Lords Sitting of 13 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Benefices* (130); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (131); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (132).
Second Reading—Wine and Beerhouse Act(1869) Amendment* (109); Gas and Water Facilities* (111).
Select Committee—Tramways* (107), appointed. Committee—Report—Attorneys and Solicitors Remuneration (86); Appellate Jurisdiction (73–136).
Report—High Court of Justice (120–135); Norwich Voters Disfranchisement* (128); Bridgwater and Beverley Disfranchisement* (129).
Third Reading—Mortgage Debenture Act (1865) Amendment* (121), and passed.

NEW PEER.
Charles William Fitzgerald, esquire (commonly called Marquess of Kildare), having been created Baron Kildare of Kildare in the county of Kildare—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS REMUNERATION BILL—(No. 86.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS REMUNERATION BILL—(No. 86.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (The remuneration of attorneys and solicitors may be fixed by agreement).
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he desired to call attention to the unlimited scope of the measure. He had heard of no ground stated for the introduction of the Bill, except a very restricted one—the unsatisfactory nature of the existing arrangement by which conveyancing business was remunerated—that remuneration being in proportion to the length of the deeds or other documents. This arrangement, of course, offered a premium on prolixity, and there was no inducement to employ skill in abbreviating the prolix forms which at present prevailed. In 1864 his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) brought in a Bill enabling attorneys to enter into agreements as to the amount of remuneration for conveyancing business; but it was objected to as having a larger scope, and it failed to become law. For himself, he saw no objection to allow these gentlemen to enter into agreements with their clients as to their conveyancing business. This class of business was usually considered the best part of the business of the profession; and persons of the highest character being employed in it, he was sure they would not abuse the power now proposed to be given them; but he very seriously objected to the Bill being extended to business of all descriptions, including actions at law and suits in equity, on account of the overreaching and oppression which would inevitably result. In many cases business of those kinds was undertaken by persons who were not of the highest character in the profession; they knew very well what the expenses were likely to be, and could thus take care to make very good bargains for themselves; and their clients being generally ignorant were not equally able to take care of themselves, and though it was true that the agreement might be brought before a Court, and, if unreasonable, set aside, the parties in nine cases out of ten would not be aware of this mode of redress, and would not know whether the agreement was a fail one. The Bill, moreover, exempted these agreements from taxation, so that they would be eagerly entered into for the purpose of avoiding the scrutinizing eye of the taxing officer. He should have much preferred it had the Bill been

  1919
  confined to conveyancing business; but he feared it could not be modified in this sense without being re-drawn. He had therefore drawn an Amendment to this clause, which provided that when such an agreement related to any action or suit, the amount payable in it should not be paid until the agreement had been examined and allowed by the taxing officer of the Court, who, if he deemed it not fair and reasonable, might require it to be referred to the Court, which would be empowered to reduce the amount, or to order the agreement to be cancelled, and the costs to be taxed in the same manner as if no such agreement had been made. Without such a proviso the operation of the Bill would be most mischievous. As however his Amendment had not been printed, he would not move it on the present occasion; but would leave it for their Lordships' consideration, and would move it at a subsequent stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as the object of the Bill was to allow freedom of contract as far as possible, and to enable clients to get their work done at less expense, he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he thought the Bill as introduced by the noble Marquess a very valuable measure, believing that many persons would abstain from bringing actions if they knew the expense beforehand. At present, if they asked an attorney whether he would undertake to carry on a suit for any specified sum, the answer was, that the law did not permit him to make such a bargain, but he believed the cost would not exceed that sum. He feared that the suggested proviso would not work well, but would prove merely an expensive form of taxation; for a person could not go before the taxing officer with evidence without expense. The opponent would not be bound by the agreement, for if he lost the action he would have to pay the taxed costs irrespective of the sum agreed on.
  LORD CAIRNS, while generally approving the Bill, shared in the doubts of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), and therefore supported the proviso as a protection to the interests of ignorant clients. The Bill already provided that agreements entered into by guardians and trustees, who might not be very strict in a matter
  1920
  where the costs would not come upon, themselves, should be subject to the certificate of the taxing officer, and it was expedient to extend this safeguard to agreements relating to actions at law. He would remind their Lordships that what the proviso proposed to accomplish was in strict accordance with the objects of the Bill.
  LORD WESTBURYfeared the proviso, if adopted without some qualification, would practically nullify the clause. He admitted that care was necessary; but he hoped this Bill would be more successful than the measure which he introduced some years ago.
