Lords Sitting of 4 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Army Regulation (237); Factories and Workshops Act Amendment* (239).
Second Reading—Prevention of Crime (207); Bath City Prison* (80); Owens College* (211); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (201).
Committee—Petroleum* (189–238).
Report — Judicial Committee of Privy Council (233).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (176); Juries (Ireland)* (221), and passed.
Withdrawn—Justices of the Peace Qualification (188).

ARMY REGULATION BILL—(No. 237.)

  FIRST READING.
  Bill brought from Commons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."
  EARL GREYsaid, that hitherto only two or three Bills of any importance had come up from the other House, and whereas during the early part of the
  1078
  Session their Lordships had comparatively little business, there was now a prospect of their being so overloaded with a variety of important measures that it would be impossible to give them proper consideration. Were this the only Bill of importance to come before their Lordships he would say nothing; but it was understood that the Government hoped to send up at least two other measures of very great importance, the details of which would require careful consideration, and which would occupy considerable time. He understood, however, that these measures were not likely to come up to their Lordships for another fortnight or three weeks. Now, his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had more than once urged that the complaint on this point was unreasonable, it being the duty of the Members of the House to attend as long as their services were required. He believed that all of their Lordships were prepared to sacrifice their private convenience for the sake of the public advantage; but the evil was that at a late period of the Session important measures could not receive such consideration as to guard against hasty and imperfect legislation. Not only was it difficult to obtain the attendance of their Lordships when the Session had lasted six or seven months, but in the other House it was still more difficult to obtain a proper attendance, so that their Lordships' Amendments might have justice done them. Within the last three or four years important measures had been lost through the impossibility of their Lordships' Amendments being properly considered. To remedy this crying evil some had proposed that a larger number of measures should be initiated in their Lordships' House; but from its constitution that House, with the exception of particular classes of Bills which might usefully begin here, was more suitable for reconsidering and revising than for originating legislation, and he feared no great amount of time would be saved by the introduction of important measures here in the first instance. If, then, measures for the most part were not to originate in their Lordships' House, there was only one other mode of remedying the compulsory idleness of their Lordships early in the Session, followed by the exaggerated demand on their time and attention at the end of

  1079
  the Session. It should be provided that Bills which passed through the other House at too late a period for them to be properly considered here should be reserved for a subsequent Session. The late Lord Derby introduced a Bill providing for the revival in another Session of Bills which had begun in either House, but had not been considered by the other. This Bill passed through this House, but was not assented to by the other; and he (Earl Grey) admitted that the objections to it were by no means groundless. The forms of procedure in both Houses now rested on usage and Standing Orders, and there was a strong feeling against any statutory regulation of the forms of legislation. If, however, the House of Commons was inclined to show their Lordships due consideration in this matter, they might provide that whenever a Bill passed through that House too late, in their judgment, for its due consideration here, it might be suspended till the following Session. In the event of such a decision, the Bill might be re-introduced in the same shape and might by a single vote be re-affirmed and sent up to their Lordships. By this simple expedient the evil now complained of might to some extent be removed. There were reasons for considering the propriety of such a course this year. The Bills to which he had referred were, as he had said, of such a nature as to require great consideration. One of them related to the mode of conducting municipal and Parliamentary elections. It was not confined to the Ballot, but raised a large number of important questions, which required mature consideration. Nobody could doubt that legislation was called for and that abuses existed which should be removed; but the matter was as difficult as it was important. Were such a Bill to come up to their Lordships at the end of this month or the beginning of next, he should hold it their duty—even were he favourable to its provisions, which he confessed he was not—not to consider it at so late a period. He should, however, much regret the failure of such a measure not on its merits, but on account of want of time, and it would be very desirable, were the Bill sanctioned by the House of Commons, that its consideration by their Lordships should be suspended till next year. There was no reason to think a General
  1080
  Election was impending, and a few months of delay would be of no importance. Were it simply rejected here the whole thing would have to be done over again in the House of Commons; whereas, were its consideration suspended, it might be sent up by a single vote, allowing the other House to attend to finance and other matters which always came before them at the beginning of the Session, and giving their Lordships important business to the relief of the end of the Session. The same remark applied to the Scotch Education Bill, to the object of which all were favourable, while there were great differences of opinion as to how it could best be attained. It would raise many important questions, which could not be considered without a fair command of time. He believed that by the course he had suggested legislation would be more satisfactorily accomplished. He asked for no immediate opinion from the Government; but he entreated them to consider whether by such a course a laborious Session might not be prevented from becoming less productive than it ought to be, whereas these subjects would otherwise stand in the way of other useful legislation by the other House in another and, perhaps, several Sessions.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 237.)

