Lords Sitting of 4 March 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Bank of Ireland Charter Amendment * (37).
RAILWAYS OF IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR, PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to move for copies of the Instructions under which Captain Tyler had been authorised to collect information respecting the financial condition and prospects of the Irish Railways, and of the reports or other communications made by that officer thereupon. The subject to which those Instructions referred was one of great importance to Ireland; it had been often dealt with by the public journals, and had been brought directly under the cognizance of the Members of the Government. He had himself, in 1867, formed one of a deputation of noblemen and gentlemen who had waited upon the Government on the subject. The question, therefore, was not a new one. The purchase of railways in England had been considered by a Royal Commission; but the conclusions at which the majority of that Commission had arrived were not applicable to Irish railways, which required to be considered with reference to the wants of the country, and not with reference to the interests of the companies. There were in Ireland no fewer than 66 railway companies, and 24 actually working: and those who were best informed as to the necessities of Ireland had demonstrated to the Government that under the existing system the people of that country could not possibly obtain the railway accommodation they required. Railways could not be maintained in Ireland without greater economy than was necessary in Great Britain. In Ireland, during recent years, they had suffered from many of the ills which had been mentioned as likely to follow from the carrying out of a scheme of railway amalgamation now before Parliament. He might mention that in that part of Ireland with which he was connected two large companies, who had been previously in opposition, had subsequently combined, and, having everything now in their own hands, were able to charge whatever fares, and give only what accommodation, they pleased. Thus the people had suffered, in the first instance, the evils of competition, such as they were, and then subsequently the evils, not of amalgamation, but of combination. And yet

  1297
  no interference took place. Considering the mileage of the Irish railroads, and the amount of capital invested in them, as compared with the mileage and the capital of the London and North-Western Company, or a smaller class of English companies, it was ridiculous to have such a number of Boards as were now at the head of the various Irish lines. Until there was united management, there never could be the necessary economy. He had reports of several of the last half-yearly meetings of Irish railways, and he found that the chairmen announced that Captain Tyler had been making inquiries of them as to the price which the shareholders would take for their property. It could not be supposed that Captain Tyler would have made such inquiries without direct instructions from the Government, nor could it be imagined that, having made them, he would not draw up a Report for the information of the Government, or make no communication to the Board of Trade, or any other Department. In reply to a Question put in "another place," the President of the Board of Trade was reported to have stated that there was no Report from Captain Tyler. Of course, if his right hon. Friend had made such a statement he believed it; but it might have been that the Report was not prepared at the time the Question was asked. He therefore put his Question now, and hoped he would receive a more satisfactory answer.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Copies of the instructions under which Captain Tyler was authorised to collect information respecting the financial condition and prospects of the Railways of Ireland, and of the reports or other communication to the Government from that officer thereupon.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE EARL OF DUFFERINsaid, he had to state, in reply to the noble Marquess, that it was impossible to comply with his request, for the simple reason that no such instructions were given to Captain Tyler in the terms of his noble Friend's Motion. Captain Tyler had been sent to Ireland to inquire into a matter totally different from the Irish railways; but he had been permitted, rather than authorized, to enter into communication with various persons interested in the arrangements of the Irish railways, in order to learn what their
  1298
  opinion might be as to the terms on which those railways might be bought. But he had not been authorized, nor had he entered into any inquiry either as to the financial prospects or the financial status of the Irish railways. Captain Tyler had made no Reports to Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, it was simply impossible to comply with the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEstated that, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl, he would not, of course, press his Motion; but he gave his noble Friend notice that he would bring the subject before their Lordships within a short time. He had the statements of four Chairmen of railways in Ireland to the effect that they were asked what their shareholders would take, and they distinctly stated that Captain Tyler told them he was not instructed to make any offer on the part of the Government, but that he was authorized by the Government to ask for information! and information he did ask for, as to the value which the shareholders put upon their property.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—BUSINESS OF THIS HOUSE.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I rise to put to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, What Bills Her Majesty's Government intend originating in the House of Lords? It is not my intention to enter into a long discussion on this subject: I cannot, however, but think it is a matter of regret that more Bills do not originate in this House. Up to this we have had but very little before us in the way of legislation; and I say this is to be regretted, because I really think it would be of great advantage, not only to this House but also for the expedition of public business, if more of the Bills brought in by the Government during the present Session had been originated in your Lordships' House. I think I can name subjects on which the Government propose legislation, and the Bills referring to which, I believe, might appropriately be brought into your Lordships' House in the first instance. There is the sanitary condition of the

