise with regard to the smallest as well as the largest properties.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the Bill had now been on the Table for a long time, and that it was on the 28th July that the hon. Member for Glasgow suggested his Amendment. There had been a previous suggestion to the effect that the sum should be £50, and it was not the result of compromise. A conversation took place subsequently between the Scotch Members and the Government, and it was then that the £50 was altered to £40. He thought he was right.
  MR. ANDERSON: Partly right and partly wrong. When he put down £50 it was in consequence of what the Home Secretary pledged himself to do at the end of last Session. In the case of the conversation which occurred the other day, the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to a compromise.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to point out that all the Scotch Members knew that the sum had been put down at £50, and yet no one suggested anything else. He did not care whether it was £40 or £50, but it should not be more, as that would represent £1,000.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcontended that the same principle should be applied in reference to the small property of the poor man as the large property of the rich. There should be some explanation why the present Lord Advocate should accept a limit of £1,000 when the last Lord Advocate insisted on a limit of £2,000. He protested against the assumption that the sheriffs in their Courts in Scotland were unfit to perform their duties.
  MR. GREGORYcontended that the present proposal would confer a bene-

  375
  fit upon the poor man, as it would save him from the expense of going to the Courts to which the rich man would appeal. He thought the Government would do well to adhere to the limitation of £40.
  MR. ERNEST NOELwished to make one more appeal to the Home Secretary. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remember that in his own Bill last year the limitation was £2,000, and that was what they asked for now.
  MR. M'LARENhad understood on Saturday that the hon. Member for Glasgow had agreed to proposals which would materially facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'forty' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 62: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 293.)
  Amendment (Mr. Anderson) agreed to.
  MR. RAMSAYmoved, in page 2, after line 23, to insert—
  "(2.) All actions and proceedings requisite for determining and disposing of applications for the appointment of a factor, loco-tutoris, or curator-bonis, or judicial factor, for a person, the annual value of whose estate does not exceed fifty pounds."
  He hoped the Government would see fit to adopt this Amendment. It was intended to meet the case of persons with small means, who, being minors or insane, might require to have some one appointed to take charge of their estate. There were cases of great hardship occurring in consequence of the necessity of going to the Supreme Court. He could not conceive any reason why the Amendment should not be adopted.
  MR. YEAMANsupported the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEasked the hon. Member not to press it. This was a matter which had recently come very specially under his notice. A great deal of re-construction would be required with a view to making the proposed clause effective or even workable.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, in page 2, line 28, sub-section 3, to leave out "division of commontry and."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "twenty," and insert "forty." Line 31, after "year," insert "or one thousand pounds value."
  Amendments agreed to.
  DR. CAMERONmoved, in page 2, line 43, to leave out "and."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that the omission would result in very great inconvenience to foreigners.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Provisions as to actions, &c. made by this Act competent in the sheriff court.)
  MR. LEITHmoved, in page 3, line 15, after "Sheriff Court," leave out to end of sub-section (2), and insert—
  "It shall be competent to appeal to the Court of Session against any interlocutor disposing of any preliminary defence allowing a proof, or disposing in whole or in part of the merits of the action; and such appeal shall be taken in the same manner as appeals are taken in ordinary actions."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Amendment suggested really differed much less from the terms of the clause than the hon. Member imagined.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEITHmoved, in page 3, line 21, after "similar terms," to insert—
  "And shall give security, to be approved of by the sheriff clerk, to the amount of the value of the subject in dispute in such action, and for the cost of trial in the Court of Session."
  MR. ANDERSONthought that there ought to be some check of that sort. It must be remembered that the clause gave complete power to take an action away from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session without any trial at all.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he could not accept the Amendment. It would give a great advantage to a rich man over a poor man.
  MR. MACDONALDalso opposed the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in page 3, line 42, at end of clause, to insert, as a separate sub-section—

  377
  "(3.) The provisions of any Act of Parliament excluding appeal to the Court of Session in. respect of the value of a cause depending in the Sheriff Court shall not apply to actions brought therein under the preceding section."
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Deed may be set aside by exception).
  MR. LEITHmoved, in page 4, line 23, after "reduction thereof," to insert—
  "Provided always, That if any objection to a signed document of debt, now maintainable only by way of reduction, shall be maintained by way of exception, the objector shall find such caution, or make such consignation, as the sheriff or sheriff substitute may direct."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved the following Clause:—
  (Abolition of fees to sheriffs and sheriffs substitute.)
