Lords Sitting of 17 February 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Private Bills, appointed; Opposed Private Bills, appointed.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Metalliferous Mines (6).

METALLIFEROUS MINES—(No. 6).

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD KINNAIRD, in presenting a Bill relating to Metalliferous Mines, said, that the measure was founded on the Report of the Royal Commission, which was appointed in 1862, and reported in 1864. That Report was deserving of great consideration, because there were upon the Commission Gentlemen who had practical knowledge of the subject, from being connected with mines—one of them, indeed, having in his youth worked in a mine—as well as Members of Parliament representing what was called the mining interest. Those Gentlemen, though living in the neighbourhood, were previously unaware of the dreadful mortality which prevailed among miners, and though largely interested in mining property, they unani-

  409
  mously recommended measures to be adopted to remedy the evil. Reserving for the second reading a more detailed statement, he might state, as his justification for introducing a Bill into Parliament, that nothing had been done since the Report was presented, and because Her Majesty's Government have so much business already in hand that they could scarcely be expected to take up the question this Session. Another point which justified his tailing this course was the remarkable fact that, though there were several Acts of Parliament for the regulation of coal mines, no special Act had been passed relating to metal mines: the reason for this probably being that every now and then the public were startled by some terrible destruction of life, by the explosion of a coal mine, whereas in metal mines, though the accidents were greater in number, and the mortality far greater, yet no startling number of men fell victims at one time, and it thus happened that legislation for these mines had not been forced or consideration. The workers in coal mines were a healthy class, living longer and enjoying generally better health than agricultural labourers—a proof that mere employment underground was not injurious—whereas those employed in metal mines died off like rotten sheep at from thirty-five or forty-five years of age, fifty being reckoned old age for a miner. He did not propose to carry out all the recommendations of the Commissioners, as some it would be diffiult to define in. an Act of Parliament; he proposed rather to lay down two sets of rules, one to be settled by Act of Parliament, and the other to be prepared by the owners or workers, and approved by the Secretary of State, in order to suit the special circumstance of different mines. Even among coal mines there was great variety, owing to differences of geological formation. In the neighbourhood of Newcastle, mine accidents generally arose from fire and explosion whereas in Wales and other places they arose more generally from falling of the roof, owing to the lay of the geological strata. Still greater differences were found in metal mines at different places and it would, therefore, be impossible to frame any rules in an Act of Parliament which would be applicable to all cases. He proposed, therefore, that special rule should be prepared by the owners or
  410
  workers of mines to be approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. One recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission was a most important one, and might be acted upon, not only with regard to metal mines, but with regard to coal mines as well. It was, that the captain's agents or viewers should make a daily report in writing as to the state of the workings. That would be of great advantage and a great safeguard, for it would ensure a more careful supervision, and would place the responsibility on the right shoulders. It was impossible to suppose that a Government Inspector could properly inspect the miles and miles of underground workings which existed in some districts. In a recent case the miners had informed the viewer of the dangerous state of the mine, but no notice was taken, and an explosion, by which many lives were lost, soon followed. This could not have happened, if the viewer had been required to make a daily report. To carry out all the rules of the Bill would, he confessed, impose a very large amount of labour on the Home Secretary. He had at first the idea of proposing that there should be a Board composed of practical and scientific men, presided over by an Under Secretary, who should have a seat in Parliament. Nothing could be more satisfactory than such a proposal as that to the mining interests and to the miners themselves, and he believed it would be in a great measure the means of putting an end to strikes in the coal mining districts. There was another Bill before Parliament relating to coal mines, which would be read a second time on Monday next, and Her Majesty's Government would consider the question, whether a Minister of Mines should not be appointed, or some Board constituted to which all questions relating to mining might be referred.
  Bill presented, and read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 6.)

PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDER COMMITTEE.
Standing Order Committee on, appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

411

Ld. President

Ld. Chamberlain

Ld. Privy Seal

V. Hawarden

D. Somerset

V. Eversley

M. Winchester

Ld. Steward

M. Lansdowne

L. Camoys

M. Bath

L. Saye and Sele

M. Ailesbury

L. Colville of Culross

M. Normanby

L. Sondes

E. Devon

L. Digby

E. Airlie

L. Sheffield

E. Hardwicke

L. Colchester

E. Carnarvon

L. Silchester

E. Romney

L. De Tabley

K. Chichester

L. Portman

E. Powis

L. Belper

E. Verulam

L. Ebury

E. Saint Germans

L. Churston

E. Morley

L. Egerton

E. Stradbroke

L. Hylton

E. Amherst

L. Penrhyn

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
On Motion that the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Bath, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Colville of Culross be appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Select Committee to propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill,
LORD LYVEDENsaid, that last year it was understood that the Committee of Selection should act upon the rule that absence from the House should not exempt any Peer from attendance on Private Business. He should like to know how that Committee had exercised its discretion, and whether they had compelled the absentees to attend upon Private Bill Committees. If they had not, it was a very great hardship upon those who did attend. Private Bill Committees formed perhaps the most irksome business which any public man could undertake, taking up six of the best hours of the day, from 11 in the morning until 5, which was much longer than the time occupied each day by the Committees of the House of Commons. Moreover, the mode of selecting the Private Bill Committees was most undignified and unseemly; for in the middle of the most important debates one or two noble Lords were to be seen walking about with pencil and paper in hand, beseeching other noble Lords to sit upon certain Committees; and he had observed that from such solicitations they generally turned away with dislike, not to use a stronger term. Such a proceeding cast ridicule on the House, and he hoped it would be put an end to. He would sug-
412
gest that Private Committees should consist of three instead of five Members—the number in the House of Commons being four. He also wished to know whether it was proposed to revive this Session the appointment of Joint Committees of both Houses—a plan which would greatly facilitate business and exceedingly diminish the expense. Then he considered that if Committees were to be chosen for party considerations the Committee of Selection itself was not impartially selected, for though two Peers were taken from one side and two from the other, still the Chairman of Committees who presided was an eminent partizan of one side of the House—though they all acknowledged his aptitude for business and personal integrity.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the noble Lord's last remark was a proof how little he had suffered from attendance on Committees, for he actually imagined that he (Lord Redesdale) was himself Chairman of all these Committees.[Lord LYVEDEN: You are Chairman of the Committee that appoints the others.] During all the years he had served on that Committee he had never known a dispute in it in regard to any appointment on party grounds. It was surely desirable that Committees should be taken from both sides, oven where nothing of a political character could arise, and that care should be taken that the Bills connected with various boroughs in the kingdom should be impartially considered. Last Session the Private Business was light, and no difficulty was found in obtaining Peers who were in town and were willing to serve. He rather thought the noble Lord himself was asked, but declined, urging the no doubt really good excuse that Ins health would not enable him to attend them. He entirely denied that the manner in which the Committees were appointed excited ridicule. The Committees of their Lordships' House had secured greater confidence and approval on the part of the public than those in the other House, and he thought it undesirable to make any change in a system which experience had proved to work well.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed with much that the noble Chairman of Committees had said, especially as to the propriety of selection from both sides of the House. He agreed, however,