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION BILL—(No. 188.)
(The Earl of Albemarle.)
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION BILL—(No. 188.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to repeal so much of the 18th Geo. II., c. 20, as required a certain qualification in land in respect of property for Justices of the Peace. That qualification was contemporaneous with another Act which imposed a like qualification on Members of Parliament, and dated from the reign of Henry VI., when our forefathers were burning the Maid of Orleans as a witch. Other effete enactments of this kind had been repealed, and this ought to be likewise swept away—more especially as the increasing burdens of magistrates had

  1081
  induced a reluctance among the landed gentry to accept the office, and it was sometimes difficult to obtain a sufficient number of unexceptionable persons to discharge the duties of a Petty Sessional Court. It appeared, by a Return which had been laid before Parliament, that a very large number of clergymen held the office of Justice of the Peace:—and this seemed to him (the Earl of Albemarle) quite incompatible with their duties and their sacred office. On the Other hand, the landed property qualification excluded the brothers and younger sons of Peers, officers in the Army and Navy, professional and scientific men, wealthy merchants, and even men who had made the law the study of their lives. The property qualifications of Members of Parliament had been abolished, and he could not see why that of Justices of the Peace should not be removed. Even a retired Judge, if he had not saved money and invested it in land, would be ineligible for the office of Justice of the Peace.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Albemarle.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he regretted that he must oppose the second reading of the noble Earl's Bill. There was no analogy between Justices of the Peace and Members of Parliament. The latter were elected, and it was right that the choice of the electors should be unfettered and should be decisive as to their qualifications; whereas magistrates were nominated by the Crown, and should give some guarantee of fitness. It had been deemed the best security for a county magistrate that he should have a certain landed property qualification; and he thought it might be taken as a pretty clear indication of indisposition to hold the office of Justice of the Peace if a man did not take the trouble to obtain the requisite qualification. So far as he was aware no one, except the noble Earl, had shown any anxiety for the repeal of the Statute of George II. It might be reasonable to consider whether landed property should be the only qualification; but the Bill would repeal it without substituting any other. The object of the qualification was to guard against the appointment of unfit persons and to protect Lords Lieutenant from undue pressure. He would recommend the noble Earl to
  1082
  direct his efforts towards an amendment of the Act, instead of to its simple abolition. He thought that the noble Earl's remarks as to the disqualification of officers of the Army and Navy deserved consideration. With regard to clerical magistrates, the noble Earl's remark had probably been influenced by the circumstance that in the two counties best known to him they were more numerous than elsewhere; but it had been the rule for many years not to appoint clergymen as magistrates unless it was difficult to obtain other qualified persons.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that unpaid magistrates should have a substantial stake in the country; but he could testify, as a Lord Lieutenant of long standing, to the inconvenient and embarrassing nature of the present qualification. He should advise the noble Earl to withdraw the present Bill, and introduce another, relaxing some of the present restrictions, and perhaps providing other qualifications.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, that in deference to the advice of the noble and learned Lord and of his noble Friend, he would withdraw the Bill.