  "From and after the passing of this Act the sixth section of ' The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1860,' and so much of the fifty-first section of ' The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' as provides for the payment of remuneration to sheriffs and sheriffs substitute shall be repealed, and all payments to sheriffs and sheriffs substitute in respect of the discharge of their official duties, other than the salaries provided to them out of public moneys, and the expenses mentioned in the last-recited section, shall cease and determine: Provided always, That it shall be lawful to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to grant, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, such compensation as they shall think fit to any sheriff or sheriff substitute in respect of the operation of this section, regard being had to the terms of the commission under which such sheriff or sheriff substitute holds office; and to the conditions, if any, which may have been attached to any salary, or increase of salary, granted to such sheriff or sheriff substitute."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwould not oppose the clause, but he should like to see it so widened as to provide in the fullest manner for all fees being abolished in all branches of the Sheriff Courts. He trusted the remuneration in the place of fees would not be put on the Consolidated Fund, but that it would be retained in the Votes annually submitted to Parliament.
  MR. ANDERSON, whilst approving the clause, drew the attention of the Lord Advocate to certain cases of hardship which it had been stated to him would arise under it as it stood.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in the Scotch Courts there were fees of a very objectionable character. Some years ago, in settling the salaries of the Sheriffs, it was thought desirable to make a change, and the Treasury, conditionally, made an arrangement by which the Judges in these Courts should receive salaries in lieu of all fees. It was not intended to give any compensation to Judges whose salaries had been fixed upon that principle. On the other hand, if the sheriffs were entitled to their fees it would be utterly unfair to take away those fees without making compensation to them.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. MACDONALDmoved, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
  (As to sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal to be appointed after the passing of this Act.)
  "Any person appointed to the office of sheriff clerk or procurator fiscal after the date of the passing of this Act shall hold no other office, and shall not, directly or indirectly, by himself or any partner or depute, be engaged in practice before the Supreme or any inferior Court, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, by himself or any partner or depute, transact any business for profit other than business devolving on him as such sheriff clerk or procurator fiscal."
  Things were altered now from what they were formerly. They had now mines, factories, and other great industries, and other sources of wealth more than formerly, and it was a scandal that those officers, who might one day be called upon to become public prosecutors, should on another be called upon to become the agents of the men they prosecuted. He felt it his duty to say, if the clause were not agreed to, that he should divide the Committee upon it. He was sure there was no Scotchman who would not say that this was a scandal and a standing grievance; and he submitted that in no case should procurators fiscal be at liberty to engage in private practice.
  New Clause — (Mr. Macdonald,)— brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  DR. CAMERONsupported the clause, as to the necessity for which all the legal bodies of Scotland were, he said, pretty-unanimous. He was not aware that even the legal bodies of Edinburgh had anything to say against it. The reasons given by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) were forcible and obvious.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsupported the clause. They would get in Scotland plenty of persons to undertake the situation of procurator fiscal, but who did not want to apply to deputies.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that, as a rule, the remuneration hitherto allowed to these officials was not sufficient to secure the whole time and services of persons competent; and so long as that state of things continued it was right and necessary that procurators fiscal should be allowed to practice. When it could be done, a sufficient salary would be paid in future, which would enable them to give up their private practice. The principle had already been adopted in Glasgow, and whenever it could be applied it would be carried out. He deprecated the passing of an Amendment at the present which would have the effect of doubling the cost of these judicial establishments.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that there was at present a want of confidence in the mode in which procurators fiscal discharged their duty, and in the manufacturing districts of the country particularly it was desirable that private practice on the part of those gentlemen should be prohibited, and that they should live by that office alone.
  MR. ANDERSONwas glad to find the Lord Advocate was alive to the evil, but would have liked to have had some further assurance from him on the subject.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 109: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 294.)
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Saturday,

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL— [BIIL 184–260.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Further Consideration, as amended, resumed.
  Clause 13 (Tenure of office of Judges, and oaths of office.)