1299
country—a subject of the highest importance—would not the Bill which the Government propose to introduce in reference to sanitary arrangements be well suited for discussion in this House before it is taken by the Commons? Then there is the subject of mines; but I believe the Mines Regulation Bill is to be introduced in the other House of Parliament before it comes up to your Lordships' House. I think it might well be discussed by your Lordships in the first instance; and I feel perfectly confident that this House would be perfectly competent to deal with the subject of Scotch Education, if the Bill on this subject were introduced here in the first instance. If this course be not adopted, what will be the result? If all those Bills, of considerable importance, be brought into the House of Commons in the first instance, by force of circumstances they will not reach your Lordships till the end of the Session—a period when we have not sufficient time to devote to them the consideration such measures ought to receive. Looking to the state of business in the other House of Parliament, I do not think it is likely that any Bills of great moment will come from that House at this side of Easter. When it is remembered that Bills coming to us from the other House of Parliament may possibly have to go back again, I am afraid we must con-elude that it will be impossible that they can be discussed in a satisfactory manner if we continue to receive them at so late a period of the Session.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the Question my noble Friend has put is a very natural one: neither is it extraordinary that he should complain of our having very little to do at the beginning of the Session; for the complaint of our not having enough to do at the beginning of the Session and too much at the end has been made, as stated by the late Earl of Aberdeen, for the last 50 years; and I am afraid that the remedy is not at all apparent, because in the nature of things, where there are two legislative Chambers, and one is a representative body, the greater number of measures can only come on for discussion in the non-representative Chamber after they have been discussed in the other or second Chamber. This subject has been frequently considered in successive years, and my noble Friend near me (Viscount
1300
Halifax) will bear me out when I say that I have always been desirous of having as many Bills as possible introduced in your Lordships' House in the first instance. [Viscount HALIFAX: Hear, hear!] Your Lordships will all understand that the Government could not think it desirable to originate in your Lordships' House Bills which would be likely to be rejected before the House of Commons was afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion on them. But with regard to the Mines Bill, for example—one of the measures referred to by the noble Duke—no doubt there are reasons why that Bill might have been introduced in this House, for many of your Lordships are mine owners, and still more of your Lordships are interested in the condition of the working classes employed in those mines; but it must also be obvious that both the proprietors of mines and the men are more directly represented in the other House of Parliament than in this. The noble Duke seems to fear that no legislation will be introduced in this House. That will be by no means the case. As to Bills of another character, the noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord Westbury) has given Notice of a Question which will be replied to by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and I trust that answer will be satisfactory. And I may say that there are Bills of an administrative character in regard to Ireland which my noble Friend (the Earl of Dufferin) will introduce before Easter. Indeed, he will introduce them immediately. Then there are a Bankruptcy Bill, a Prisons Bill, and a Bill relating to Imprisonment for Debt, which will be introduced in your Lordships' House in the first instance. I may also mention a small Bill relating to cattle diseases, which I may add to the three Bills I have just named. I cannot go further at present. There are a few other Bills in the Home Office; but I am not yet in possession of information to enable me to say whether they will be introduced first in this House. I believe, therefore, that full occupation will be found for your Lordships before Easter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think it is quite fair to blame our representative system for your Lordships having too much leisure time at the beginning of a Session, and too much employment at the end. I think

1301
the difficulty in this matter arises from the Government having to consult the wishes of individual statesmen. A Minister does not like to introduce a Bill unless he can make a speech on it, especially when he has prepared the Bill himself. The consequence is, that when Bills come from the Home Office, or have reference to local government, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) finds himself in that minority among the Members of the Cabinet which has always been unable to secure the introduction of any considerable number of Bills in your Lordships' House. But, can we not find a remedy? Owing to the system now pursued, there is not sufficient time allowed us for careful legislation and for resorting in all instances where it may be advisable to the practice of sending Bills up to a Select Committee, by whom they may be thoroughly examined. I will venture to make a suggestion, if it be not considered too revolutionary. Would not it be possible to introduce Bills not of a party character in the two Houses simultaneously? This would not relieve either House of the duty of a careful consideration of the Bills; but it would prevent the business from being huddled into a space of time that is not sufficient for its discharge. I am afraid this proposal is too revolutionary for the noble Earl to consent to it without first trying to recover from the shock it may have produced.