  Motion and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 207.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 207.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this Bill was "an old friend under a new name;" for, in fact, instead of simply amending the Habitual Criminals Act, it had been thought better to re-enact almost all its provisions, remedying any defects in it, and making several changes recommended by experience. As the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) on a previous occasion might have produced an impression that the Act had been nearly inoperative, he felt bound to show that, in spite of verbal and other inaccuracies, it had effected a great amount of good. A register had been carefully kept at the central office in Whitehall of criminals convicted summarily or on indictment of any offence

  1083
  mentioned in the schedule; every convicted criminal was photographed, and copies of the photographs sent up to the central office, and thence distributed over the country. The numbers were certainly appalling. Between the 11th of December, 1869, when registration commenced, and the 31st of December, 1870, no less than 35,633 persons were registered. As to supervision, between the 11th of December, 1869, and the 15th of June, 1871, 2,080 prisoners had been released and were under supervision, while many sentences passed on persons who would hereafter be subject to supervision were, of course, still unexpired. As to those who were convicted, and who would at the expiration of their sentence be subject to police supervision, the numbers amounted to 3,511 last year. The clauses of the Habitual Criminals Act with reference to houses that harboured thieves had proved extremely beneficial. In 1869 the number of such houses was 1,962, and in the following year it was reduced to 1,753. The publichouses of bad character in 1870 were 21 per cent less than in 1869, and the beerhouses of bad character were in 1870 51 per cent less than in 1869. These results were attributable to the joint operation of the Habitual Criminals Act and the Beerhouses Act of 1869. In the year before the Habitual Criminals Act was passed the number of persons who received stolen goods was 1,037, in the year after it came into operation the number was reduced to 960. Taking an average of five years before 1869 he found that in 1870 there was a decrease of 55 per cent in that class. He trusted that these figures to a certain extent proved that the Habitual Criminals Act had been really beneficial to the country, and that the provisions which it contained had been honestly and successfully carried out. But it might be asked why if the Act had been so successful should they be now asked to amend it? The fact was that owing to the Amendments which had been inserted in that measure during its progress through the Legislature many inaccuracies crept into it, which rendered it extremely difficult to work some clauses, and impossible to carry others into effect. It was with the view of remedying these defects that this Bill was introduced. The Returns of the Inspectors of Prisons showed that in 1843, when the population of England was
  1084
  16,300,000, the criminals sentenced to penal servitude or transportation amounted to 4,488; that in 1852, when the population was 18,000,000, those so sentenced were 2,896; whereas in 1869, when transportation was at an end, and when the population was 22,000,000, the criminals sentenced to penal servitude amounted to 2,006 only. That certainly must be re-assuring to those who had an idea that crime was increasing in this country. He believed that the facilities for the detection of crime, increased education, and the charitable institutions in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) took so much interest had, to an immense extent, repressed crime in this country. The main alteration in the provisions of the first part of the Bill had reference to holders of licenses. One of them would oblige the holders of tickets-of-leave or convicts who had been released on license to report themselves monthly to the police, and also to report their changes of residence. The subject of this monthly reporting had been most carefully considered; evidence had been taken from all those who were capable of giving the most valuable evidence on the subject, including several agents of Prisoners' Aid Societies (13 out of 16 of whom were in favour of the change), and the result was that the Government had determined to insert in this Bill a clause for the revival of this monthly reporting. It was objected that a person who employed a released convict would find out that he was known to the police if he had to report himself monthly to the police, and the result would be the discharge of the released convict from employment. But the opinion of persons competent to pronounce an opinion on that subject was almost unanimously on the opposite side of the question. He had the opinion of a police officer of experience in favour of criminals being compelled to report themselves to the police once a month, and to give information when they changed their residence. Not only would these provisions enable the police to keep a more efficient supervision over the criminal class, but from the very fact of the report being made once a month a very slight investigation would be sufficient to show to the police whether the convict was getting his living honestly or not. Moreover, it was intended that the report

  1085
