Lords Sitting of 22 June 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* (125); Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment* (126); Building Societies* (127).
Second Reading—Board of Trade Arbitrations, Inquiries, &c. (103).
Committee—Report—Powers Law Amendment * (89); County Courts* (117–129); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental * (106); Land Tax Commissioners Names * (102); Bar Admission Stamp* (105); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * (114).
Report—Holyhead Old Harbour Road * (83); Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (118–128); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation * (50).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (37); Court of Judicature (Ireland) (121); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (82); Pour Courts Marshalsea (Dublin) * (107); Revenue Officers Disabilities* (94), and passed.

CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  LORD HAMPTONmoved an Address for a Return showing the number of churches (including cathedrals) in every diocese in England which have been built or restored at a cost exceeding £500 since the year 1840; and showing also, as far as possible, the expenditure in each case and the sources from which in each case the required funds were derived.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, there was no objection to the Return, though in some dioceses, especially in that of London, there would be considerable difficulty in furnishing it. The number of churches consecrated in the diocese of London since 1840 could easily be furnished, but there was no official record of the cost of those churches, nor any means by which the sources whence the funds were derived could be ascertained with precision.
  Motion agreed to.

BOARD OF TRADE ARBITRATIONS IN-QUIRIES &c, BILL.—(No. 103.)
(Lord Dunmore.)
BOARD OF TRADE ARBITRATIONS IN-QUIRIES &c, BILL.—(No. 103.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, its purpose was to amend the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to inquiries, arbitrations, &c, and other matter under special Acts, and to amend the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, so as to enable the Board to refer differences of a particular description to the Railway Commissioners in lieu of arbitrators. For the first-named purposes power was given to the Board to hold any inquiry by means of any persons they might authorize. By this means any inquiry into a matter requiring special knowledge or qualifications could be conducted by experts in the particular subject-matter. The second clause enabled

  217
  the Board of Trade to certify all expenses incurred in such inquiry or arbitration, and decided that they should be paid by such of the parties as the Board might direct. The sixth clause enabled the Board to refer any difference to which a railway or canal company was party to the decision of the Railway Commissioners, who were to have the same powers in relation thereto as if the matter had been referred to them in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.

  REPORT.
  Amendment reported (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALErepeated the objections urged in Committee against the constitution of the Imperial Courts of Appeal, and also contended that under the system proposed by the Bill there would be the risk of a conflict of authority between Committees of Privileges in their Lordships' House and the new Court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that as to the constitution of the Imperial Court of Appeal, he had already said everything he had to say on that point. With respect to the other objections his noble Friend started on the false hypothesis that at present there could be no conflict between decisions on privilege and decisions by Courts of Law. At present there was a risk of such conflict, and just the same risk would remain after the passing of this Bill.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 2a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 128).

COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 121).
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 121).

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMANmoved that the Bill be read a third time that day three
  218
  months. The attack upon the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships was founded upon misrepresentation, exaggeration, and prejudice. It was stated that the House took no interest in the questions that were brought before it—that a Committee was appointed consisting of Members of that House, no one of whom felt any interest in the business, and that there was so much difference of opinion that they could not feel themselves justified in coming to a decision upon many questions. The opinion of noble Lords in 1823 was very different. Earl Grosvenor, though he objected to a clause in a Bill for enforcing the attendance of Peers, thought it would be worth while to see if a voluntary attendance could not be secured. His Lordship did not wish that any Peer should hear only part of a cause, and highly estimated the opinion and vote of the Lord Chancellor, though not valuing the mere legal opinion of a proposed Deputy Speaker. Lord Erskine said, he was well satisfied with the manner in which the judicial business of that House was conducted. Lord Melville said, that the Act of Union essentially recognized the right of appeal from Scotland to their Lordships' House. Lord Holland did not admit the defect imputed to the constitution of the House, and added that imputations on the negligence of noble Lords had been thrown out—by a Committee which had recommended a Deputy Speaker for Scotch appeals—which their Lordships did not deserve. Lord Colchester said, that Stare super antiquas vias was a safe principle upon most cases of policy, but upon none more than those which concern the accustomed forms of administering justice. Lord Ellenborough (Lord Chief Justice) said, there was nothing to prevent the Peers who should hear the first part (of a case) from remaining till the case was concluded. The Earl of Carnarvon objected to part of a case only being heard by those who might have to decide upon the whole. Lord Holland, on the clause for enforcing attendance being put, thought it would be better to leave the attendance to the honour and sense of duty of their Lordships. There had been a dread that appeals might be 12 years before they were decided, but Lord Gifford being created an hereditary Peer, cleared off all arrears in two years. As to rules of Procedure, in 1852 every change