413
with the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) that the large number of Peers who did not attend the debates should be called upon to serve on Private Bill Committees.
Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
All petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present session referred to the Standing Order Committee, unless otherwise ordered.
TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND)— FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Lord CAIRNS moved for—
  Copies of all Returns recently received by Her Majesty's Government from Poor Law and other official persons in Ireland as to the tenure, occupation, and improvement of Land, and the condition of Agricultural Labourers in that country: Ordered to be laid before the House:
  Also, Address for Copies of any Reports received from Her Majesty's diplomatic servants or consuls abroad as to the tenure and occupation of Land in Foreign Countries.
  Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL BEAUCHAMProse to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they propose to make with regard to Public Business in this House. He had several reasons for putting the question. Last year, as their Lordships would recollect, one or more measures of importance came before them at so late a period that the attendance of Peers had become very limited, and great dissatisfaction was felt at their being pressed forward in so thin a House. He did not wish to revive these discussions, but he wished to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the great waste of time under the present system. Parliament was summoned to moot on the 8th of February—it was now the 17th—and he believed he was correct in saying that as yet no notice of any public Bill had been given in that House by the Government. It was obvious that if so much time was wasted at the beginning of the Session a great deal of work would have to be crowded into the end. Now, in the Sessions from 1865 to 1868 various measures were submitted to their Lordships at a comparatively early date; and last Session great public benefit accrued from that
  414
  course being taken with the Habitual Criminals Bill, which underwent a searching discussion, and in which very great improvements were introduced., much of the credit of which was due to its early consideration by their Lordships. The fact that most of the heads of Departments promoting legislation were mostly Members of the House of Commons was no obstacle to this course, for that Bill, though it naturally belonged to the Home Office, was introduced by the Lord Privy Seal, and he did not see why arrangements should not be made by which other Government measures might be introduced in their Lordships' House in the same way. A Speaker of the House of Commons, when asked by Queen Elizabeth what had passed in that Chamber, replied, with a bow, "Please your Majesty, six weeks." But it was to be hoped such an answer would never have to be given in these days; and their Lordships could materially assist in preventing this if Bills were submitted to them at an early period of the Session. It was most unsatisfactory to concentrate all the work of this House into a few weeks in July and August, when noble Lords were exhausted, and when many of them were breathing a purer air at a distance.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl's suggestion is not quite of a novel character, for I hardly remember a year since I have sat in this House when a similar appeal was not made; and I remember hearing Lord Aberdeen state that as far back as his experience went the same complaint had almost every year been made. The Joint Committee which sat last Session very much considered this question with some others; as also proposals for making certain changes by means of the Standing Orders; but they were unanimously of opinion that it was inadvisable to adopt them. After stating the evil the Committee said—
  "The Committee admit, with some qualification, the existence of the evil which it is proposed to correct, but are of opinion that it can only be remedied by general consent, and believe that there are objections to all the proposed modes of obviating it which make it unlikely that the House of Commons would take a different view now from that which they took in 1848, when a Bill moved by the Earl of Derby, and passed through the House of Lords, was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, who declined to recommend it for adoption."
  The Committee went on to say—

  415
  "The Committee are of opinion that considerable expedition might be made in the progress of legislation if more Bills, especially those of a legal or ecclesiastical character, were to originate in the House of Lords. It seems to them, however, that the arrangement of public business between the two Houses can only be left to the discretion of Her Majesty's Ministers, having regard to the character and importance of the different measures introduced, and the opportunities afforded for discussing them in either House."
  With regard to what occurred last Session, the introduction of certain measures into this House was, on some points, very successful, but on others it was not quite so; for your Lordships—whether rightly or wrongly, I will not now discuss—refused to consider the Amendments made by the Commons in the Scotch Education Bill when it came back to this House. Your Lordships are well aware of the excessive pressure be of business in the House of Commons as well as in this House, but that your Lordships were exhausted at the close of last Session, I am disposed to question, for I saw very few symptoms of exhaustion, either collectively or individually. In that very month of July the amount of business in the House of Commons is overwhelming, and if the number of hours they sit were compared with our sittings they would be found, at least, three to one. I do not, therefore, think too much stress should be given to the plea of exhaustion. At the same time I am quite of opinion that important measures should be brought up to your Lordships in time for careful and serious consideration, and I can only say that it will be the duty and pleasure of the Government to have certain Bills laid before you. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has arranged to present a Bill respecting procedure in the Highest Courts—a subject mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech—and also a Bill relating to Appellate Jurisdiction, which is one of great importance. On Thursday next, moreover, my noble and learned Friend intends to introduce a measure dealing with Naturalization; and I trust that legislation will not suffer from your Lordships having to deal with important Bills at a very advanced period of the Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As a member of the Joint Committee to which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) referred. I venture to correct a statement which I think he inadvertently
  416
  used—that they unanimously declined to recommend an alteration, either by Bill or by Standing Order, which would have carried forward into the ensuing Session Bills which were incomplete in the previous Session. I certainly never concurred in such a Resolution, and one who has gone from us, and who took an earnest interest in the matter—the late Earl of Derby—never, I am quite sure, consented to abandon the proposal. That Committee was more remarkable for the feeling disclosed on the part of Members of the House of Commons than for any Resolutions which it adopted; for those Members who spoke and acted with the greatest courtesy towards us candidly avowed that their reasons for objecting to any measure for lessening the glut of legislation at the end of the Session was, that the present state of things gave them much greater facilities for pressing through this House measures to which the majority of your Lordships are opposed than a more rational arrangement would offer. Now that really hits the core of the evil. There is no particular evil in our having nothing to do at the beginning of the Session, though it were to be wished the fates would give us a lighter summer and the Commons a lighter spring. We must not, however, complain if we have little to do now, and have to work hard by-and-by, but must endure it as well as we can. The practical result is, that measures are forced upon your Lordships at a time when there are not sufficient Members to give a real expression of your opinion upon them. There was a most flagrant instance of this last year. Within three days of the Prorogation most of us were dispersed, and it was generally understood that the Scotch Education Bill would not be proceeded with. So generally was this understood that I met a distinguished Member of the Government in France, who told me that there was not the slightest prospect of its being settled. All of a sudden, however, the Bill entirely remodelled in a sense already declared by this House to be most objectionable, was sent back, and at two days' notice, presented for our acceptance. The great zeal, energy, and assiduity of my noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) defeated that attempt. I came back my-self, but, unfortunately, on the wrong day. Now, that is an instance of what, in a smaller degree, is constantly hap-