  MR. BUTTmoved, in page 9, line 33, at end, to add—
  "Nor shall he be or continue to be a Commissioner of National Education, or a Commissioner of Charitable Donations and Bequests, or a member of any board or commission permanently administering any public trust, and any provision in any Act of Parliament requiring any Judge to be a member of any such board or commission, so far as it is inconsistent with anything heroin contained, shall be and same is hereby repealed."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it had been the custom in Ireland to appoint Judges members of public Boards, and he thought the practice objectionable, more particularly when the office was one which frequently involved the consideration of political and religious questions. He believed the Judges themselves were anxious to be relieved from the positions in which they were placed and from the pressure put on them to undertake these duties. Judges in Ireland were often strongly pressed to become members of certain Boards, and he thought it an objectionable thing either that a Judge should oblige a Government, or a Government oblige a Judge. As an illustration of the objectionable character of the system, he mentioned the well-known case of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, who was dismissed from his position as manager of a national school by the casting vote of a Judge who was a member of the Board of Education. Mr. O'Keeffe had brought an action against a person who had been sent down to inspect his schools, and it was proposed that the expenses should be paid out of the money given for national education. It was most improper that the Judges should have had to settle such a dispute, involving much religious excitement, and which afterwards came before one of their body in a judicial proceeding. The Charitable Donations and Bequests Commission had to decide what were charitable bequests, and their decisions might be brought before the Lord Chancellor. Several of

  381
  the Judges were members of that Commission.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 33, after the word "appointment," to insert the words "nor shall he be or continue to be a Commissioner of National Education, or a Commissioner of Charitable Donations and Bequests, or a member of any board or commission permanently administering any public trust, and any provision in any Act of Parliament requiring any judge to be a member of any such board or commission, so far as it is inconsistent with anything herein contained, shall be 'and same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Butt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, this matter had been most fully discussed in Committee, and a large division had been taken against the proposal. The Amendment was that no Judge should under any circumstances be appointed a member of the National Board of Education, or any other Board in Ireland. But surely that was a most unreasonable proposition. Why should the Irish Government be deprived of the unpaid services of those eminent Judges? This was an attempt to re-open and revive the old controversy respecting national education. He did not think this would be convenient to the House. The national Board was at present composed of gentlemen and magistrates who were carrying on the business of national education in a manner satisfactory to the country at large, and he did not think there were any reasonable grounds for disturbing the system as it at present worked. The Judges had especial qualifications for the work, and had, from their residence in Dublin, ample opportunities for attending the Boards. They had no emoluments for their services. Why should the Government be deprived of availing themselves of the services of those eminent men? Why should any absolute law be laid down for that purpose? In England Judges filled positions the duties of which they discharged with great advantage to the public. For instance, Judges were on the Ecclesiastical Commission and Patents Commission, and he believed some Judges were upon the Governing Bodies of several Colleges, and upon other Boards Judges, without fee or reward, gave the benefit of their ex-
  382
  perience from a sense of public duty. It was not desirable to deprive Government of the power of giving such an appointment to a Judge where it would be advantageous to the public to have the benefit of a judicial training. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would be content with his protest and not call for a division.
  CAPTAIN NOLANdenied that the appointments held by English Judges were at all analogous to the position held by the Irish Judges. The appointment in England had nothing of a political or denominational character. Questions of that kind never troubled the Governing Body of Eton College. The nearest approach to that, he believed, was the question of allowing Messrs. Moody and Sankey to preach there. But upon the Education Board of Ireland Judges were called upon to decide questions which often engaged the attention of the House of Commons. Nothing was more unfair than to drive Judges into politics, and the Education Board of Ireland certainly had a political character, and this was most undesirable in the state of the law as regarded Election Petitions.
  THE O'CONOR DONconcurred in the spirit and meaning of the language of the proposed Amendment as an abstract question. He had a very lively recollection of the Keogh case and the evidence of Judges given before the Committee, and this made a strong impression on his mind that it was most undesirable that Judges should be placed in such positions; but he was afraid that he could not vote for putting into an Act of Parliament a direct prohibition against the Government in any circumstances selecting a member of the Judicial Bench for an office of the kind referred to.
  MR. MELDONsupported the Amendment. There were plenty of persons besides the Judges to be found in Ireland who were capable of filling seats at the Board of National Education. In the O'Keeffe case some of the Judges had been placed in a position which they ought not to have occupied.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 113: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 295.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 18, to leave out the words " or any questions or issues of fact or of law."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Divisions of the High Court of Justice.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)moved, in page 25, line 11, after "Matrimonial Division," insert—
  "After the Admiralty jurisdiction shall under the provisions in that behalf hereinbefore contained have become vested in the Judge of the Probate and Matrimonial Division, such Division shall be called ' The Probate, Matrimonial, and Admiralty Division.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Rota of Judges for election petitions.)
  MR. BIGGARwas proceeding to move an Amendment of which he had given Notice, when—
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Amendment was not consistent with sense.