  might, according to the direction of the chief officer of police of the district, be made either personally or by letter, and to the chief officer himself or to any person whom he might name—thus avoiding any personal interference with those whom the police knew to be obtaining their living honestly. He could not pass from this part of the subject without paying a well deserved tribute of praise to the various Prisoners' Aid Societies, which were doing a large amount of good. Thus out of 800 male prisoners discharged in the past year 312 were assisted by these societies, of which there were 38 altogether actively engaged; and out of 250 female prisoners discharged during the same period 191 were assisted by them. It was only due to these truly charitable associations that the good work they were doing should be made known to the public at large. The other provisions of the Bill might be disposed of in a few words. It was provided that a register of all persons convicted of crime in England and Ireland should be kept in London and Dublin under the management of the respective Chief Commissioners of Police; that Returns should be made by every Governor of a gaol of the persons convicted of crime who should come into his custody, and by every chief officer of police of the persons convicted of crime within his district; that all prisoners convicted of crime confined in any prison in England and Ireland should be photographed, under proper regulations as to dress, &c. This process of photographing prisoners had proved very useful for the prevention and detection of crime. At present it was not done in all gaols: this Bill would make the practice uniform, and would regulate the distribution of the portraits. Another important provision of the Bill was this—any person who had been twice convicted of crime on indictment was declared guilty of an offence against this Act and made liable to a year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour, who should within seven years of the expiring of his last sentence be convicted before a court of summary jurisdiction of certain offences named in the section—such as that he was getting his livelihood by dishonest means, giving a false name and address—being found in any place under circumstances to justify the suspicion that he was about to commit an offence, or
  1086
  being found in any dwelling-house or premises under circumstances to justify suspicion. By another clause any persons who should be twice convicted might, in addition to any other penalty, be placed under the supervision of the police for seven years, or any shorter period, during which he would be under precisely the same regulations as persons at large on license. The Bill also provided penalties for harbouring thieves, for assaults on the police. By another the children of convict women, being under 14 years of age were placed under the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act. On almost all other points the Bill was a mere transcript of the existing Act, with the exception of certain matters of procedure. He proposed that their Lordships should go into the Bill pro formâ on Thursday next in order that it might be printed as amended, and then that some future day should be fixed for considering it in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he regarded the Bill as one of considerable importance, and he was glad to be able to offer his congratulations to the noble Earl opposite on his having at length introduced such a measure:—although it was to be regretted that it had not been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, when there might have been a greater chance of its passing through the other House of Parliament before the end of the Session. He had also to make his acknowledgments to the noble Earl for the handsome manner in which he had recognized the fact that the Amendments upon the Habitual Criminals Act contained in this Bill, which he had brought before Her Majesty's Government, had been at last accepted by them. He was afraid, however, that he could scarcely join in the praise the noble Earl had bestowed upon the working of the Habitual Criminals Act. The noble Earl had quoted statistics to show that a number of publichouses frequented by thieves had been shut up, and that the number of receivers of stolen goods had diminished; but he had failed to show any connection between these results and the operation of the Habitual Criminals Act—upon which point he himself entertained some doubt, inasmuch as the noble Earl himself had acknowledged

  1087
  earlier in the Session that parts of that measure were unworkable;—the Judges having declared certain of its clauses inoperative, and because the system of supervision which really formed the essence of the Act could not be carried out. He approved the restoration of the clause requiring monthly reports, and he did not condemn the division of criminals into two classes for the purpose of supervision. By requiring the discharged prisoners to make these periodical reports the system of supervision would be changed from being a sham into a reality. On a former occasion he had urged that power should be taken by the Secretary of State to intrust the registration of discharged criminals, not only to the Chief Commissioner of Police, but to any other person whom he might select, and that there should be an officer specially told off for that particular purpose. That suggestion was not attended to at the time; but he now saw that a clause of the Bill would enable any person appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Police to take the register. Hitherto we had allowed the valuable services of the Prisoners' Aid Societies and of the clergyman of the parish to remain unused, and he thought the present provision would be found very valuable in many cases. He also approved the provisions as to registration; but he must remind them that it was not enough to establish a registration of that kind unless the Government saw that it was worked satisfactorily, and the responsibility would rest on them to make it such as it should be. Some parts of that measure would require consideration when they got into Committee; but he hailed the Bill, as a whole, with extreme satisfaction, and trusted that it would not be allowed to miscarry through having been introduced so late in the Session.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that so far from thinking that the Habitual Criminals Act had been a success, he had come to the conclusion that it; had rather proved a failure; and that it was not by extending its principle or by making its provisions more severe that they could hope to arrive at a satisfactory result. It had been supposed that by the operation of that measure they were to get hold of all the habitual criminals of the country, and to concentrate them into a condensed criminal class whom they could
  1088
