Lords Sitting of 12 July 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Glebe Lands (Scotland) nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Report—Law of Capital Punishment Amendment (189).
Withdrawn—Administration of Justice Chancery Amendment (169); Statute Lave Revision (154); Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (186).

COLLISION OF H.M.S. "AMAZON" AND THE "RAINBOW."—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he had a Question of some importance to ask, but he hardly knew to whom he could address it, as a new Government sat on the Treasury Benches, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) who lately presided at the Admiralty did so no longer, and was now absent from the House. He therefore begged their Lordships would forgive him if, under the circumstances, he addressed his Question to an imaginary
774
person. During the Administration of the noble Duke a great many experiments were made—the noble Duke was a great experimentalist— but the results of some of his experiments were not known, although they must be of course of great importance to the country. The last experiment was firing with conoidal-headed shot, at 200 yards, against a turret; but whether the experiment was successful in destroying the turret or not he could not say; but there was another experiment which had been made for the noble Duke the other day—namely, as to the efficiency of what was called the ram bow, which was intended to strike ships and sink them. The experiment was tried in the Channel; the result was terrible, but it was as disastrous to the conqueror as the conquered, at the same moment she destroyed the stricken ship she was destroyed herself. This appeared to him sufficient to direct the attention of Government to this construction of vessel. It was clear that either the principle was wrong, and that reaction operated against the striking vessel, or else that the carpentry of the Amazon was so bad that when she separated from the other ship she had a large hole in her bow, and sank immediately. It was well, perhaps, that this experiment had been made, although it had led to loss of life on board one vessel, and of the ships in both cases; but if it had not taken place they would never have known what description of vessel they were constructing, or what sort of carpentry was being put in their new ships. He trusted the Government would not fail to learn the lesson this disaster taught.
THE EARL OF ORKNEYsaid, the Commander of the Amazon, Captain Hunter, was well known to him, and he was certain that the disaster was not attributable to any negligence on his part, and that he had after it occurred done everything that was possible for the rescue of life.

LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AMENDMENT BILL—(No 189.)
(The Lord Cranworth.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he had to move certain Amendments, without which it was possible that the Bill would give rise to difficulties in executing the extradition treaties with the United States,

775
France, and Denmark. Among the crimes for which persons were to be delivered up to those countries was that of "murder," but not that of "manslaughter." Now if the meaning of the word "murder" were to be changed in any degree, questions would arise concerning the legality of delivering up certain persons now handed over to the officers of justice of those countries. He, therefore, proposed to insert a clause to the effect that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to alter or affect the word or meaning of the word "murder" as far as the treaties in question are concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 189.)

