Lords Sitting of 26 May 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland)* (95).
Second Reading—Trade Union Act (1871) Amendment (73).
Select Committee—Report—Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees* (93).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Ferry, &c. (No. 4)* (87); Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)* (88).
Report—Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees* (3–94.)
Third Reading—Partition Act (1868) Amendment* (52); Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments)* (82); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* (78), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLErose to ask a Question of the Lord President. He believed the progress of Business in that House was satisfactory. Indeed, it was admitted the other day that it compared favourably with the work done in "another place." But still he did not think they were over-burdened with Business, and he rose to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, What proposition he intended to make with regard to the Whitsuntide Holidays?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he expected that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would come up from the other House on Monday and would be read a first time that evening. Should that be so, he should move the suspension of the Standing Orders on Tuesday with the view of having the Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages at the sitting of Tuesday evening. If this should be accomplished he would propose that their Lordships should adjourn from Thursday next until Tuesday, June 13.

ARMY—RESERVE FORCES—YEOMANRY TRUMPETERS.—QUESTIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state the reason for withholding the pay for trumpeters in Yeomanry regiments; the saving which it is estimated will be effected; and,

  1255
  whether lieutenant colonels commanding these regiments had been previously communicated with on the subject? He was aware that the Commander-in-Chief had issued a Circular, in which he said that the Yeomanry might draw trumpeters from the Regular Forces; but these Forces could not supply the requisite number. There was an impression in the Yeomanry Cavalry that they had been unfairly dealt with in the matter by the War Office. He anticipated that his noble Friend would reply that what the War Office had done was in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee appointed last year; but of the eleven Members composing that Committee seven were on the Staff of the War Office and only four were Yeomanry officers; so, although it might be said that "the Committee" recommended, the War Office were first responsible for the recommendations. He was afraid the War Office only accepted as much of the recommendations as pleased them.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that though the first of his noble Friend's Questions did not state accurately what had been really done, his noble Friend had rightly anticipated what his reply to that Question would be. There were only four Yeomanry officers on the Committee of last year; but he thought that number was sufficient, remembering that on this question of trumpeters the Committee took the evidence of several Yeomanry officers. He would read to their Lordships, answers given by some of those witnesses. These Questions and Answers occurred in the examination of Major David Scotland, Cheshire Yeomanry—
  "What work did the trumpet-major himself do in the course of the year?—He had nothing to do; he was employed civilly as a crier in Knutsford Court.
  "Then he did hold a civil employment?—Yes, he did.
  "(Sir F. FitzWygram).—The trumpet-major, if I understand you rightly, is absolutely unemployed, except for six days, without counting the marching out and marching in days. Do you not think that £36 is rather a useless expenditure on a man for those six days?—Yes, I do.
  "And that some other arrangement might be better?—Yes; I think that a trumpeter might be detached from a Cavalry regiment for the purpose, just for three weeks or a month, because with us our trumpeters are assembled about a fortnight or three weeks before permanent duty
  1256
  —they have four days' absolute instruction under the trumpet-major, and those four days and the permanent duty are all that the trumpet-major does in the year. He is the best paid man in the regiment for what he does."
  In the examination of Viscount Malden, Lieutenant Colonel of the Hertfordshire Yeomanry, there was this passage:—
  "What does the trumpet-major do during the year generally?—The present one is armourer sergeant at St. Albans; he keeps a private shop, and is gunmaker.
  "He does nothing for the Government all the year round, except the eight days on which he is out?—Nothing."
  Coming to the evidence of Lord Cork, Lieutenant Colonel of the North Somerset Yeomanry, he found these Questions and Answers:—
  "You have one on the permanent staff, have you not?—Yes, he is trumpeter on the permanent staff.
  "What does he do?—Nothing, except during the training week and during the troop drills."