  LORD PENZANCEremarked that the terms of the proviso would not apply it to the Court over which he had the honour to preside. Unless this omission was supplied, very ignorant clients in the smaller class of cases would be much imposed upon.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the evil complained of was fully recognized, and everyone would admit that it was very desirable that some means should be found of remunerating professional services by some other standard than that of the length of the documents. He approved of this Bill, thinking it would, to some extent, wipe away the reproach by offering some inducement to brevity. The obvious reason of the present system of forbidding bargains was that, while in other agreements a man was advised by his solicitor, in an agreement with his solicitor he would have no advice or protection. The Bill would tend to the benefit of the community in the majority of cases—certainly as regarded the more respectable practitioners; and the 8th clause provided that no action should be brought on these agreements until the Court had been applied to, to see whether they were fair or not. There was also a clause protecting infants and married women, for whom protection was imperatively necessary. As to the class who, though legally capable, were incapable through ignorance, they had one kind of protection from the persons of whom his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) was afraid, though not one much to be admired. These persons were not so few as to preclude competition among themselves, and the client would be in some degree protected by the competition as to who would transact the business most cheaply.

  1921
  It was not desirable so to restrict the measure as to impede the operations of the more respectable class, whose clients would benefit from it. But he doubted whether the proposed proviso would not work harm rather than good.
  LORD CHELMSFORDremarked that his noble and learned Friend's picture of all the attorneys in a neighbourhood assembling about the carcass like a flock of vultures proved the necessity of protecting the unfortunate persons who might fall into their clutches. In the majority of cases the money would be squeezed out of the client, the agreement never coming before the Court, and he hoped that to prevent overreaching and oppression his proviso would be agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday the 30 th instant.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL. (NO. 120.) REPORT.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANOELLORsaid, that, in view of the Amendment of which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had given Notice, he had thought it right to consider whether his own views and those of his noble and learned Friend were so antagonistic as to necessitate the postponement till another year of a measure which both of them substantially approved. Such a delay he had been extremely anxious to avoid, as it would not in any case be possible to bring the new system of Courts into operation till Michaelmas Term, 1871. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) differed from him on two points. First, while concurring in the change in the Courts of Judicature recommended by the Commission over which he presided, he desired that the Court of Appeal should be a branch of the High Court, and not, as proposed in the Bill, a Court apart—a view in which he deemed himself supported by the Commission. He (the Lord Chancellor) had no objection to adopt that view, and was accordingly prepared to amend the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill in that sense. His noble and learned Friend contended, in the second place, that the rules of procedure essential to every
1922
Court should be framed before any change took place, and should be embodied in the Act. Now, the rules of the existing Courts, which it was proposed to consolidate, were no less than 2,800 in number; and although those of the consolidated Court would be less numerous, they could not be introduced into this Bill unless it were deferred for a year, in order that they might be framed. That proposal he (the Lord Chancellor) opposed; because he considered it impossible to frame rules for the guidance of a Court until the constitution of the Court was known. His own proposal, therefore, was to delegate the task to a Committee of the Privy Council, leaving it afterwards to the Court to make modifications. His noble and learned Friend, however, supported—with one exception—by all the noble and learned Lords who had addressed the House, urged that the rules should have the direct sanction of Parliament, instead of the indirect sanction of being laid on the Table of both Houses before taking effect. Now, although not satisfied that this course was preferable, he (the Lord Chancellor) was willing, by way of compromise, provided the constitution of the Court was settled—as it would be if the Bill passed—to superintend the framing of rules, obtaining such assistance as should be necessary, and to provide that, with the exception of one or two clauses, the Bill should not come into operation until these rules had received the sanction of Parliament. One of the exceptions would relate to the power to appoint a Lord Justice of Appeal in Chancery, pending and subject to those changes. It had not hitherto been deemed expedient to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Lord Justice Selwyn, on the ground that any person appointed should be prepared to submit to the changes which Parliament might think desirable; and though this course had been much animadverted upon, he was happy to say that the appeals awaiting hearing, which in November were 33, none of them of older date than the previous June, were now only 36, although one appeal had lasted 11 days. Indeed, during the Chancellorship of his noble and learned predecessor (Lord Cairns) the Court of Appeal in Chancery twice cleared its whole paper—though, of course, a fresh one always followed the

1923