  417
  pening; and it is necessary that your Lordships should turn your attention to doing something with regard to which we do not want the consent of the House of Commons to make it impossible for such surprises to occur. If we arrange that legislation is not forced upon us when there is only an official quorum in the House, the responsibility of waste of time at this season of the year must be left with the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid he did not wish to be guilty of an inaccuracy. The noble Marquess certainly supported his proposal in the Committee and the late Lord Derby also; but he believed the paragraph in the Report condemning it was adopted without a division.
  EARL GREY: This subject is one of extreme difficulty, and without very great exertion on the part of the Government we cannot hope for an improvement which, as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) rightly says, has been earnestly desired for nearly three quarters of a century. It is necessary, both in justice to your Lordships and to the public, for measures are hastily passed the details of which require careful consideration, and which might be considerably improved if these details were more carefully examined. But it is impossible when 30 or 40 Bills appear in the Orders of every day in July and August that their details can receive more than nominal consideration. The result of our present arrangement is that Bills are passed which are ill-considered and ill-digested, and are certain in the course of a year or two to require amendment. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has but stated the plain truth when he says that the evil cannot be corrected, simply because the House of Commons does not desire it, and that our only remedy is to do something which shall make that House desire this improvement. At one time we passed a Resolution that, except in cases of urgency, we would not give a second reading to Bills that came up after a certain date. During the short time that we adhered to that Resolution it was of some use, and if strictly enforced it would have been most beneficial. But what happened? The last time it was adopted the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) moved it at the beginning of the Session, and strongly advised your Lordships not to adopt it unless
  418
  you intended to adhere to it; while on both sides there was the strongest declaration that you would adhere to it except in cases of real urgency. Late in July, however, after I myself and most of your Lordships had left town, there came up a Bill of a very complicated character, requiring the gravest consideration—especially from noble and learned Lords—the Limited Liability Bill. It was a measure which had been much discussed for some years, and was by many deemed highly desirable; and I myself thought it so. It had no party character, but effected a largo alteration in our commercial legislation, such as, if not done cautiously, would lead to great abuse. To the surprise, however, of many, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) then, as now, Leader of the Government in this House, gave notice that he would move that the Bill came within the proviso of urgency, though it had been talked of for years, and might perhaps with advantage have been discussed for three or four years more. I thought this Motion so outrageous that I thought it my duty to come up 300 miles and resist it; but on the Opposition side of the House there were present only about half-a-dozen Peers, and there was a majority of persons holding Office of double that number. We accordingly proceeded to discuss the Bill, and my noble Friend (Lord Overstone), who had the greatest acquaintance with the subject, expressed the strongest opinion against the hasty passing of such a measure. He truly said that every clause required weighing with the greatest care. But the official majority overbore us, and it was passed with merely nominal consideration. Lord Overstone did what he could to amend it, and I lent him my humble assistance; but it passed substantially as it came up. The result has been that it has literally fulfilled every prediction contained in the remarkable Protest entered on your journals by Lord Overstone; indeed, reading it now, and comparing it with the actual operation of the Bill, it reads like history and not prophecy. Parliament has never passed a measure productive of more private suffering, more cruel injustice, more flagrant wrong to persons incapable of protecting themselves. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) has naturally declined to move such a Resolution again; but I hope that when you can stop hasty legis-