  effectually control and restrain; but he believed that, although there never was a time when the police were more energetic or more admirably organized than at present, still there never was a time when our habitual criminals seemed to be more difficult to catch, or their operations to be more completely shrouded in mystery. It might have been thought that under the provisions of the Habitual Criminals Act such robberies as those recently committed at the house of Mr. Wentworth Beaumont and other places would have been prevented; but, so far from that measure enabling them to apprehend such very ingenious criminals, he believed there was hardly a single instance in which they had been found out. He feared that by concentrating their habitual criminals into a seething mass, and allowing them no means of mixing themselves up with the honest population, they had rendered the criminal class more powerful for evil than they were before. It was now proposed to require everyone of those persons who held a license under the Penal Servitude Acts to report himself to the police 84 times before he was allowed to return to the normal condition of society. He should move the rejection of that provision in Committee, believing it to involve an infringement of the liberty of the subject, and that it would render it impossible for a criminal to return to an honest course of life. He approved of those parts of the Bill which were intended to make the agency of the police more effective. He should have liked to see the penalties for assaults on the police made much more heavy. The police were at present placed in a most difficult and painful position. They were liable to be attacked under circumstances of great brutality, and no adequate provision existed for their proper protection. Yet even under this Bill a young man of fortune might knock down and ill-use a policeman and get off by paying a fine of £20. He thought the fine inflicted in such cases should be heavier, and the period of imprisonment increased. He regretted, however, that he could not agree with his noble Friend on the principle of the Bill, for he was of opinion that considering the increase of population in this country there had been no correlative increase of crime.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYconfessed himself exceedingly puzzled as to which

  1089
  of the two opposite theories broached by the two noble Lords who had spoken last in regard to the Habitual Criminals Act was the true one—namely, the theory that the Act had been entirely inoperative, or the theory that it had been so frightfully operative that it had concentrated the whole criminal population of the country into one seething mass. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Houghton) had another objoetion—he said the Bill would infringe the liberty of the subject. But surely to confound the liberty of the criminal with the liberty of the subject was a very extraordinary argument. Surely the Legislature was not required to treat the criminal and the law-abiding subject alike, and it could not be maintained that regulations for controlling the criminal population should not be made for fear of interfering with the liberty of the subject?
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he objected to the supervision after the expiring of the sentence.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the supervision was part of the sentence. The Act, no doubt, had not been as successful as it might have been if there had not been some mistakes in it which prevented it from working as well as it might otherwise have done. He did not, on the other hand, admit that it had no effect at all; nothing was more difficult than to trace the operation of a law upon particular classes of people, and it did not follow because there had been some remarkable robberies in London that the police were inefficient. Their Lordships must bear in mind that the circumstances of the country were different with regard to criminals from what they formerly were when criminals were sent beyond the sea. Now, a large number of them were sentenced to remain in the country, and were afterwards released in it. The existence of this criminal class was a new fact arising within these few years; and new evils had to be met by new remedies. The Bill was distinct and intelligible, and he trusted it would meet with the approbation of the House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD CAIRNS, who had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at end of the clause the words following:—
  ("It shall be the duty of every person appointed to act as a paid member of the Judicial Committee under this Act to attend the sittings of the said Committee when summoned thereto unless he shall be prevented by reasonable cause; and every such person shall have the same title to continue to receive the salary hereby provided for him as if he were a judge of one of the Superior Courts holding office during good behaviour but removable by Her Majesty upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament; provided that nothing herein contained shall give to any such person any title to hold or continue in the office of Privy Councillor other than the title which he would have had if this Act had not passed,")
  said, that though he approved of the principle of the Bill, he thought there were some objections which might impede its coming into practical operation. In the first place, the Judges of the Superior Courts, both of law and equity, were provided with a staff of officers and clerks who were necessary to the performance of their duties. Some of these Judges were now to be transferred to a Court where no such assistance was provided. In the next place, it was proposed to offer to Judges whose tenure of office was thoroughly well defined a position which would be held by them only during the pleasure of the Crown; because as it was required that any persons who should be appointed members of the Judicial Committee should be Privy Councillors, and the Crown could at pleasure remove their names from the Privy Council, they did in effect hold their appointment at the pleasure of the Crown. In addition to this, the cause of the Judges' punctual attendance in their own Courts had been entirely overlooked; but the fact was Judges held office during good behaviour, and it was not good behaviour to be absent during the sitting of their Court. They first of all, as it appeared to him, fell into the serious error of saying nothing about the tenure of office of the Judges; and, having said nothing about that subject, they then inserted an offensive condition by which the Lord President of the

  1091