EARL GREY: My Lords, this is a subject of very great importance. As the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) has observed, at the beginning of the year we are practically without business, and at the close of the year more business is thrown upon us than can by possibility be properly attended to; and the existing arrangements for carrying on the business of Parliament lead also to this still worse result—that a great deal of the work of legislation for the country is utterly neglected. Bills which are essential for the welfare of the people of this kingdom—for their daily life and comfort—are postponed from year to year, while mere party subjects are debated at great length. There is this further evil—that in many instances the legislation of the Imperial Parliament is hasty, crude, or ill-considered, and the various portions of a Bill are so inconsistent with each other, that it is impossible for the Courts
1302
to divine what were the intentions of the Legislature. It is almost an exceptional case when a Bill having passed in one year it is not necessary the next year or the year after to pass another to cure its obvious defects. Last year there was a striking example of this, when we were forced to pass a new Act to amend the Habitual Criminals Act, which had itself been passed only the year before.
EARL GRANVILLE: That Act originated in this House.
EARL GREY: That is so; but whether it originated in this or in the other House of Parliament, I am referring to it to show the unfinished manner in which Bills leave Parliament. It cannot be otherwise when important Amendments in Bills come to be considered by your Lordships at the same time that the Appropriation Act comes before you for a third reading. I cannot, however, think that the remedy suggested by the noble Duke or that suggested by the noble Marquess would answer the purpose. I do not believe that bringing in a larger number of Bills in this House in the first instance, or introducing Bills concurrently in both Houses, would effect the desired object; and for this reason—By the very nature of the constitution of this House our function is more properly to revise legislation, rather than to originate it. In the first place, many of the subjects of legislation involve questions of money, with which, practically, we can do nothing. For instance, sanitary measures have been referred to, some of which, it has been suggested, would be peculiarly appropriate for first introduction in this House; but in making this suggestion it seems to have been forgot that you cannot move a step in such legislation without having to face the question of money, and according to the privileges of the other House of Parliament we cannot deal with questions of taxation. But even when there is no question of money, in how large a number of the subjects of legislation is it not desirable to know what are the feelings and wishes of the great masses of the population who are represented in the other House of Parliament? I must say that my experience—and it is one extending over a very great number of years—is not favourable to the introduction of a large proportion of Bills in this rather than in

1303
the other House of Parliament. I remember that when I had a seat in the other House, I remarked that that House was not disposed to accept Bills that had come from this House with the same readiness as it did Bills which originated in the House of Commons. There is, indeed, a class of Bills to which this remark does not apply, and which I think may with advantage be brought into this House in the first instance—I allude to what are commonly called Law Bills, and especially measures to improve the constitution and the mode of proceeding in our Courts of Law. There are in this House noble and learned Lords whose assistance in the examination and discussion of such Bills is of peculiar value; but with the exception of these and one or two other classes of measures, I do not believe that any very great proportion of Bills can be originated here with advantage. My Lords, I do not think any remedy can be found for the state of things from which the country is suffering, except on a plan by which Bills which have passed through the House of Commons in one Session may be sent up here the next Session on a simple vote of the House of Commons affirming the Bill again. Your Lordships may recollect that the late Lord Derby introduced a Bill on the subject, which passed this House; and, though I supported it, I am bound to admit that the House of Commons had exceedingly good reason for declining to support it. I think, when the subject comes to be considered, that there is an irresistible objection to doing away with the discretion which each House has to regulate its own proceedings; because if once you introduce the practice of prescribing by Act of Parliament in what manner an Act is to be passed, this would happen—that you would have the Courts of Law called upon to decide whether the statutory form had been observed. Legislation, therefore, of the kind suggested by Lord Derby was, I think, justly objected to; but I can see no reason why the same end should not be obtained in a different manner. Why should not a Standing Order to this effect be passed by the House of Commons—that when a Bill has been passed by the House at such a period of the Session that it cannot come up to this House with a probability of being
1304