  419
  lation in a way which cannot be deemed unjust, and when by allowing crude legislation to go on you cause great evil, your Lordships will revert to the plan of refusing to consider any Bills sent up at later than a proper date, and will firmly adhere to it. The result would probably be considerable inconvenience for one Session, and a great outcry at the postponement of some measures; but the House of Commons would find means thenceforth of taking care that we should have Bills at a proper time. I have no hesitation in saying that that House has the power of doing so. I am not an advocate for a great many Bills beginning here. A certain class of Bills may do so with advantage; but I am bound to admit that with the majority of Bills their passing would not be facilitated. I admit also that there are objections to the plan proposed by the late Lord Derby for providing by an Act of Parliament taking up Bills in a subsequent Session; but I see no reason why the House of Commons should not accomplish the same object by Standing Order. They might resolve that when a Bill had passed their own House so late in the year that it could not be sufficiently considered here, it should by a single vote be at once read three times in the ensuing Session and sent up here. The adoption of that course would lead to a great improvement in our legislation—especially if coupled with other measures for improving the machinery of business.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am glad to hear the noble Earl's opinion that it is not desirable, as a general rule, that Bills should originate here. His long experience must have shown him that, except as to Bills of a certain character, their passing would be greatly endangered by their introduction here. The present Government are surely not open to blame, for last year we introduced more than one Bill of considerable interest, and this Session we propose to introduce measures of a legal character. The Habitual Criminals Bill is a very good illustration of the fact mentioned by my noble Friend (Earl Granville), that the House of Commons also is so overwhelmed with business at the end of the Session, that it has sometimes great difficulty in considering Bills in a satisfactory manner. I naturally took great interest in that Bill, and I confess that as the Session advanced I
  420
  had great doubts whether it would not be dropped in that House, of which there was considerable danger. Now, if that was the case with a Bill which met with general approval, it is much more likely to happen with Bills which excite differences of opinion. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) took the opportunity afforded by this discussion of making a trenchant attack on the Limited Liability Act, seeming to think that as the commercial crisis occurred since its passing, it was caused by it. Now, I will not give an opinion on a subject not properly before the House; but though there is no man to whose opinion on commercial questions I am more inclined to defer than Lord Overstone, and though fully valuing the opinion of the noble Earl himself, I venture to think that that crisis was not caused by that Act. I think also that, whatever regulations had been laid down for the conduct of Public Business, Lord Overstone and the noble Earl would, in the discharge of what they felt to be their duty, have attacked that measure and offered all possible opposition to it. They laid hold of the noble Lord's (Lord Redesdale's) Resolution, simply on a principle "any stick to beat a dog." That Resolution was not convenient, for I had often myself to propose the suspension of it—which showed no negligence on the part of the then Government, nor any disrespect to this House, but simply that it was impossible to carry it out. I question, indeed, whether it is competent or proper for this House virtually to decide when the Session is to terminate; for Parliament is called together by the Crown, and it is the duty of both Houses to remain until the business is completed. With regard to the Scotch Education Bill, I regret that an impression sprang up, owing to some indecision in the House of Commons whether it should be proceeded with, that it would be abandoned; and I admit that that might have given some ground for objecting to its consideration by your Lordships; but, irrespective of that misunderstanding, it was clearly the duty of your Lordships, in the case of a Bill which had undergone protracted discussion in the other House, to remain and discuss it in its amended form. Last Session was, no doubt, an unusual one, and measures of great importance occupying both Houses, some others were driven off very late;