  Privy Council was to determine whether if one of these appointed members omitted to attend the sittings of the Committee after having been duly summoned, the excuse he might offer for his non-attendance was a reasonable one or not; and if he thought not he might certify such omission to Her Majesty, and thereupon the salary of the member would cease, and a new member might be appointed: in other words, the Lord President of the Council had the power of removing a paid member of the Judicial Committee if, under certain circumstances, he should deem it expedient—a condition which was utterly unconstitutional, and one to which no Judge of the Superior Courts would, he believed, be willing to submit. Again, assuming that the Crown appointed to this tribunal one of the Lord Justices, a Puisne Judge, and two Indian Chief Justices, they would have sitting side by side, and determining the same causes, men in receipt of £6,000, £5,000, and £3,500. Nor was that the worst feature of the disparity, for the Indian assessors would actually have a salary of only £400 a-year. Though these discrepancies in salary were extraordinary enough, the matter was essentially one for the consideration of the Government; but with reference to the office of the Judges, he should ask their Lordships to insert words which would insure our present judicial system being adhered to. The noble and learned Lord then moved, in page 1, line 28, to leave out from ("salary") to ("and") in page 2, line 1.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the suggestions made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had not been overlooked in framing this Bill—indeed, everyone of them had been carefully considered. The Bill itself was a Bill drawn for the purpose of meeting an emergency, correctly described on a former occasion by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Westbury) as one of a very pressing character, and it was not to be regarded as a Bill to provide permanently for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The first objection raised by his noble and learned Friend that evening was, that the learned Judges who were to perform the important duties of sitting on the Judicial Committee would not be provided with clerks. He was somewhat surprised at hearing such an objection
  1092
  from his noble and learned Friend, because his noble and learned Friends sitting around him, who rendered their Lordships such valuable assistance in determining the appeals which came up to the Bar of their Lordships' House, performed their duties without the assistance of clerks or officers; yet he had never found that they shrank from their duties, or were subjected to any inconvenience from the want of such assistance. Moreover, a common law Judge transferred to the Judicial Committee would be relieved from the expense of going circuit, and, from the £500 or £600 thus saved, could afford to employ a clerk if he required one. None of the members of the Committee of Privy Council was provided with a clerk except the Lord Justice, and he did not enjoy that advantage in his capacity of being a member of the Judicial Committee. The fact was, that when the Judicial Committee was constituted it was formed with the idea of having the assistance of the Judges of the Superior Courts, who had retired upon pensions, who it was supposed would be willing to take upon themselves the duties of Judges in so high a Court in consideration of the pensions already awarded to them, and of the high rank of Privy Councillors. That arrangement worked very well until age and infirmity prevented some of the learned Judges from any longer discharging the duties which they had hitherto willingly performed; and from the pressure of circumstances, a different arrangement had become necessary. It was not his view that because the Judges of the Judicial Committee had not clerks there would be any real difficulty in getting Judges to accept the appointment. The next objection was as to the tenure of the Judges. The great difficulty in the way of assenting to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord lay here. The Judges of the existing courts could not be removed except by an Address from both Houses of Parliament to the Crown; but the Crown was entitled to remove anybody from the Privy Council. To say that the learned Judges proposed by the Bill should have the same tenure as the Judges of the higher Courts was to say that they would not be removable except by an Address of both Houses of Parliament—in other words, that the Crown should not have the power of

  1093
  removing them except on such an Address. The effect of that was to take away from the Crown its right of removing anyone from the Privy Council, which was a sufficient reason for not acceding to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. But as since 1834 the High Court of Appeal had been subject to removal, and the qualification of holding during good behaviour had not existed, the provision in the Bill was not likely to be attended with any evil result, or practically to interfere with its working. The next point was that there were no mode of terminating the duties of those learned Judges prescribed in the Bill, in the event of their not attending to the duties of their offices. But surely there could be nothing undignified in a Judge requesting, if he thought proper, to be relieved of the arduous duties which he was unable to perform; in which case, of course, he would retire and cease to receive the salary attaching to the office. He must confess that he heard with some regret the remarks made by his noble and learned Friend on the subject of the payment of the Judges. He must say that he preferred the old system, under which a Judge receiving his pension was content, as many of their Lordships were, to attend, without stipulations, and perform constant and arduous duties. As regarded the pay which the Judges would receive, it was not proposed to interfere in any way with the pensions to which they had become entitled by their previous services, but simply to add an uniform sum of £1,500 a-year to the amount of which they were already in receipt. He hoped that Amendments would not be persisted in, which, while they might interfere with the privileges of the Crown, could not fail to throw practical difficulties in the way of the Bill as it stood.