properly discussed here it shall be in the power of that House to save it for our consideration till the following Session, and that a single vote, without discussion and without debate, shall then be sufficient for sending the Bill up to this House. Let me point out how this would work. Only last Session a very important Bill, which had occupied the attention of the other House of Parliament for many weeks, was brought up to this House quite at the end of July. That Bill was not rejected on the merits; it was rejected—and I think most properly—on the ground that at that period of the Session there was not time to consider it. Now, if such a Standing Order as I have suggested had been in existence, the House of Commons would not have sent that Ballot Bill to be considered by this House in the last days of the Session, but would have reserved it till Parliament met in February, and then sent it to your Lordships; who would have had full time to consider it, and to have sent it back to the Commons by a sufficiently early day to enable the two Houses to arrive at a common understanding. On the other hand, what has been the result? The Bill was rejected here for the reason I have already stated; its rejection caused no small amount of irritation, which was very needless under the circumstances; the Bill is again before the House of Commons, stopping other legislation, and it promises to be such a very considerable time before it reaches your Lordships that it is not impossible it may come up too late this year again to enable this House to give it the necessary consideration, or, at all events, to allow of the needful communication between the two Houses for coming to an agreement if they should differ on some of its provisions. When this subject was discussed two years ago it was supposed by some that there was a strong disposition on the part of the House of Commons not to adopt the suggestion, because Members of that House thought the present system afforded them the means of forcing this House to pass Bills. If this was really the motive for opposing the change, it does not seem to be a good one, and it is also clear that it would have manifested a want of appreciation of the real facts of the case; because if a Bill were brought up in the month of February, your Lordships could

1305
have no such ground for rejecting it as that on which the Ballot Bill was properly rejected last year. I may mention another case in which great advantage would have resulted from adopting the practice I have recommended. Two or three years ago a Scotch Education Bill was introduced in this House by the Government; this House carefully considered it, amended it very materially, and sent it down to the other House of Parliament. There it lay on the Table for a very long time without any notice having been taken of it. After that it was committed pro formâ, and in this manner it was completely changed from the form in which it had left your Lordships' House. With Amendments entirely changing its character, which had been adopted in this manner without discussion, it was sent up to us for a consideration of the Commons' Amendments on the same day as that on which we took the third reading of the Appropriation Bill. Of course, it was utterly impossible for your Lordships to deal with the Amendments at that period of the Session. If such a Standing Order as I suggest had been in existence that Education Bill would have been sent up here at the beginning of the next Session, with the Amendments the Commons had thought fit to make; we could have sent it back again to the Commons at an early period of the year, and there would have been ample time for those communications between the two Houses which so often enable them to come to an agreement on the provisions of Bills on which they differ in the first instance. I am far from asserting that the difficulties with regard to legislation would be entirely removed by such a Standing Order. I cannot help thinking there are other difficulties of a serious nature besides those which I have named. I believe the forms of proceeding—especially in respect of the manner in which Bills are dealt with in Committees—are so far from being satisfactory that they require careful revision. I cannot help seeing that there is a great change for the worse in the manner in which business is now conducted in the House of Commons as compared with what was the case formerly. We have, I think, no small right to complain of the want of judgment, discretion, and energy with which the Parliamentary Business of the Government
1306
has been managed in both Houses. If the important Bills to be submitted to Parliament were more carefully considered in the Recess, if they were introduced in a form more matured and better fitted to accomplish their purpose, there would not be the same difficulties as now exist. Moreover, the Bills of the Government are not only now brought in with less care in their preparation than formerly, but I am also afraid that they are drawn up with more reference to party considerations than to what would make them really useful working measures.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not entirely agree with the noble Earl who had just spoken. He did not think their Lordships had much reason to complain of there not being enough legislation in the year. He thought they had plenty of legislation—he (Lord Redesdale) only wished that some of it was better considered. He did not object at all to Bills being thrown out; because he believed that a measure was often all the better in the end for having two Sessions taken over it than if it were passed in a single Session, and it was extremely undesirable that important measures should be hurried through Parliament. With regard to the Ballot Bill which had been rejected towards the close of last Session, and to which reference had been made, he thought great advantage would be found to have arisen from the course adopted by their Lordships. A bettor Bill had been introduced this year, and the other House would have a fair opportunity of considering the matter. He objected to the proposal that Bills of a former Session should be again adopted by the House which had passed them in the preceding year by a single vote without Amendment. The Amendments which could then be made in the measure when it went back would be only such as could be made upon those introduced in the House to which the old Bill had been so sent. It was to be regretted that subjects of real practical interest were too often neglected in the House of Commons, and the time which ought to be devoted to them occupied by measures of a party and sensational character. He thought it would not work well for the two Houses to be discussing the same measure at the same time and perhaps coming to totally

1307
different decisions upon it. The real practical question was, would the Government take care that their Bills should be well prepared, and would they bring them in so as to give fair time for their proper discussion?