  421
  but whatever Government may be in power it will always do its utmost to facilitate the passage of Bills through the other House. From the very commencement of the Session, there is a continuous struggle on the part of Members of the Government to send up measures to your Lordships in sufficient time, knowing as they do the risk which otherwise attends them.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Like the noble Earl (Earl Granville) I scarcely remember a Session which has not been opened with a somewhat similar discussion—namely, a question as to what Bills the Government would introduce, a certain number of speeches on both sides, and a more or less satisfactory assurance from the Government. I am sorry to say that the noble Earl's answer to-night must be classed with the less, rather than with the more, satisfactory assurances, for lie offers us a more meager programme than has been customary on former occasions. Last year, six or seven Bills were introduced here—including the Habitual Criminals Bill, which was thoroughly sifted by your Lordships, and in which some important Amendments were made; the Governor General of India Bill, which, it is true, was subsequently altered, but the discussion on which was useful; and the Scotch Education Bill. All those were important measures, and there were four others of less moment. The present programme is comparatively small, and I should be glad if the Government would consider the practicability of giving us rather more occupation before Easter. Unfortunately, the Members of the House of Commons were unwilling to accept the proposal of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) last Session; and if the Government decline to give us a reasonable amount of work whereon to employ ourselves in the early part of the Session, it must remain for this House to consider what course it will take. I cannot say what would happen if the more stringent measures which have been hinted at were adopted; but it is our duty not to be parties to confessedly bad legislation. I do not say that the present Government are more to blame than previous Governments; but it is impossible to do justice to the Bills which flow in upon us in July and August, and this House practically loses all sense of responsibility in dealing with them;
  422
  crude measures are consequently passed, and the only marvel is how such legislation can ever be made to work. If the Government can devise no expedient for a more equal distribution of labour, it becomes the duty of this House to refuse its assent to Bills, no matter how important, rather than be a party to crude and often dangerous legislation.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, the real truth was the government of the country was in the House of Commons, and no Minister liked to introduce a measure of importance into the House of Lords until he first knew what was likely to be the feeling of the House of Commons with regard to it. In some instances, it was stated in evidence, Bills had met with an unfavourable reception in the other House, expressly because they had first been introduced into their Lordships' House. At the same time, it was very desirable that any Bills of a character admitting of their being brought forward in their Lordships' House should be so introduced, and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had done well in promising Bills of a legal character for their consideration. Religious subjects might also be taken up with advantage in their Lordships' House; upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which had been promised by the Prime Minister—for instance, it would be very desirable to have the opinion of the Bench of Bishops. But a Resolution such as that which was suggested for the adoption of their Lordships would utterly fail to accomplish the object which was desired. In the case of some great Bill, like that of the present Session, or the Irish Church measure of last year, would it be possible for a mere Resolution to resist the progress of such a Bill? No. The same thing would arise which happened in the case of the Limited Liability Bill, and the House of Commons would sweep triumphantly through the Resolution. At that time, the Notices given for not insisting on the rule, upon the ground of urgency, were so frequent as almost to create a laugh. Nevertheless, it was most desirable that the Ministry should keep its eye upon such Bills as were capable of being introduced with advantage at an early period in their Lordships' House, so that these might not be delayed till the extreme end of the summer or even into autumn.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, the best proof which could be afforded of the practical impossibility of carrying any measure until the feeling of the House of Commons had first been ascertained was afforded by the case of the Scotch Education Bill, which was introduced into their Lordships' House last year at the very beginning of the year and yet failed to become law. The Government seemed to have adopted the very best mode of advancing Public Business by introducing an unusually large number of Bills in the House of Commons at the very outset of the present Session, which would probably give their Lordships plenty of occupation at an early period.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was easy to say it was the duty of their Lordships to stay in town as long as there was any business to get through or till the Queen chose to release them from attendance; but everybody knew that this was not a practical observation—they all knew what occurred as the end of the Session approached. As to the Scotch Education Bill of last year, the House of Commons sent it back, no doubt: but when? It came back on the day that the Consolidated Fund Appropriation Act was read the third time. And how was the Bill treated after it had left their Lordships' House? The House of Commons after several postponements, read it a second time, and it was the next day committed pro formâ for the purpose of striking out nearly all the Amendments which had been made in their Lordships' House, and of putting the Bill back very nearly into the shape in which it was originally introduced. And that was the shape in which it came back to their Lordships on the 9th of August, Parliament being prorogued upon the 11th. The Bill could not be printed before the next day, and it was obvious that the Government would resist all Amendments, because the delay which would attend its going back to the Commons would lead to the loss of the measure. Under these circumstances he regarded the vote at which the House then arrived with the utmost satisfaction. It was emphatically a declaration of what the House felt to be due to itself, and it was a step taken with perfect independence, for not a single Member of the late Government voted in the division by which the Bill was rejected. A Resolution that the House would not read Bills a second time after
  424
  a particular date he regarded as a most legitimate declaration; and it was a course which, if it were adopted by both Houses, would get rid of any question of privilege. The reason why he himself did not renew the Motion was that the other House of Parliament had objected to it, and he thought it was a proposal which, if made, ought to proceed from the Government and not from an independent Member. At the same time he had been very happy last year, in the debate on the Scotch Education Bill, to quote the authority of the present Prime Minister in support of such a Resolution. About ten years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was not in Office, a Bill was sent down at a late period from their Lordships' House, for the purpose of enabling the Bishops of London and Norwich to retire. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to the period at which that Bill was sent down, and said that if the Government brought forward measures so late in the Session, it would be the duty of the House to adopt a Resolution that no second reading of a Bill should be taken after a certain day. With this high authority for the course he recommended, he hoped that the matter would be dispassionately considered, for all parties agreed that it was desirable legislation should be well and carefully matured. The same proposition which was made with regard to public Bills had been made and acted upon with the greatest advantage in the case of private Bills. At one time the utmost difficulty was experienced in getting these Bills at any reasonable period; but by fixing a date and adhering to it the Bills now came up on or before the day named, and if one was too late it was often accounted for by some exceptional circumstances. This had been accomplished simply by a rule of their Lordships' House—for no similar rule prevailed in the Commons. The question of extending the system of public Bills was one well deserving of consideration, affecting as it did the convenience and the best interests of the country. As to the introduction of legal measures into their Lordships' House during the present Session, two Bills had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, which he thought belonged essentially to the class that might be presented to their Lordships, one having reference to the transfer of land, and the