  In the Report of the Committee there was this passage:—
  "We have considered the position and duties of trumpeters on the permanent Staff, and find from the evidence that their services are only required in that capacity during the period of permanent duty. We cannot, therefore, recommend the continuance of such a permanent appointment, but in lieu thereof we suggest the employment of a qualified Yeoman during the permanent duty, and an extra allowance of, say 3s. a-day might, we think, with propriety, he granted him while so employed; or a qualified trumpeter might be furnished from the Regular Army during the permanent duty."
  The War Office had acted on that recommendation. The saving was £1,400 a-year. With regard to the last of the Questions of his noble Friend, he had to say that it was not, he believed, customary to consult the lieutenant-colonels on all occasions of proposed changes in matters connected with the Yeomanry generally, but only in respect of matters concerning their own regiments.
  THE EARL OF CORKthought that one trumpeter for each troop, instead of one for the whole corps, ought to be allowed during permanent duty. As it was, by the present arrangements the expense of the troop trumpeters fell upon the captains, instead of upon the Contingent Fund as formerly. In his regiment it had been the custom to summon the men of each troop by sound of trumpet, but you could not summon men by sound of trumpet if you had no trumpet.

NAVY—PROMOTION TO FLAG RANK.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Government, When it is intended by the Admiralty to make an alteration in the system of promotion from the rank of Captain to that of Flag Officer? The noble Earl said that when he brought the subject under the notice of the House last Session, a noble Friend of his who was not now present (the Earl of Malmesbury) concurred with him that recourse must be had to selection in the case of those Officers, and in consequence of that expression of opinion he (the Earl of Camperdown) had expected that something would have been done before now. The number of Flag Officers on the establishment was to be about 50, and that of Captains 150. With a promotion by seniority of one out of three, he did not see how the best men were to be had. Where the opportunity of selection was so limited, the Admiralty must be hampered in selecting the best men.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had some difficulty in understanding the nature of the noble Earl's Question. He was not aware that the Admiralty were disposed to make any alteration in the system of promotion from the rank of Captain to that of Flag Officer. The matter had been discussed, but no decision had been arrived at; it was a question which required to be approached with very great caution. He had looked into the Report of the Committee of 1863, and in that Report it was laid down that it was the undoubted Prerogative of Her Majesty to promote by selection any Captain whom she might be advised to promote. By an Order in Council, even in time of peace a promotion might be so made. But, in point of fact, selection governed all the promotions at present, not only in the lower ranks, but also in the higher. One of the most responsible tasks the Admiralty had to perform was that of deciding as to what Captains should be allowed to qualify for the rank of Flag Officer. To qualify, a Captain must serve six years afloat, and in the course of that service fill two, possibly three separate appointments. If, in the course of fulfilling his service, a Captain showed that he was the right man for the rank of Flag Officer, he might depend upon finding no difficulty in
  1258
  obtaining further employment, and so qualifying for the Active Flag List. If he did not, the Admiralty took care not to do so. He became an Admiral in time, but an Admiral on the Retired List. The truth was that the Admirals on the Active List were the selected of the selected—the crème de la crème. He was aware that in the French Navy the Flag Officers were taken by selection from the Captains on the Active List, and that was also the system in England, but it was given up in 1747; the noble Duke opposite, who himself had filled the post of First Lord of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset), told the Committee that he was aware that French naval officers complained of that system. Suppose a case in which a Captain was promoted over the head of 20 seniors, every one of these 20 others would contend that he was the man who ought to have been selected, and his Friends in both Houses of Parliament would advocate his cause. The result of such a system would be to flood both Houses with remonstrances. He did not think it would be popular with the Service at large, and he hoped it never would be adopted. There were 175 Captains on the Active List, and not 150, as had been stated by his noble Friend. Under the scheme introduced while his noble Friend was at the Admiralty, and which was known as the Childers' scheme, there were only three promotions from the rank of Captain to that of Flag Officer in 1873, and only four in 1874. This was under Mr. Childers' administration. Under Mr. Ward Hunt's there were seven in 1875, and seven would be the number each year; while the number of promotions from the rank of Commander to that of Captain would be from 12 to 15 a-year, and the number of promotions from the rank of Lieutenant to that of Commander 25. By that means, he thought, a constant flow of promotion would be maintained.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNreferred to Hansard to show that he was correct in what he had represented to be the statement made by Lord Malmesbury last Session. He regretted to find from his noble Friend that there was no intention to adopt the system of promotion by selection in its entirety—especially after the debate of last year, when it was admitted that its adoption was necessary.