operation. The Government were desirous of avoiding any arrears in the business, by at once appointing a Lord Justice, subject to the provisions of the Bill. There was one feature of the measure which would take immediate effect: it related to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, if a Privy Councillor, was enabled to sit, if appointed, on the Judicial Committee—which at present he could not do. He proposed, in deference to the objections which had been urged, to strike out the clauses relating to the Home Circuit; and there were a few other alterations, of a consequential nature, which he hoped would meet with their Lordships' approval.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that so far as he was personally concerned, he was perfectly satisfied with the concessions of his noble and learned Friend. They would meet his objection to the separation of the new Court of Appeal from the High Court of Justice, and also his objection to the delegation to an extra-Parliamentary body of the settling of rules affecting the whole judicature of the country, He thought that, in assenting to these changes, his noble and learned Friend had taken a very wise course; and would, he trusted, have the satisfaction of seeing these Bills become law this Session, and thus of seeing the High Court of Justice constituted, although it would not come into operation until the rules had been sanctioned by Parliament. He had himself paid very close attention to the measure; but, as persons out-of-doors had not had a sufficient opportunity of considering the Amendments which had from time to time been introduced, he trusted—although recognizing the importance of expedition at this period of the Session—that the Bills would be reprinted, and that a few days would intervene before the third reading, in order that persons outside might become cognizant of the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he proposed to fix the third reading for Friday.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not say a word in opposition to an arrangement concurred in by the two noble and learned Lords who had just spoken; but he confessed he regretted the change that had been made in the Bill, because he thought the mode originally proposed
1924
for settling the rules of the Courts was better than that which was substituted for it. He did not concur in the noble and learned Lord's jealousy of allowing matters of this kind to be determined by any other authority than that of Parliament, as he felt that the machinery of legislation in this country was getting absolutely choked by a too great an amount of business. The consequence of this excessive amount of labour which Parliament took upon itself was that the work was ill performed, Bills being passed in an imperfect and unsatisfactory state. It was impossible that it should be otherwise until some efficient means were adopted of lightening the heavy load of business which at present pressed on the two Houses, and of making greater use of subsidiary authorities in the preparation of measures for legislation. Much had of late years been done in that direction; and the drawing up a vast number of rules relating to the procedure of Courts of Law was, above all, a case where Parliament should not be encumbered with too much detail. Considering the numbers of both Houses, effective consideration of such detail was impossible; and he was persuaded that measures embodying such a vast amount of detail as that which was now before them would be much better prepared if they were submitted to the consideration of another authority, preparatory to their being presented to Parliament. The supreme control of Parliament should, of course, be maintained; but this would have been sufficiently done by the original proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that the rules should not come into operation unless they had been laid before Parliament, and unless Parliament within a certain time refrained from expressing disapproval. Next Session there would probably be as great a pressure of business as at present; and a measure embodying these rules would occupy more time than might be expected or than was desirable, and might lead to a discussion which would probably be fruitless, and could not fail to obstruct other measures. It was taking a wrong view of the duties of Parliament to keep within its walls matters of detail of this kind. In the earlier history of Parliament they would find that the substance of the law was alone considered, and that it was left to the Judges to embody

1925
its wishes in statutes. He believed those earlier Acts, thus deliberately framed out of Parliament, compared advantageously with Acts passed under the modern system, under which Parliament took cognizance of every detail and wording.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, he should decline to follow the noble Earl (Earl Grey into the large historic question he had raised; but he must express his regret that his noble Friend, like others both in and out of the House, had allowed himself to be terrified by the bugbear of the immense number of rules and orders which would be necessary. All that was sought to be done was this—as they were going to abolish all existing Courts, and to constitute one High Court, and as it was necessary at the same time to abolish the separate forms of pleading, and to impose on them the obligation of one simple form, those who knew how essential forms were to justice required that the rules determining procedure should be embodied in a Bill and sanctioned by Parliament. These would be as different from minute rules of practice as principles were from its details; and, if properly framed, Parliament would avoid that "leap in the dark" which was as inexpedient with regard to our Courts of Justice as to any other part of our existing Constitution. It being known how the Courts were to act, the material forms necessary would, in the hands of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and competent assistants, extend only over a few pages; and the other forms necessary, which already existed, and in all probability would not be altered, would be easily dealt with; so that the noble Earl would be able next Session to read the Bill with great ease, and, he had no doubt, to understand what it contained. He agreed with him that many Bills were passed in an imperfect shape; but this was frequently owing to the infirmity of purpose of their promoters, who had not duly considered, what was required. He regretted that a measure altering all our Courts should have been introduced without previous conference with the Judges, and should have been persevered with in spite of the remonstrances of the Common Law Judges. Had these things been abstained from, we should not have had different editions of the same Bill. He was obliged to complain
1926