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he did not think the discussion of that evening, in which every noble Lord who spoke differed from the noble Lord who spoke before him, would tend much to remove the difficulties connected with the transaction of business, or to hold out any great prospect of a more satisfactory state of things than exists at present. The Sanitary Bill, to which allusion had been made, was a measure of a character which it would be extremely difficult to originate in their Lordships' House, inasmuch as it was to some extent a money Bill; and as to the Mines Regulation Bill, there were strong reasons for introducing it in the House of Commons, where there were a number of practical men well acquainted with the subject it dealt with. He did not think it would be an improvement to introduce an increased number of Bills in that House. The functions of their Lordships' House, he thought, were on the whole much better exercised in revision and review than in originating Bills, except in the case of Bills of a special nature. The noble Duke spoke of the Scotch Education Bill as one which might well have been introduced in this House. Now, the experience they had had on such a Bill was not encouraging. A Scotch Education Bill was brought into that House two years ago and went down to the other House, where it was so greatly altered, that when it came back to their Lordships again it was at once rejected. If their Lordships passed Bills and sent them down to the other House, they were not unlikely to be so amended in the other House as to come up to their Lordships again almost in the shape of new Bills.

SUPREME COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he wished to make a few remarks introductory to the Question which he had put upon the Paper—namely, to ask the Lord Chancellor, Whether it is his intention to bring in before Easter any Bill for the establishment
  1308
  of a Supreme Court of Final Appeal? He congratulated himself that listening to the discussion which had just terminated he had found no reason assigned against the initiation of Bills in that House, such as that in respect to which he desired to elicit information from the Government. Every one admitted that such a measure was not only wanted, but that it ought to originate in their Lordships' House. Those who heard Her Majesty's gracious Speech at the opening of the Session, felt assured that that Bill would be immediately introduced. There had been no earthly reason that he knew of to prevent the Government from giving its attention to that measure during the Recess. Therefore, he should expect with confidence that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would be prepared not only to answer, but to answer in the affirmative, the Question he proposed to put to him—namely, Whether the Government had prepared a measure for the establishment of a Supreme Court of Final Appeal, and if not, why not; and whether such a measure would be introduced before Easter, and if not, why not? He concurred entirely in all the regrets which had been expressed from time to time with regard to the inactivity of their Lordships in the earlier part of the Session; these regrets might be reduced to a stereotyped formula—but he hoped that this measure at least would form an exception to the general rule, and that the Government would lay a Bill on the Table of the House at such a time that it could be fully deliberated upon before Easter, and sent to the Commons shortly after. The necessity for some action in the matter was beyond all precedent—the state of the appellate jurisdiction of the country would scarcely be credited by anyone not actually concerned in it. To this House came all appeals from all the Common Law Courts and Courts of Equity in England, Ireland, and Scotland; but this great demand upon the House was not met in any systematic manner. Their Lordships had no appointed Judges and no appointed times of sitting: the consideration of appeals was not even carried on in a judicial manner, but their Lordships sat as a deliberative assembly, and the sittings were dependent upon the sitting of Parliament. During the Session appeals were heard upon four days of the week,

  1309
  no accident intervening, and the despatch of business was dependent entirely upon the voluntary attendance of such Members of the House as had filled the office of Lord Chancellor and one or two others. Whether one or two of them attended was utterly uncertain, and who they might be was equally uncertain. No suitor could tell beforehand who would hear him or who would determine his suit. Beside this, the sittings were frequently interrupted. The Lord Chancellor had his political duties to attend to; the most serious argument by counsel had to be interrupted at 2 o'clock because the Lord Chancellor had to attend a levee, or even at 1, because the Lord Chancellor had to attend a meeting of the Cabinet by virtue of his office. The result was that appeals were delayed from day to day, or half days only were given to them. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been diligent, and the appeals had been well kept under; but his diligence did not correct the defects in the tribunal itself, and could not relieve the Legislature from the necessity of amending those defects. A greater sense of decency prevailed in these days; but in Lord Eldon's time, when the Lord Chancellor attended to hear appeals, he occasionally found himself alone, and inasmuch as three Peers were required to make a House, the officers of the House were sometimes obliged to catch a Bishop and invite him to act as dummy; a lay Peer was sometimes pressed into the service; and the Lord Chancellor, gravely assisted by these two mutes, administered justice in a final manner. The improvement of the present day, however, ought only to convince their Lordships of the necessity of doing much more. Upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council devolved the duty of deciding not only upon all ecclesiastical and Admiralty appeals, but upon all the appeals that came from the 300,000,000 British subjects in India and all other British colonies. The small improvement made last year could not be regarded as more than a temporary expedient, though it had worked well. It had reduced the number of arrears; but it was by no means a fitting tribunal for finally settling the enormous number of appeals coining from our Courts. What should be done? These two tribunals, co-ordinate, each final, and therefore always in danger of