  MR. BIGGARstated that his intention was to move an Amendment providing that Election Petitions should be tried by three and not by one Judge, and that in no case should Judge Keogh or Judge Lawson be one. He insisted that those two Judges made themselves partizans in every case they tried. Mr. Justice Keogh sometimes made himself a partizan for the Crown and sometimes for the prisoner, but Mr. Justice Law-son always made himself the partizan of the Crown. He (Mr. Biggar) had been told by a Queen's Counsel that he knew no Judge who was so thoroughly incompetent to try a criminal case; he had no sense of fair play, and a prisoner had no chance in his hands. He desired that neither of those Judges should be on the rota for trying Election Petitions. Justice Lawson's conduct was most outrageous.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 30, line 28, to leave out from the words " The Judges " to " 1868," in line 30, and insert the words " The Part of Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, relating to placing of Election Judges on the rota, is hereby repealed, and three Judges."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"
  SIR HENEY JAMESsaid, he had felt very much inclined to ask whether the hon. Member was in Order; but, whether he was in Order or not, a more unconstitutional course could not be taken than in the form of an Amendment to make an attack upon Judges. The hon. Member sought, as it were, by a sidewind in an Act of Parliament, to record a conviction of misconduct against Judges, and that they were disqualified from performing judicial duties. There was but one course if Judges were so disqualified, and that was to move an Address to the Crown for their removal. If these Judges were worthy of a place in an Act of Parliament as being incompetent, the hon. Member ought to move for an Address to the Government that they should remove them from the Bench. It would be an insult to these two distinguished Judges for him (Sir Henry James) to enter upon any discussion upon their merits and conduct. In relation to one of them, his conduct had been brought before the House. After a full discussion, during which his conduct was fully criticized by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), the House, by an overwhelming majority, ratified the conduct of that Judge.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would not enter into any discussion upon the subject; but he would remind the House that the prosecutions recommended by Mr. Justice Keogh in the Galway case had entirely broken down.
  MR. O'CONORsaid, they had also to consider the question as to whether the Act of 1868 should be altered, so that Election Petitions might be tried by three Judges instead of one.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGregretted that the names of these two Judges had been introduced. They all knew that the system in Ireland had broken down, and that there was great dissatisfaction. The rota system had given universal dissatisfaction in Ireland. He was in favour of the Amendment that that part of the Act should, be repealed.
  MR. CALLANsupported the Amendment. In his own experience, the Judges who were appointed to try the Election Petitions were "manipulated." Judge Lawson was taken out of his order on the rota to try a particular Petition, because the case was already fore

  385
  judged, and it was determined that gentlemen returned should be unseated.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)extremely regretted that the names of two distinguished Judges should be introduced in such a manner into this discussion. If the hon. Member had any charge to make against these Judges, he should adopt the constitutional mode of moving an Address to the Crown for their removal. When the whole subject was under consideration in a distinct Bill would be the time to consider whether Election. Petitions should be tried by one or by a plurality of Judges.
  MR. BUTTthought the Amendment was not a proper one to introduce into the Judicature Act; but as to the Corrupt Practices Act, he pointed out that there could be no discussion upon that Act this year. It must be renewed this year, and there was no certainty of an opportunity for discussion occurring next year. They ought to have a positive pledge from the Home Secretary that an opportunity for full discussion would be given next year, and not merely a Continuance Bill brought in next Session.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpromised that an opportunity would be given for a full discussion next Session.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 52.—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question, "That Clause 52 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Provision as to making of Rules of Court before or after the commencement of the Act.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 36, line 18, after the word "rules," to insert the words "said rules to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament immediately, if Parliament is sitting when the rules are framed, and, if not sitting when they are framed, immediately after the next sitting of Parliament, and all or any of the rules may be set aside or altered by a vote of the House of Commons at any time within one year from the time said rules are laid upon the Table."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 36, line 28, after "trial," to insert—
  "And for the reporting by a competent shorthand writer of the evidence in all cases of trials by jury."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Circuits and Assizes.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)moved, in page 38, line 14, after "circuit," insert—
  "All Orders in Council made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within such time, and shall be subject to be annulled in such manner as is in this Act provided."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 43, line 41, after the word "Act," to insert the words " Provided however, That the late clerk of the records of the Court of Chancery, whose office was abolished by 'The Courts of Law Officers (Ireland) Act, 1867,' and who still continues an officer of said court, shall not, in any arrangement or transfer of offices under this Act, be required to discharge any duties save analogous duties to those performed by him at the time of the passing of said first-mentioned Act."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 85 (The Superior Court may remit to the Civil Bill Court ejectments brought in High Court of Justice) struck out.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

  WINTER ASSIZE ACT (1876) EXTENSION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to extend the provisions of "The Winter Assize Act, 1876," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 276.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.