TRADE UNION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Aberdare.)
TRADE UNION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 73.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD ABERDARE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill, which had come up from the Commons, was to secure the due administration of the funds of trade union societies. Beside some minor provisions there were two clauses which were most important. One of these was designed to facilitate the appointment of new trustees in case of bankruptcy, or other disqualification. At present it was almost impossible for trustees to divest themselves of their authority, and it was now proposed that when it was desirable to appoint a new trustee the registrar should be authorized, on application in writing from the secretary or three members of the union or branch, and on proof satisfactory to him, to direct the transfer of any stock such trustees might hold in the Bank of England or Ireland on behalf of the society into the names of other persons as trustees. Again, as the law at present stood, if a fraud were practised upon a trade union, the proceedings in summary jurisdiction must be taken in the place where the registered office of the trade union was situated. For instance, if the society belonged to Manchester, the prosecution must be instituted there. The 4th clause proposed to put an end to this anomaly, and enacted that the jurisdiction might be exercised either in the Court of that place, or in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of the place where the offence was committed. There were certain Amendments which it was thought desirable to introduce in the Bill as it now stood, and, with the view of having those printed, he would move on a future day that the Bill be committed pro formâ.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONapproved the principles of the Bill, and thought the course proposed by the noble Lord would be a convenient one.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  EDUCATION—REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1875—QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked the Lord President, When the Report of the Committee of Council on Education (England and Wales) for 1875, the Report of the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) for the same year, and the Report by the Accountant to the Board of Education (Scotland) for the same year, will be laid on the Table of the House?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in reply, said, that the Report for England and Wales would be placed in the hands of noble Lords during the Recess. The Irish Report, which would be up to the 31st of March last, would be ready in the middle of next month. The Scotch Report was made up to Whitsuntide in each year; but had subsequently to be placed in the hands of a public officer of accounts, whose examination of it required some months.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  EARL DE LA WARRmoved for a Return of Landowners of 500 acres and upwards in each county in England and Wales, showing those who have contracted themselves out of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to the 1st of June, 1876. The noble Earl said, that when the Bill was passing through Parliament, it created much interest in that House and in the country. The Act was of a peculiar kind, as it contained a permissive clause which would render it harmless whenever its operation was not desired by landlords. It seemed to him that some information should be obtained for the purpose of showing in what manner the measure had been received by landowners; especially as it was commonly stated and believed that a very large proportion of the principal landowners in the country, including some of those who were promoters and supporters of the measure, had contracted themselves out of its operation. He was not aware that there could be any objection to, or difficulty in

  1261
  obtaining, these Returns; but if any difficulty should be found it would be very small, as there was plenty of machinery existing at the Board of Trade through which the Returns could be obtained.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Return of Landowners of 500 acres and upwards in each county in England and Wales, showing those who have contracted themselves out of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to 1st June 1876.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid that he regretted very much it was not in his power to assent to the proposal of his noble Friend. As his noble Friend had thought proper to cast some aspersions upon the Act, he (the Duke of Richmond) as the introducer of the Bill into Parliament thought he ought not to remain silent; and therefore he said that he thought then and thought now that the Bill was a great boon to landowners, to tenants, and to all engaged in agriculture. And when his noble Friend said that the Act had been some time before the country, and that it was desirable to have some information how it had been received, he must beg to inform his noble Friend that those who desired to contract themselves out of the Act were allowed until last month to do so. He objected to the Motion on two grounds—first, there was no machinery by which the Government could get the Returns—there was no Department which could call for such Returns—the Board of Trade could not do so. Secondly, if the Government could ask for this information, he thought nothing would be more unfair, inquisitorial, and objectionable than for the Government to step in and ask what arrangements had been come to between a proprietor and his tenantry. If any one came to him and asked him whether he had contracted himself out of the Act, he should be very much inclined to ask that person to mind his own business.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was sorry to hear that they could not have this Return, as it was now proposed to extend the operation of the Act to Scotland. He thought it would be well to know how many landowners had contracted themselves out of the Act. When the Act was passing through the House last year the two prophets—the noble