  1310
  asserting principles contradictory of each other, which no power but Parliament could decide upon, should be consolidated into one great Court of Appeal, presided over by the élite of the law to be selected from the Judges of the other Courts, and competent to deal with all the variety of cases that came before the Judicial Committee, from India and the colonies, and before their Lordships from the Courts of Scotland, Ireland, and all parts of the kingdom. If such a Court were well constituted, made easily accessible and economical, sitting throughout the year, and with its door open for the admission of every appellate suitor, then one appeal ought to be sufficient. There might be cases in which facility should be given for a re-hearing or even a double appeal, but one appeal for the generality of causes would suffice. This was necessary because facilities should not be given to litigious persons—it was to the interest of the State to stop litigation after reasonable facilities had been afforded for obtaining justice. At present the appeals were too numerous. The jury decided upon the questions of fact; but upon questions of law appeals from the Courts of Common Law were carried to the Exchequer Chamber, and it might happen then that three Judges out of the five would overrule the opinion of seven or eight or even eleven Judges. In the Court of Chancery the Lords Justices sometimes sat as a Court of Appeal, sometimes the Lords Justices with the Lord Chancellor, and sometimes the Lord Chancellor by himself. There might be an advantage to the Lord Chancellor in having a subordinate Court of Appeal, because the great part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery consisted of a preventive jurisdiction, such as the granting injunctions. In Scotland matters were in a state which would be insupportable but for the self-love of the people, which led them to attribute perfection to all their institutions. An appeal lay from the sheriff substitute to the sheriff depute; from the sheriff depute to the Court of Sessions; thence to the Lord Ordinary with a right of ultimate appeal to their Lordships' House. With regard to the Judicial Committee he would gladly hail any measure that would eliminate from that body the Bishops who now formed a portion of that tribunal, and he regretted that when last Session a noble Marquess

  1311
  (the Marquess of Salisbury) brought the subject forward he (Lord Westbury), in the impression that the Motion had been abandoned, was not in his place to support him by his vote, because he believed that nothing would more tend than their exclusion to promote the peace of the Church. Such a tribunal as that which he had been advocating would be of little use unless it were composed of the most eminent men selected from the Bench, who were willing to devote the whole of their time and ability to the discharge of the duties which would devolve upon them; and for that it would be necessary to give them a large and liberal remuneration. That was the work which lay before them. There was no quarrel to be apprehended with the House of Commons as to whose right and whose duty it was to be the first to set hands to it. He would not give vent to any suspicion of his own with reference to the preparation of the Bill, but would end as he had begun by asking whether the Bill had been prepared; if not, why not? Would it be brought in immediately, and, if not, when would it be brought in?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) had covered a large field in the course of his disquisition upon this very important subject; but he did not complain of the course taken by his noble and learned Friend, for the subject was one in which he had himself personally felt the deepest interest for many years, before he had any opportunity of evincing that interest by the introduction of any practical measure of reform. The Questions put to him by his noble and learned Friend were—first, whether the Bill was prepared; and, secondly, whether it would be immediately introduced into that House? He would state very briefly the exact state of the case in reference to these Questions. In the Session of 1870 two Bills, one for the improvement of the Appellate Jurisdiction and the other for the construction of a High Court of Justice, were passed through their Lordships' House; but owing to the vast pressure of business in the other House it was found impossible to press them through, and the Bills were withdrawn; and again last Session, for the same reason, it was thought to be impossible to introduce them again in the House of Commons with any prospect of being gravely
  1312