of three sheets of Amendments to the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill having been only delivered at three o'clock that afternoon. Could it be expected that the House should be able to consider them? After the concessions made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he did not wish to interpose any unnecessary delays; but he trusted that the noble and learned Lord would permit the Amendments to be printed, circulated, and considered before their Lordships were asked to proceed with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill; because it was most important that the two Bills should harmonize with each other.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed very much with what had fallen from his noble Friend (Earl Grey), and thought the question whether legislation of this nature should be worked out either in or out of Parliament was one on which laymen could form as good an opinion even as the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. He was glad, however, to find that noble and learned Lords, to whom they looked for guidance on these subjects, now approved generally of the measure in its amended form. He wished to make a remark upon the very severe rebuke which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had administered to himself on a former occasion, for having referred to the manner in which noble and learned Lords were accustomed to deal with any measure introduced by a Member of their own profession. He said there was a tendency, when one noble and learned Lord prepared a measure of legal reform, for the others to fall upon it and pull it to pieces. The noble and learned Lord opposite censured him, with considerably more warmth than he usually showed, for making that observation, declaring that it was neither amusing nor new, that it was without foundation in fact, and that it was unworthy of the position he held in that House to make it. The criticism that the observation was not amusing was perfectly irrelevant: he admitted that it was trite and common-place, as well as devoid of humour, although it seemed at the time to make some of their Lordships laugh a good deal. The observation he had ventured to make had undoubtedly been made over and over again not only by writers in the Press and by speakers in Parliament, but might be read in certain legal bio-

1927
graphies, the tone of some parts of which he regretted, and which gave minute and almost painful descriptions of the way in which law Lords treated the legal reforms that they had not themselves introduced. He had looked back to see how many law Bills had been brought forward by noble and learned Lords in that House without being passed in the same Session since he had had the honour of sitting among their Lordships; and he found that during that period there had been 224 such Bills, almost all of which were rejected or withdrawn by the action of noble and learned Lords. He remembered the late Lord Lyndhurst once moving the second reading of a law Bill, when the late Lord Campbell got up and supported the measure, saying he was delighted to do so, because it was identically the same Bill which he had himself introduced in a previous year, but which was then rejected by the advice of Lord Lyndhurst. Lord Lyndhurst did not complain of that assertion, but, turning to his noble Friend the present Foreign Secretary, asked whether it was correct? The Foreign Secretary replied that it was; whereupon Lord Lyndhurst only said—"Well, that is one of the best jokes I have heard." All that showed that the statement he made the other night was quite borne out by the facts; and he could not admit that it was unworthy of his position to call attention to the serious stumbling-blocks which such a course threw in the way of great legal reforms. What had occurred that night, however, took the ground from under his feet. Legal reform was the very salt of that assembly; for nothing could give greater utility or greater reputation to their Lordships' House than the carrying of measures of that kind which were so much desired. What had happened that evening he regarded as a good augury that they would have the united assistance of noble and learned Lords in passing a legal reform of the greatest importance, and that no undue delay would be allowed to occur.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not now attempt to answer the remarks of the noble Earl upon the observations he had made in a previous debate; but he supposed that the best course for him, under all the circumstances, to take would be—following the irregularity of the noble Earl—to give Notice that three
1928
weeks hence, on the third reading of the Bill, he would call attention to the noble Earl's speech.
EARL GRANVILLEreminded their Lordships' he was precluded by the rules of the House from taking any notice of the noble and learned Lord's rebuke on a former occasion.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Earl had been grossly irregular in referring that evening to a previous debate.
Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 135.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
(No. 73.) (The Lord Chancellor.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE ON SECOND RE-COMMITMENT.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Second Re-commitment), read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord, Westbury) had complained of the number of Amendments made in that Bill, as he said, at the last moment; but those Amendments were made in pursuance of arrangements entered into at least 10 days ago, and of which he thought his noble and learned Friend I was aware. By those arrangements he had engaged to take care that the Appellate Court should be brought into the system of the High Court of Justice, making it a branch of that tribunal; and that was the sole purpose of the Amendments, which would in no other way change the effect of the Bill. He must say a word about the Judges whom he was supposed to have treated with contumacious disdain. Three of the Judges—one from each of the Common Law Courts—had approved that very measure by approving the report of the Committee on Judicature, on which the Bill was founded. He referred to Mr. Justice Blackburn, Mr. Baron Bramwell, and Mr. Justice Montague Smith. Mr. Baron Bramwell was particularly anxious that he should inform their Lordships that he did not concur in the resolutions of the Judges, and that he was not, in fact, present when they were arrived at. It was proposed that the Bill should be re-committed for the purpose of being reprinted with the Amendments. The measure would bring the

  1929
  Appellate Court into unison with the High Court of Justice.