  1262
  Earl near him (Earl Granville) and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) entertained different opinions as to the value of it, the noble Earl predicting that it would be a great failure, and the noble Duke prophecying that the great bulk of the proprietors would come under the Act. He (the Earl of Camperdown) would be glad to know whose prophecy had been the more accurate, and whether this sort of legislation could be usefully applied to Scotland. He had obtained some information, and it was to the effect that the great bulk of the landowners had contracted themselves out of the Act. At any rate, several public bodies, including the Duchy of Lancaster and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had done so; and he believed that he had seen in the newspapers that the noble Duke and the noble Earl sitting near him (the Earl of Derby) had done the same thing; but he could hardly bring himself to believe that those noble Lords who had considered that such legislation would be good for the country would contract themselves out of it. Without being asked, he would confess that he had put himself under the Act. If the Return were granted it might turn out that he was the only person in England who had done so. The Return would be interesting as showing who were the persons who like himself had been so unfortunate or so ignorant as to put themselves under the Act.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was quite ready to satisfy the curiosity of his noble Friend. On no personal ground would he feel justified in depriving his tenants of any advantage which the law might give them. The facts were these: In the neighbourhood of his residence his tenants held a meeting among themselves without being influenced by him, and they came to a resolution—an unanimous one, he believed—that they were quite satisfied with the state of things now existing, and did not wish for additional legal protection of their interests. That was a very satisfactory condition of affairs; and he did not see that there was any obligation, moral or social, on him or any other gentleman, to press on a tenantry who were entirely satisfied an Act designed to afford legal protection to those who wished for it. At the same time, if any of his tenants preferred to be fleeced under

  1263
  the system enacted by the Act he was perfectly willing to give them the benefit of it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was satisfactory to be acknowledged as a prophet. He had not referred to the report of his speech of last Session, but he believed what he said was in substance this—that the Act would prove useless, because it would not be called for in the case of good landlords like his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), and because landlords who were unwilling that their tenants should have the protection of the Act would contract themselves out of it.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he did not think this Return could be called inquisitorial—at all events by comparison with the yearly Returns asked for by the Board of Trade from persons engaged in agriculture, who were invited to answer no fewer than 38 questions connected with their stock and crops. Moreover, it could not be very inquisitorial, because when a landlord contracted himself out of the Act all his tenants must know it, and consequently all the world also. At the same time, he would not press his Motion.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

FOREIGN DECORATIONS.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs to lay on the Table of the House any correspondence that might have taken place between the Government and the Representatives of Foreign Powers on the question of the conferring of decorations on British subjects not in the service of the Crown, said, that the noble Earl's answer might throw some light upon an erroneous public opinion as to the interference of the State with the wearing of Orders when conferred by foreign Governments upon English subjects. In 1873, previous to the Great International Exhibition at Vienna, he called the attention of the noble Earl the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) to the subject, and the noble Earl, in a less conclusive reply than he generally made to Questions addressed to him, failed to bring forward any Statute, Proclamation, Order in Council, or Public Act which could place any private Eng-
  1264