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 169.)
(The Lord Cranworth.)
SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRANWORTH,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that all the original business of the Court of Chancery, or nearly all of it, was disposed of either by the Master of the Rolls or by the three Vice Chancellors, all having a concurrent jurisdiction. From their decisions an appeal lay to the Court of Appeal in Chancery, which consisted of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices of Appeal; the appeal might be carried either to the Lord Chancellor alone, or to the two Lords Justices, or to all three together. The Master of the Rolls was an officer of the highest rank in Chancery, being next to the Lord Chancellor. From his decision there was an appeal to the Lords Justices, who in rank were very much below the Master of the Rolls. There was therefore an anomaly in the appeal from the Court of a Judge of a higher rank to a Court composed of Judges of a lower rank. This was an anomaly which it was desirable to get rid of. Moreover, he held that the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery would be rendered much more harmonious if the original jurisdiction were exercised by functionaries bearing the same name and of the same character. What he proposed was that the Master of the Rolls should be ex officio senior Lord Justice, and that his place, whenever a vacancy
776
should occur, should be filled up by a new Vice Chancellor, with the same powers, and the same salary, and the same duty as the other Vice Chancellors. He had communicated with the Lords Justices and the Master of the Rolls, and they both agreed in the wisdom of the proposal. By this means £1,000 a year would be saved to the country, seeing that the salary of the Master of the Rolls and of the Lords Justices was £6,000, while that of a Vice Chancellor was £5,000 a year. The various clerks forming the staff of the Master of the Rolls would be transferred to the office of the new Vice Chancellor.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Cranworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he always was very reluctant to oppose any measure which his noble and learned Friend introduced, because he was disposed to rely upon his noble and learned Friend's judgment rather than upon his own; but after fully considering the provisions of this Bill, he felt that he could not assent to them. The object and effect of the Bill was virtually to abolish the office of the Master of the Rolls—the name and title would no doubt remain, but the office itself would be nothing. The office of Master of the Rolls was one of the highest antiquity — the creation of it dated from the Reign of Edward I., and he was intrusted with the exercise of most important functions. This Bill, if passed, would virtually abolish the office. The proposition of his noble and learned Friend was based entirely on this— that the Lords Justices being inferior in rank to the Master of the Rolls it was anomalous that there should be an appeal from the superior Judge to Judges inferior in rank. But at the time when the Act of 1851 creating the Lords Justices was passed, all this must have been in the contemplation of the Legislature, because by that Act the Lords Justices were placed in the table of precedence next below the Lord Chief Baron, and consequently below the Master of the Rolls, whose rank was between the two Chief Justices; but the Lords Justices had the same jurisdiction given to them as was exercised by the Lord Chancellor. Now, the Lord Chancellor entertained appeals from the Master of the Rolls, and of course the Legislature had given to the Lords Justices the power of hearing appeals from the Master of the Rolls. It might be said that the Bill did not propose to abolish the jurisdiction of the Master of

777
the Rolls, because the 7th section provided that he should exercise an original jurisdiction if it should be expedient for him so to do. But the moment he became one of the Lords Justices all possibility of exercising an original jurisdiction would be practically at an end. It was said that the proposed change would effect a saving of £1,000 a year; but it should be remembered that attached to the office of Master of the Rolls there was a large staff of secretaries and clerks, many of which would become sinecures, if the Master of the Rolls were made a Lord Justice, and these persons would have to be provided for. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had intimated that the Master of the Rolls had no objection to the present Bill; but he (the Lord Chancellor) believed that on re-consideration his noble and learned Friend had come to the conclusion that the Bill ought not to pass. He trusted the second reading of the Bill would not be pressed, but if it should be, it was his intention to vote against it.
LORD ST. LEONARDSalso objected to the Bill. The principle upon which it was founded seemed to be that an appeal from the Master of the Rolls to the Lords Justices was an appeal from a superior to an inferior tribunal. But such was not the case, for the appeal was intended to be to the Lord Chancellor and the two Lords Justices. The intention originally was that the Lord Chancellor should preside more frequently in the Court than had been the custom of late. The anomaly, if there was one, might be easily got over by simply enacting that in case of appeals from the Master of the Rolls the Lord Chancellor should always preside in the Court; or it might be remedied more simply still by an enactment placing the precedence of the Lords Justices before that of the Master of the Rolls.
LORD KINGSDOWNunderstood the object of the Bill was to curtail the number of appeals that came up to their Lordships' House; because it had been found, unfortunately, that since the appointment of the Lords Justices the number of these appeals had not been seriously diminished.
LORD ROMILLYsaid, when his noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor wrote to him last year to ask whether he would approve such a measure, he stated, in reply, that he put himself entirely in the hands of his noble and learned Friend, because he felt himself too much interested personally to think of exercising
778
any judgment on the subject: he was, therefore, he said, prepared to assent willingly to the change if his noble and learned Friend thought it desirable. Afterwards his noble and learned Friend sent him a copy of the Bill. But upon perusing it he could not help seeing that its operation would be attended with considerable difficulty. It proposed to put an end altogether to the original jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls, and would thus entirely paralyze the Office. Now, a very large portion of the original jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls was over records and the transfer of those records from various parts of the country. It would be impossible, therefore, to put an end to the whole of the original jurisdiction. When he came to look into the original jurisdiction, it seemed a matter of so much difficulty and complication that he wrote to his hon. and learned Friend to suggest that he should not press the Bill. That was the position which he occupied, and which he desired to explain to their Lordships.
LORD CRANWORTH,in reply, said, that the object of the Bill was to have the business of the inferior court disposed of by four Vice Chancellors, instead of three Vice Chancellors and the Master of the Rolls, and to make the Master of the Rolls ex officio one of the Lords Justices in the intermediate court. As to the operation of the Bill being an infringement upon the old and highly honourable duties of the Master of the Rolls, that was not his intention, nor did he think it would be the effect of the Bill. He had endeavoured to guard the measure against such an objection, and the language originally employed having been insufficient to effect this object, it had been so altered that he expected it was in this respect entirely satisfactory. The Master of the Rolls now discharged the duties of a Vice Chancellor plus the duties of the Master of the Rolls other than his judicial duties; and what was sought to be effected by the Bill was that he should discharge the duties of one of the Lords Justices equally plus the non-judicial duties of the Master of the Rolls. He did not wish to raise any question of personal rank, his chief aim being to put all the Judges of original jurisdiction on an equal footing. It was quite right that the Master of the Rolls should be at the head of the Lords Justices Court, but he would still discharge the duties of his office just as he at present discharged those of an inferior