  Lord CAIRNSsaid, there was a subject connected with this matter to which he desired to call attention, because, though one apparently more proper for the consideration of the House of Commons, yet it would not be well that it should be passed over in silence in their Lordships' House—he referred to the arrangements contained in the Bill with respect to the salaries of the Judges. He could speak on this matter with considerable freedom, inasmuch as no alteration was proposed in the salary of any existing Judge, with the single exception of his noble and learned Friend who presided with so much ability over the Rolls Court, who would rise to the position of President of an independent Court, and his salary would be put on a commensurate footing. But this Bill proposed to make a serious alteration in the salaries of succeeding Judges. The salaries in the chief Courts at present had been fixed, after long and careful consideration, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Salaries, which sat some years ago. The salary of the Lord Chief Justice was £8,000 a year, that of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, £7,000, and that of the Chief Baron £7,000. The Master of the Rolls had £6,000 a year, the Lords Justices of Appeal in Chancery £6,000, and the Puisne Judges and Vice Chancellors £5,000 a year each. But there was this farther circumstance to be considered, the expenses to which some of those Judges were put with respect to circuit. These expenses were very large, exceeding £600 a year each, and he had heard the estimate put considerably beyond that sum. Therefore the Chiefs and Puisne Judges of the Common Law Courts had salaries diminished for all practical purposes by a sum varying from £600 to £1,000 a year. Now, this Bill proposed that for the future the persons who should fill the position of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer should have a salary reduced to £6,000 a year. If these Judges had to go circuit—and there was no provision that they should not—their salaries would have been cut down to a sum which would leave them in the receipt of little more than £5,000 a year. The Bill did not say that the salary of the Master of
  1930
  the Rolls was to be continued at £6,000; but if the expenses of circuit which fell on the Common Law Judges were taken into account, that salary would be higher than those the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer would receive. With regard to the Lords Justices of Appeal, it had always been considered that there ought to be a difference between their salaries and the salaries of Judges of the First Instance. Their salaries were, however, to be reduced to £5,000 a year, while the Master of the Rolls, who would be sitting side by side with them, would remain at £6,000 a year. Now, these arrangements appeared open to very great objection; and, though it was not a matter which their Lordships could consider with the purpose of arriving at a decision upon it, still he was unwilling to have it supposed when the Bill should leave the House that their Lordships approved them. He entirely disapproved them, and he thought the policy embodied in them very shortsighted and very narrow-minded. Looking at the position which successful men at the Bar who might aspire to the position of Judges attained, and the incomes which they earned, he could not think that the salaries of the Judges—especially when the expenses of circuit were taken into account—at all too large. The expense of living had not been diminished since the Report of the Committee on Salaries had been made, and there was no reason that he could see for the proposed diminution. He hoped his noble and learned Friend and Her Majesty's Government would take this matter into consideration, and would propose in the House of Commons more liberal arrangements than were contained in this Bill.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that on the second reading he himself pointed out the same defect—namely, that if the proposed Court of Appeal was to be constituted the Lords Justices would be placed in an inferior position to the Judges of the primary Courts. He believed that was a thing which had never been done with respect to the Judges of an Appellate Court. The principle involved in the change seemed to be erroneous, and he hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would give it further consideration. With regard to the Judges of Common Law, it was supposed that they were placed in

  1931
  the same position as the Vice Chancellors and himself. It was true they would have nominally the same salary; but really they had very much less, because they were obliged to pay the expenses of circuit, which certainly were not less than £600 a year. That was a fact with which he believed a large portion of the public were unacquainted. They did not know that the expenses which the Judges went to while on circuit, in entertaining the sheriffs and other public functionaries, came out of their own pockets. He did see why the Judges of Common Law should not be placed in the same position in this respect as the Judges of the other Courts.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he quite joined in the views expressed by his noble and learned Friends. When the new Vice Chancellors were appointed, the office was offered to one who was eminently fitted to fill it—he meant the late Lord Kingsdown—but he declined it because of the smallness of the salary; and the result was, that the services of one of our most eminent judicial men were in a great measure lost to the country. It is true that afterwards, having inherited a large fortune, he gave gratuitously to the country what he could not be tempted to bestow at the salary of £5,000 per annum, coupled with the loss of his professional income. There were, undoubtedly, a great number of good lawyers who would perform the service for £1,000 a year—and if put up to auction it might be done for less; but the great object was to secure the confidence of the country in the men who were appointed, and that could not be obtained unless they selected for Judges those who had had long experience as counsel, and who had shown what they could do. He ventured to say that if they diminished the salaries of the Judges, already reduced as they were by the great increase of prices, and likely to be still more reduced by the rapid influx of gold from foreign countries, they would never get leaders of the profession to fill the office; they would only get subordinate persons, who would not possess that public confidence which Judges ought to have.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this was not a matter for prolonged discussion—it would be amply discussed "elsewhere"; but it was thought right that some notice should be given to