  lishman under restrictions in this matter. He wished that the object of his Question should not be misunderstood. He did not desire to interfere with the right of any Department, military or civil, to inhibit any person in that Department from receiving any marks of distinction from a foreign country except with the consent of the Sovereign. What he wanted to know was whether it was in the power of any Department of the State to inhibit any private Englishman from receiving any Order or decoration from a foreign Government unless he had the express permission of the Crown? The noble Earl's (Earl Granville's) reply to his Question two years ago was so inconclusive that it did not prevent the Austrian Government from giving decorations to the Commissioners, the jurors, and others interested in the Vienna Exhibition. Similar decorations were also given and accepted on the occasion of the great French Exhibition—in fact, no notice whatever was taken of the noble Earl's views on the Continent, and decorations had been given just as freely as if it never existed—it was in the prospect of similar Exhibitions in future that he asked the Question. Philosophers, no doubt, might say that the whole question of Orders and decorations was extremely frivolous; but as their Lordships were themselves the most decorated portion of the British public, it was not from them that such an objection should come. No doubt, these decorations were principally important to persons engaged in commerce who were brought into intercourse with foreign Governments—such as scientific discoverers, English mechanicians, chemists, &c. There were, however, foreign Orders and marks of favour bestowed upon men of letters and men of science, such as the Prussian Order Pour la Mérite, which comprised the most powerful intellects of the civilized world, and had been conferred upon Lord Macaulay, Mr. Carlyle, Professor Owen, Sir Henry Rawlinson, and other Englishmen. Yet he believed, that the bestowal of even that Order had been objected to by a public Department that could have nothing to do with the matter. Their Lordships must recollect an interesting debate raised by the late Lord Stanhope on the subject of decorating Englishmen eminent in science and letters. It was then stated that there was nothing in

  1265
  the present regulations which would prevent the Order of the Bath from being bestowed on men of eminence in science and letters, and it had been stated that the offer of the G.C.B. had been made by the present Prime Minister to Mr. Carlyle. He considered that it ought to be made clear whether there was any right on the part of the Foreign Office to prevent these Orders and decorations from being accepted and worn in this country. Upon the present occasion, however, he would confine himself to asking whether and to what extent the State could interfere with a mark of favour bestowed by a foreign Power upon a private Englishman?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that his noble Friend had asked a Question which was not included or even necessarily involved in the Notice he had put on the Paper. That Notice had really been to ask for Papers, and as there were no Papers bearing on the general question of the conditions under which British subjects were entitled to receive and wear foreign Orders, he had been prepared to give his noble Friend that reply. There had, no doubt, been some correspondence with regard to individual cases, but it had turned upon the single point whether the particular case under discussion was or was not included in the Regulations laid down by the Foreign Office in 1870. He did not mean that there were no Regulations of an earlier date, but that was the last occasion on which they were revised. He did not think it necessary to go into the general question of the policy to which his noble Friend had adverted. This question was raised by the noble Lord three years ago; the noble Earl who preceded him in office (Earl Granville) made a reply, in which he stated the general policy of the Regulations in a clear and satisfactory manner, and with the general purport of that reply he entirely concurred. The question of policy was not now raised by the noble Lord; what he said was he would not rest until he had ascertained what were the rights of any Department of the State as to the acceptance by a British subject of Orders or decorations from a foreign Government given for scientific or other services. That, however, was not the Question he had put upon the Paper, and if he had desired an answer to it would have been simpler to have given Notice of a Ques-
  1266
  tion on the point to which his observations had been addressed. He could only answer the noble Lord off-hand; but he was ready to say this much—he apprehended the interference of the State with the acceptance of foreign decorations by private persons rested wholly upon the Regulations issued upon the authority of the then Secretary of State three years ago, which were only a repetition of former Regulations dated February, 1870. The first Regulation was to the effect that no subject of Her Majesty should wear such a decoration without having previously obtained Her Majesty's permission under the Royal sign manual. Subsequent Regulations stated certain exceptions to the general scope of the first. As to the question, What was the authority upon which the Regulations rest?—it was clear that they were laid down upon the authority of the Crown, and that any person in the service of the Crown would be fairly punishable for breaking through a rule which it was his official duty to observe. If his noble Friend asked what legal penalty any person not being in the service of the Crown rendered himself liable to if he chose to contravene the regulations and to wear a foreign Order, he could only say he believed that if the noble Lord or anyone else chose to wear such an Order, he might do it without any fear of the consequences, for he did not believe the Regulation rested upon any Act of Parliament, and he did not believe it could be enforced by any legal process. If a man wore an Order of this kind—even if he wore a decoration purporting to be a decoration from his own Government which he was not entitled to wear—he much doubted if such a proceeding was in any way punishable at law. The Regulation meant simply that the Crown did not authorize or recognize the acceptance of such marks of honour fromma foreign Government except under certain conditions which were laid down. It was intended that, in all but the excepted cases, these foreign Orders and decorations should not be worn at Court, and any person holding a public situation and wearing one of these Orders when in the performance of a public duty would be guilty of a gross breach of public decorum. He did not think the Regulations were, or were ever meant to be, legally enforceable, and that