  219
  of that date was put into the Act. But what were their Lordships going to do? They were going to institute a new system, and there was nothing about it to really claim the confidence of the country. In the Act which it was attempted to amend there was a provision that all Rules made to supplement the Act should he laid on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament whilst Parliament was sitting, and remain there for 40 days in the same way as schemes for schools had been subjected to the consideration of Parliament; but he found that in "another place" Her Majesty's Attorney General had denied that there was any necessity for delaying the operation of those Rules. He was certain that their Lordships had not considered their position. He contended that if they once did away with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, they would have no more connection with those noble and learned Lords of great experience who at present assisted them. He was quite certain that the Lord Chancellor, with the advice of Judges, when needed, and the concurrence of Peers, was capable of carrying on the cases, and deciding when any difficulty arose, and it was certainly not the time for their Lordships to give up their right of sitting on appeals. Vice Chancellor Stuart had said, in evidence before a Commission, that there was no case in which their Lordships would be incapable of administration. He (Lord Denman) would be surprised and delighted to find that the same opposition had been offered in "another place," as in times past, and he thought their Lordships should assert their own rights and privileges of doing good to their fellow creatures. A noble Duke not present (the Duke of Devonshire) had been reported as saying at a public dinner, in returning thanks for the toast of the House of Lords, that never in future history would the House of Lords play so distinguished a part as in times past; but he (Lord Denman) ventured to say that if their Lordships gave up their judicial duties, no decision of a Committee of their Lordships would be respected; they would even be considered incapable of assisting in making laws which they could not interpret. Lord Shaftesbury had well said, in 1675—
  "My Lords, would you be in favour with the King? 'Tis a very ill way to it to put your-selves
  220
  out of a future capacity to be considerable in his service. I do not find in story or in modem experience but that 'tis better, and a man is much more regarded that is still in a capacity and opportunity to serve, than he that has deprived himself of all for his Prince's service. And I therefore declare, that I will serve my Prince as a Peer, but will not destroy the Peerage to serve him."
  Lord Lyndhurst had said—
  "Look to this House; it was to the discharge of its judicial functions that it owed the character it had so long and he trusted would ever maintain. It was of the utmost importance that it should maintain that high station in the confidence of suitors, the profession, and the country in which it had so long stood."
  He (Lord Denman) was quite sure there ought to be a House of Peers with a Chancellor at its head, having jurisdiction in all cases as before, and if this Bill passed, even if the parties interested on both sides should wish to have the decision of their Lordships' House, it would be impossible. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Amendment.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly. Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

PROTEST.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because this House, as the Court of ultimate Appeal for Ireland, has secured to itself the approval and confidence of that country in the discharge of the duties so entrusted to it, and cannot surrender a privilege which has been attended with a result so advantageous to its character without injurious consequences to its own interests, and to those of the United Kingdom.
"2. Because this abandonment of jurisdiction is uncalled for by any expression of public opinion, and has been openly objected to by members of the legal profession in Ireland, who may be fairly held to represent the interests and wishes of their suitors and clients.
"3. Because the state of public feeling in Ireland, in regard to the Imperial Parliament, renders the transfer of the jurisdiction of this House, so respected in that country, to a new and untried English court particularly inexpedient at the present time.
"REDESDALE."
House adjourned at Six o'clock' till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.