  1932
  their Lordships of what was proposed, though the details were not ultimately to be fixed in their Lordships' House. It was not without thought or consideration that the sums fixed for salaries had been inserted in the Bill; and he would state briefly the principle upon which the proposal was made. With regard to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, he would remain exactly where he was, and so would the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. With regard to the alleged anomaly of a larger salary being received by a Judge in a subordinate position, his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken (Lord Romilly) was an instance of that, for he was higher in rank than the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and than the Chief Baron, and yet he received a smaller income. Their Lordships were all aware what his noble Friend the Master of the Rolls had done for the records of this country; but though he had additional work in connection with those records, he did not receive the same amount of salary as the learned Judges whom he had first mentioned. That was an anomaly which it was thought better should not be continued. As to the Judges of Appeal, the matter stood thus—it was not the case that all Judges of Appeal received higher salaries than, those received by the Judges from whom the appeal might come. The Privy Council received appeals from India, where the Chief Justice and other Judges received very large salaries; and yet Sir James Colville, who had performed his duties in India so effectually, now heard these appeals, and only received the pension which he had earned by his services in India. Besides, Puisne Judges often sat now in the Court of Exchequer Chambers to hear appeals from the Chiefs of the Courts. The right criterion was not whether by the offer of a certain salary they could secure any man, but whether they could secure the best man. Lord Kingsdown had been mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. Well, Lord Kingsdown was one of the fittest men that could be secured; but having a very large fortune, it was not very surprising that he did not choose to fill the office of Judge at £5,000 a year. But what did Lord Kingsdown do? He came to their Lordships' House and

  1933
  gave his most valuable aid in hearing appeals, and did the same in the Privy Council, without any salary at all. Therefore the matter was not to be entirely judged of in that way. The sum of £5,000 a year was, in truth, determined on this principle. Lately three Judges were added to the Common Law Bench—the number having been raised from 15 to 18. It was thought at the time that the number was rather greater than would be required by the additional labour involved in trying Election Petitions. But in making an available Court of Appeal they found that they should have one more Judge of Appeal in the High Court of Justice, and they did not think it right that every Judge who should have a seat in the two Divisions should have £6,000 a year. The Judge had many troublesome things to attend to. He would, among other things, not only have to sit many times in the Court of Appeal, but would have at least twice a week to attend at chambers after his Court had risen. He had, therefore, no doubt that the Court of Appeal could be established at the cost contemplated in the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwas understood to remind the noble and learned Lord that the Members of the Judicial Committee received no salary for the performance of their duties.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 136.)

STANDING ORDERS—THE ORDER OF DEBATE IN THIS HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to move the following Standing Order:—
  "That if two or more Peers rise to speak at the same time the Lord Chancellor, and when the House is in Committee the Chairman of Committees, shall call on one of them to proceed, unless the House do otherwise order,"
  said, that their Lordships were now arriving at a period of the Session when their sittings would be prolonged, and when the necessity for such a provision as that which he advocated would be
  1934
  felt. He could remind their Lordships of many cases of confusion and clamour, which had arisen in consequence of two or more Peers rising together, and there being no arbitrary power to decide between the contending parties, but he would refer only to what occurred last year during the debates on the Irish Church Bill. It was no secret that during those debates the noble Duke who occupied the high office of Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (the Duke of Devonshire) would not have been able to deliver his opinion but for the interference of a noble Marquess on the cross-Benches, who moved that the noble Duke be heard. The present proposition was the result of a conference with many noble Lords, who all felt that the present system was attended with much inconvenience, and was calculated to suppress Parliamentary ability by preventing Peers who might be well acquainted with the subject in hand, and who were well deserving a hearing, from delivering their opinions. To avoid the chaos which would otherwise result from the existing system, it was notorious that, when long debates were expected, the Leaders of both sides of the House were in the habit of arranging a programme for the evening; but while there were many Peers who, from diffidence, would not care to announce themselves as intending speakers, there were others also whose claims on the Leaders of political parties could not insure them a hearing. With regard, for instance, to the Members of the right rev. Bench, the spirit of their Order and the sanctity of their vocation compelled them to hold aloof, and under the present anomalous and undesirable system they might possibly again witness the spectacle of a right rev. Prelate endeavouring for some minutes to obtain a I hearing amid the cries and clamour with which his appearance was greeted. The present Order would only very slightly increase the powers of the Lord Chancellor, for the noble Lord, as Speaker of the House, had already authority to repress conversation and interruptions behind the Woolsack; and the power he proposed to vest in the Chairman of Committees was analogous to that vested in the Chairman of Committees in the other House of Parliament; and such a power could excite no opposition, as the noble Lord was appointed by the House