  1267
  seemed to be the point on which the noble Lord desired information.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that what he wished to have decided was what were the legitimate powers of the Foreign Office, whether the Regulations issued applied to any other persons than those who were in the service of the Crown, and what power there was to apply these Regulations generally to the subjects of Her Majesty. He contended that the word "subjects" did not and could not mean private persons, who were not under the administrative authority of the Secretary of State; and he now inferred from what the noble Earl had stated that there was no legal authority to prevent the assumption and wearing of these Orders in this country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was a great distinction between those who were in the service of the Crown and the general public. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton), having taken three years to reply to his speech, had forgotten some things he had said, and had misquoted what he (Earl Granville) said about the opinions of two Sovereigns. It had never been historically accepted that Elizabeth said she "would mark her own sheep;" that remark was attributed to George III. What Elizabeth said, with somewhat of despotic coarseness, was—"I will not allow my dogs to wear any collars but my own." As he was not in office now he did not feel it incumbent on him to add anything to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had said, but he agreed in what had fallen from him. He felt regret that it was necessary to maintain the Regulations, because he knew many individuals who would like to wear foreign decorations. There was one argument the noble Lord did not use in support of the views of those who wished to wear them. When some one applied to Lord Melbourne for an Order, he expressed a doubt whether the applicant had established any claim to it; and the answer was—"The fact is, he is a very dressy man, and would show it off exceedingly well." In his own case, before he had the Order which he was proud of wearing, he had the offer of several European Orders, not for any merit of his own, but because he held certain offices of State; but under the Regulations he had refused them. He knew no one who was so likely as
  1268
  the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) to receive Orders from many countries, for he was well known on the Continent and beyond the Atlantic; and he was quite sure that honours would be most cheerfully given to him, and that they would become him very much. The only thing was, they would make him too cosmopolitan, for he already called the noble Earl the Secretary of State the "Minister" for Foreign Affairs; in his speech he had quoted French, and he was not quite sure he did not detect some Gallicisms. However, the occasion was not now so opportune for a discussion as it was the last time the question was raised. That was just before the opening of the Austrian Exhibition, when it was anticipated that Austria would desire to offer decorations in connection with that event. It was true there was now a great Exhihitionacross the Atlantic; but the Government of the United States as resolutely refused to allow foreign decorations to be worn by its citizens as it absolutely refused to dispense such decorations on its own account.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEreminded their Lordships that last year he had brought the subject of the assumption of foreign titles before the House. This was more important than the wearing of foreign Orders, for if a British subject had gone to the recent Royal reception at the Guildhall covered with foreign decorations he would only have rendered himself ridiculous; but if a British subject claiming to hold a foreign title had been invited by that title, and had been accorded precedence in virtue of that foreign title, that would have been an acceptance and endorsement of it of considerable importance. An eminent individual in this country (Cardinal Manning) bore a title giving a precedence above an English Duke, conferred on him, a British subject, by a foreign Sovereign, and in virtue of that title he claimed the right to exercise what was formerly considered to be the absolute prerogative of the Crown, the granting of charters to Universities: he thought that if a restriction were put on British subjects as to their receiving foreign Orders some regulation ought to be made with regard to their acceptance of foreign titles. To make a rule applying only to decorations and to leave out titles appeared to him to be

  1269
  straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
  LORD HOUGHTONwas understood to say that persons in the service of the United States could not receive or wear such Orders; but there was nothing to prevent persons in the service of other States going to America from wearing them.

JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—THE COURT OF APPEAL.—QUESTION.
LORD SELBORNEsaid it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, when explaining to the House the arrangements connected with the Court of Appeal, stated that the heads of the other Courts, including the Master of the Rolls, might be relied on during a considerable part of the year without the inconvenient interruption of the other business of the Courts. Accordingly, he had seen in the present year that the Judges, including the Master of the Rolls, had been sitting in the Court of Appeal—but from some statements which had been made in public there appeared to be an impression that the result was likely to be an inconvenient interruption of the business of the Rolls Court by withdrawing the Master of the Rolls from it in a manner hitherto unusual. He had reason to believe that this impression was founded on some misconception, and therefore he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, Whether the time devoted by the Master of the Rolls to the business of the Court of Appeal during the present sittings will have the effect of preventing his Lordship from sitting for as many days as has been usual in the Rolls Court?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad his noble and learned Friend had put this Question, because it enabled him to correct what he believed to be a misconception with regard to the constitution of the Appeal Court, so far as the Master of the Rolls was concerned. It was the fact that the Master of the Rolls had given a considerable portion of his time to the business of the Appeal Court in Westminster, with great advantage to the public interests; but as to the effect that would have on the ordinary sittings of the Rolls Court, he would place before their Lordships a
1270
few figures with reference to the sittings of that Court before the Judicature Act and the present position of matters. Before the Judicature Act passed the average sittings every year of the Rolls Court extended over 28 weeks; with six days in each week that gave 168 days, supposing the Court sat every day while the sittings continued. Accordingly he found that during the 12 years Lord Romilly was Master of the Rolls' up to 1872, allowing for the casualties that would happen every year, he sat on an average during each of those 12 years 156 days. In 1872–3, during part of which Lord Romilly was assisted by the late Lord Chancellor, the sittings at the Rolls numbered 168 days. In 1873–4 the present Master of the Rolls sat 175 days, and in 1874–5 170 days. That was the state of things up to the passing of the Judicature Act—the maximum of the sittings ranged from 168 to 175. By the Judicature Act the sittings of the Court of Chancery had been very much extended. Instead of 28 weeks they had now become 34 weeks—an addition of six weeks—so that instead of sittings on 168 days they had now no less than 204 days—36 days more—for the sittings of that Court. The Master of the Rolls, he found, had sat in the Court of Appeal for 21 days, and he proposed to sit there in all 25 days; which being deducted from the 204 days, gave 11 days in excess of what the sittings ever were before in the Rolls Court. But that was not really the whole history of the case. Their Lordships were probably aware that the Master of the Rolls was a most efficient and diligent Judge, and notwithstanding his sittings in the Appeal Court, the number of causes he had already disposed of was so great that the Chambers were completely occupied, and it would not be desirable to increase the sittings at the Rolls beyond the present amount. The Master of the Rolls had three Chief Clerks and a staff of subordinate clerks, between whom the Chamber business was divided. The staff in Chambers was absolutely unable to keep pace with what was done in Court, much less could they do more than keep pace with it. He therefore had no hesitation in saying that the sittings of the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal would not only be a great advantage to the public, but would not in any way in-

1271
terfere with the normal business of the Rolls Court.
House adjourned at Sev e n o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.