  considered, as was befitting the importance of the subject to be dealt with. He need not refer at length to the circumstances which prevented the matter being dealt with last Session; but he would say, simply, that though the Bills were not brought before Parliament the time had not been lost. To prepare Bills of this sort not only required much thought and consideration, but it required, also, that those who had charge of the matter should take every possible opportunity to improve and perfect the measures before submitting them to Parliament. The moment it was ascertained that the Bills could not be introduced in the House of Commons last Session with any chance of their passing in the course of the Session, he set himself actively to work to obtain information such as could conduce to the improvement of Bills intended to effect a work so great as the establishment of a High Court of Justice and a High Court of Appeal. He circulated copies of the Bill among the learned Judges, from many of whom, he had sent the drafts to, including the Lord Chief Justice, he obtained valuable suggestions. He could not represent the Lord Chief Justice as approving everything being done exactly as was proposed in the High Court of Justice Bill; but he admitted that it was a great improvement in the Bill of the year before, and made a considerable number of suggestions for its improvement. Others of the Judges also sent him suggestions—the Master of the Polls and Judges of the Superior Courts—and in this way he had obtained several valuable papers, of which he had made use in improving these Bills. In addition to these, during the Recess he received a most valuable offer from several of the Members of the Judicature Commission, gentlemen with hard work enough of their own to do, who offered to take the Bill for the establishment of a High Court of Justice into their consideration. They formed a sub-committee on the subject, and from time to time he received very valuable suggestions from them; but, as might be expected from the heavy duties which pressed upon them, it was not until the month of January in the present year that he received their final Report. He did not think it was necessary to introduce the two Bills simultaneously; and, that being so, he should

  1313
  have no difficulty in placing the High Court of Justice Bill almost immediately before their Lordships. Some of the alterations made in the Bill he had just mentioned would necessitate modifications in the details of the measure relating to appellate jurisdiction. The Bill had been placed in the hands of the draftsman for this purpose, and he had every expectation of being able to ask the House to read both Bills a first time before Easter. He had had sufficient experience of their Lordships' House to convince him of the difficulty of proceeding swiftly, and the importance of proceeding carefully in reference to matters of this kind. When he entered the House there was the law of bankruptcy to be dealt with, and at that time there were before Parliament three Bills and a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in reference to the subject. He looked through all these, and drew the heads of a Bankruptcy Bill which gave to creditors full power to attend to their own business in the way that seemed best to them, and had abolished imprisonment for debt. This was the fact, notwithstanding the charge sometimes made against the present Government, that they had done nothing for the improvement of the law. It was true, as had been said, that the administration of the appellate jurisdiction was not in nearly so unsatisfactory a state as in the days of Lord Eldon; but he might, nevertheless, mention that on one occasion he argued an appeal which lasted during three days before the Lord Chancellor and two other noble Lords who had never sat on the Woolsack, the last-named Peers being different on each day. He might also state, further, that there were only 15 appeals waiting for hearing in Chancery; and when first the Courts assembled after Hilary Term there were only eight, not one of them being a month old. When first he had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House there were the arrears of two and a-half Sessions to be cleared away, and this Session commenced with the arrears of half a Session only. He did not mention these facts in any spirit of personal vanity, because other noble Lords had, by their zeal, contributed to bring about this improved condition of affairs, but simply to show that there had been an improvement effected of late years in the conduct
  1314
  of the appellate jurisdiction. Before sitting down he desired to say a few words in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Grey) this evening, as to the Bills of the Government being ill-prepared and badly drawn. Those remarks were not just to those persons who had prepared the very important Bills passed by Her Majesty's Government during the last three Sessions. Never before in three consecutive years had measures of such extreme magnitude and importance been passed. In particular, extreme care and precaution were necessary in preparing the Irish Church Bill and the Irish Land Bill, and he ventured to assert that they were drawn up most carefully. Something had been said about the Habitual Criminals Bill. That was a most useful measure, and the testimony of all the Judges on circuit was that it had worked admirably, and that the number of habitual criminals brought before them was much less than it used to be. Then the Education Bill was one which required to be drawn with extreme care. In point of fact, great attention was bestowed upon it, and no one could justly say that it was an ill-prepared and slovenly Bill. It was only due to those employed in the preparation of these Bills that he should make these remarks. In conclusion, the noble Lord repeated that it was his expectation and belief that the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill and the High Court of Justice Bill would be introduced and read a first time before the Easter Recess.

  BANK OF IRELAND CHARTER, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Charter under which the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland is incorporated—Was presented by The Lord CHAWORTH; read 1a. (No. 37.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.