  425
  other to the distribution of real property in cases of intestacy.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to add a few words with reference to the two Bills which his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had stated that he (the Lord Chancellor) was about to introduce. One of these had for its object to enable the courts of common law to make arrangements for carrying on their duties in certain cases in which difficulties were experienced. At this moment one of these courts was unable to exercise all its duties in a satisfactory manner, owing to the decease of one of its Judges, while in the other courts there are more than enough Judges to discharge the duty cast upon them. This state of things had induced him to bring forward a Bill, which he should ask their Lordships to read a first time to-morrow evening. If it had not been for the absence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), who, after this present week would be absent from their deliberations for some little time, he would not have said a word upon the subject of the larger measure before actually introducing it; but as that measure was founded upon the Report of the Judicature Commission, which recommended changes of importance and of very great magnitude—and inasmuch as that Commission had been obtained by his noble and learned Friend, who himself presided over its labours, took the greatest interest in its deliberations, and assented to the Report at which the Commission arrived—he was most anxious before their Lordships lost the benefit of his assistance, to bring forward the subject in such a manner as at least to obtain from him a valuable opinion upon those recommendations on which the provisions of the Bill were mainly based. The other Bill was the Naturalization Bill, which would carry into effect a very large number of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission which sat on the subject, leaving only a portion of their recommendations undealt with, for reasons which, at the proper time, he would explain to the House.

ROYAL MINT.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD KINNAIRD, in moving for Statements connected with the Coining and Melting Departments of the Royal
  426
  Mint, said, that these Returns, if granted, would show that a reduction of something like £6,000 might be effected in that office if a proper system were introduced. Great dissatisfaction existed with reference to the payment of the men at present. He had given much attention to this subject, and if these Returns were granted he should hope at some future time to prove that, instead of a loss being occasioned by coining, the Mint ought to yield a profit. He was glad to learn that the proposal to depreciate the sovereign for the purpose of paying the expense of coining had been abandoned. The two first Returns related to the gold coinage; the two next to silver. The two last Returns related to the cost of assay, and he believed the materials for which he asked existed in the Deputy Master's office.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, there was no objection to produce all the information on this subject which could be produced; but probably his noble Friend would be satisfied with the first five Returns, and would not insist that they should be printed.
  LORD KINNAIRDassented.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to: Returns ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, halt past Ten o'clock.