  1935
  He should not be surprised if both the Leader of Opposition and the Leader of the Government in that House voted against his Motion, but he did not think their opinion should prevail in this matter; nor should he be astonished if the Motion were resisted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and also by the Chairman of Committees, partly because they would naturally shrink from new duties and responsibilities, and partly because the Motion might be supposed to lead to the augmentation of their salaries, and it might be thought becoming to indulge in a few graceful terms of self-disparagement. The House, however, which was accustomed to listen to them with gravity, would know how much attention their opposition deserved. If the Standing Order he proposed were declined, what was the alternative? It had been suggested not many years ago by a Committee of their Lordships' House that the Lord Chancellor should quit the Woolsack altogether and be replaced by a Speaker whom the House might choose. He thought that a change less violent and startling might be admitted before that conclusion was arrived at. With that view he proposed the Standing Order of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, That the words following be added to the Roll of Standing Orders:—
  "That if two or more Peers rise to speak at the same time the Lord Chancellor, and when the House is in Committee the Chairman of Committees, shall call on one of them to proceed, unless the House do otherwise order."—(The Lord Stratheden.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was well known that the due maintenance of order in their Lordships' House had been the favourite theme of many enthusiastic reformers; but up to the present, he rather feared, without much effect. He was amused in looking round the House while the noble Lord talked of the Lord Chancellor keeping order—for what did he see? Why, every Member of the Government was talking to his neighbour, and the noble and learned Lord himself was talking to the Judge of the Divorce Court on the Woolsack. That did not give a very fair prospect of success to the proposal of his noble Friend, for which he confessed he was himself somewhat anxious. He was not very fond of introducing their old friend the "intelligent fo-
  1936
  reigner," but there was no occasion on which his introduction could be more fitting. Nothing was more imposing than the aspect of the House of Lords during a great debate, so long as the speeches were going on; but when a speaker sat down and several others wished to address the House, what did the "intelligent foreigner" see? He saw several figures get up in various parts of the House; and the mode in which the question was decided who should be heard could only be described as a renewal of the "O. P." rows in the theatre. He was himself accustomed to the thing, and, having studied the phenomena with much interest, he might say that the chance of any noble Lord depended very much on the distinctness and loudness with which he might call; and it also somewhat depended on the length of his name, for very little attention was paid to anyone with a monosyllabic name. But, seriously, there were two great evils to which the present system gave rise. There was, first, the scandal and disorder of the somewhat noisy scenes that might arise; and, secondly, it practically did to a great extent tend to the discouragement of debating in that House. Those who had been Members of the House of Commons, looking back on their early experience, could not help congratulating themselves on the fact that the eye of the Speaker did not always fall on the most eminent speakers—it looked all round, and thus the young Member often caught the happy chance of speaking; while any assembly must naturally be always anxious to hear those they were most accustomed to, and for whom they had the greatest respect. What was the effect of that? The effect was, that the debates in their Lordships' House were mainly filled up by those already eminent in debate, and that the succession of debaters was in danger of being stopped. Those who had fought the battle in the House of Commons had acquired a certain freedom from bash-fulness; but such as had not that advantage naturally shrank from the tremendous ordeal of forcing themselves on their Lordships' notice, and in a condition of life with temptations to industry not very great, and to sit down to a silent discharge of duty as an hereditary legislator very strong, he thought such influences had no mean effect in preventing the training of future orators

  1937
  and statesmen which that House, no less than the other, ought to furnish. He was quite aware that the necessary freedom from bashfulness to which he had alluded had been acquired by some distinguished Members of their Lordships' House without passing through the other House; but anything which tended to discourage new men coining forward must prevent their debates from acquiring the interest they would otherwise possess; while to diminish the future supply of speakers was restricting the only training for statesmen which was recognized in England, and, therefore, was not only detrimental to the interests of the House itself, but pernicious to the interests of the public. It was very difficult to speak on this subject without appearing to use language too large for it. The subject was a small one; but he felt it of sufficient importance to call for the consideration of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) opposite, who took so much interest in everything likely to promote the order and the convenience of their Lordships' House.