779
Judge; while he would still continue to discharge the duties of the Master of the Rolls. It seemed to him that it would be the more convenient, harmonious, and constitutional arrangement that the court should consist of the Lord Chancellor at its head, the Master of the Rolls and his brother Lords Justices, and four Vice Chancellors. The suggestion that certain offices under the Master of the Rolls would on the transfer of his jurisdiction to one of the Vice Chancellors become sinecures, was inconsistent with the proposal that the officers should be retained to discharge the duties of the office of the Master of the Rolls as one of the Lords Justices. However, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack opposed the measure on the part of the Government, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
On Question; Resolved in the Negative; Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
(The Lord Cranworth.)
(NO. 154.) BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRANWORTHstated that he had deemed it his duty to introduce the Bill while he held the Great Seal, in order to complete the work of his predecessors; Lord Campbell having revised the statutes from 1770 to 1850, and Lord Westbury those anterior to the Revolution, so that there remained the intermediate period between 1688 and 1770. This Bill was not perfect; it did not contain the statutes relating to the National Debt; and since the change of Government he bad seen Lord Westbury, who was willing to continue the work he had begun. He, therefore, moved that the order for the second reading be discharged.
Motion agreed to.
Order discharged; Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(No. 186.)
(The Lord Cranworth.)

BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill, the object of which was to secure a more regular attendance at the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
780
Council, was one of considerable importance, and it was quite impossible it could receive proper consideration this Session. He, therefore, trusted his noble Friend (Lord Cranworth) would not deem it his duty to press it, but would be satisfied with having laid it on the table, so as to enable their Lordships to consider it during the recess.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he had introduced the Bill under a pressing sense of duty, believing that the changes it proposed were essential to the due administration of justice. The proposal which he had formerly made was that certain Judges should attend ex officio at all times, and that such Judges should be entitled to a pension at the end of ten instead of fifteen years. For his own part he did not know of any better plan; but, as his noble and learned Friend did not take the same view, he would consent to withdraw the Bill.
LORD KINGSDOWNthought that it would be better not to discuss the Bill at the present time.
Order discharged; Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

GLEBE LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Three o'Clock; and to appoint their own Chairman:

D. Richmond

L. Sundridge

E. Doncaster

L. Rosebery

E. Airlie

L. Rossie

E. Graham

L. Hamilton

E. Mansfield

L. Panmure

E. Zetland

L. Polwarth

House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.