  LORD WESTBURYhoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would accept the Amendment which had been suggested as the easiest way out of the difficulty, remembering the criticism which the Bill would have to undergo in "another place." As regarded the clerics to the Judges, there was this distinction to be observed—that clerks were assigned to Judges ordinarily because they had a large amount of chamber practice; whereas at the Judicial Committee the duties to be discharged were purely official, and the attendance
  1094
  of clerks became unnecessary. He hoped his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) would not lay any stress upon the difference of salaries between the Judges, this being admitted a temporary expedient intended to meet the present overwhelming necessity, and to be followed hereafter by a measure which it was to be hoped would put the tribunal upon a more fitting basis, both as to position and emoluments. As to the constitution of the Court, it was plain that the limitation of the choice of members to Judges of Westminster Hall, either existing or retired, and to Judges who had held office in the Supreme Court in India, must ultimately be enlarged so as to include within the range of choice Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland and also in Scotland. At the present moment, the chief pressure existed with regard to the Indian appeals; but hereafter there would obviously be a mass of colonial business for consideration, and it was with regard to these appeals especially that the habits of thought, early training, and practice of the Scotch Judges would enable them to render eminent services. This was not the time for entering into more extensive questions; but his noble and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill would no doubt see the propriety of replacing it as soon as possible with a large and comprehensive measure. It would then be only a matter of common justice that the officers of the Judicial Committee should receive emoluments corresponding to the increased labours they would be called upon to discharge.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that nobody thought that the position of any member of the Judicial Committee was in any way affected by the power of the Crown to remove. No doubt in former times the power of the Crown in such matters was of very serious importance when Judges were kept subordinate to the Crown and induced to do unjust and unrighteous things at the bidding of the Crown in order to preserve their offices; but he did not believe that as society was at present constituted, there was the slightest risk that any Judge, whether of the Judicial Committee or of any other Court, would be removed for the exercise of their judicial functions from mere caprice. It was only fit and proper that Judges should be permanent, and that they should not be removed except when

  1095
  they had been guilty of misconduct that could be ascertained by Parliament; but no person in Westminster Hall would entertain the slightest fear that there was any trenching upon principle if to the Judges who were appointed members of the Judicial Committee nothing was said respecting the time during which they should hold their offices. He desired to point out to the Lord Chancellor the necessity for establishing a rota of Judges now that the number of ecclesiastical cases was small. The old practice, if followed, would very much facilitate the constant sitting of the Court.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, there was nothing in this Bill to show that it was of that temporary character described by the Lord Chancellor; but, on the contrary, there was a provision for the appointment of members of the Judicial Committee from time to time. If this Bill was intended to be temporary, it was unlikely that any of the present Judges in the superior Courts would take office as members of the Committee—especially under the circumstances of their very precarious existence. The scheme now before their Lordships would rather lead the Judges not to take office. It was also extraordinary to anticipate that the Judges would be likely to neglect their duty, so that provision had to be made in the most offensive manner for entailing upon them the consequences of such neglect. The new members of the Committee were to be entirely at the discretion of the Lord President, who, if he thought that reasonable excuse for absence was not given, might certify to Her Majesty, and thereupon such member was to lose his salary; and, although it was not said he should be deprived of his office, it was provided that another person should be appointed in his place. That was a most unusual position in which to place the Judge of a High Court. He should also like to know what, when a new system was introduced, was to become of these four members of the Committee? Were they to continue in office, or to retire on a pension? He believed that the greatest difficulty would be experienced in inducing any of the present Judges to accept the appointments.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had exaggerated the difficulties that were
  1096
  likely to be experienced in obtaining those who would have to take these important duties upon them. He did not think it unreasonable to provide that if a member of the Judicial Committee ceased to attend the sittings his salary should cease and another member be appointed. The Amendment which had been brought forward without Notice was a decided innovation on the existing condition of affairs. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would not persevere with this Amendment.
  After some further remarks,
  Further debate adjourned to Thursday next.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts relating to Factories and Workshops—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 239.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.