  EARL GEANVILLEmust say he thought the remark of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), that the younger Members of the House had not, under the present rule of proceeding, a proper opportunity to take part in the debates, was not just, for of late years several young Members, whose speeches gave promise of future excellence, had engaged their Lordships' attention. But the course of proceeding at present observed was not a new state of things, but had been going on for years and years; and he was not aware of any remarkable coyness of the present generation as compared with former generations. With respect to the House of Commons, there was in connection with the party on each side of the House a very useful person, and it often happened that he was induced to go and tell the Speaker in a whisper that there was a young man desirous of making his maiden speech, and the Speaker then let the young gentleman catch his eye. In like manner, in their Lordships' House, if a young Peer told his neighbour that he intended to speak, the general rule was that he, in the event of other Peers rising with him, was called on to speak; and if it happened to be the first time of his presenting himself to their Lordships' notice, even the most
  1938
  eminent men in the House were disposed to give way to him. The House of Commons had a weapon in its energy and roughness, he might say, which their Lordships did not possess, and by its means the Members exercised a police over their debates, independent of the Speaker, which their Lordships could not exercise. When the House of Commons expressed unwillingness to listen to a speaker, it required great moral courage in a Member to persevere in addressing the House against the general feeling. If, however, the Lord Chancellor should be suddenly called on to make a selection among three or four eminent men, all desirous at the same time of addressing their Lordships, it would be extremely difficult for him to exercise his discretion in a manner satisfactory to himself. There was not, in his opinion, any such advantage in the proposed change as to induce their Lordships to agree to it.
  THE MARQUESS of CLANEICAEDEthought that the noble Earl had given no sufficient reason against the proposition. The noble Earl alluded to the decorum maintained in their Lordships' House; and he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had hitherto preferred retaining the power the House had always exercised; but it should be remembered that the number of Peers in the House had of late years been greatly augmented, and he was not aware that it had been found possible to keep order in any numerous assembly without appointing a Chairman for the purpose. He trusted that the Government, if they objected to adopt the present proposal, would take the matter into consideration.
  THE DUKE OF EICHMONDsaid, that this could not be considered a party question, inasmuch as he agreed with the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in respect to it. The noble Marquess who last spoke said that the Government had given no reason why the Motion should not be agreed to; but a very potent reason was really given when it was stated that they had gone on for a considerable time with the present practice without inconvenience. In that case, he asked, why should they not leave well alone? From his experience in their Lordships' House, as well as in the House of Commons, he could state that any Member rising to speak on a subject with, which he was known to be

  1939
  acquainted, and in reference to which, he could impart information, always found an attentive hearing. He failed, moreover, to discover any reason for supposing that the proposal now made would have the effect of increasing the number of speakers in their Lordships' House.
  LORD CAIRNSput the case of a number of noble Lords rising at once to address the House, and of the Lord Chancellor also being anxious to speak at the same time. He asked, under these circumstances, what the Lord Chancellor was to do?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdesired to remind their Lordships that, on a former occasion, he had mentioned two conclusive reasons why it was not desirable to give such power as now proposed to the occupant of the Woolsack. The first was, that the Speaker of the House of Commons was elected by that House; whereas the Lord Chancellor was appointed by the Crown. The other reason, was, that the Speaker was always chosen from among those who had long experience of, and were acquainted with, the forms and. customs of the House of Commons, and whose decision carried with it weight and confidence. The Lord Chancellor, on the contrary, was—especially if recently appointed—comparatively new to the House of Lords, and could not be supposed to be acquainted with all its customs and forms, and his decision, therefore, would not carry with it due weight, and might be suspected of partiality as he was not chosen by their Lordships. He therefore thought it unreasonable to expect that the Lord Chancellor could discharge the duty now sought to be imposed on him with satisfaction to himself.
  LORD CAMPBELLwould remind their Lordships that he did not in any way propose to give the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the power of rebuking irregularities, or any authority whatever, except that simply of naming which of two Peers should be entitled to precedence. He rejoiced to hear that the Division which would now be taken would not in any way be regarded as a party Division.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be better, instead of proceeding to a Division, the effect of which would be to pledge the House
  1940
  against the proposition, to leave the matter where it stood, and allow time for the conversion of noble Lords who might possibly support such a proposition on a future occasion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that in deference to the authority and wishes of the noble Marquess, he would withdraw his proposal.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.