Lords Sitting of 19 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metallic Mines (Gunpowder)* (169); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (170).
Second Reading—Solway Fisheries (Scotland)* (144), Order discharged.
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (147–171)
Report—Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* (152), Order discharged; Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment* (166); Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* (131).
Third Reading—Petroleum (Hawking)* (139); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (126), and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 147.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 147.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, there were three provisions as to which he, the other evening, when the measure was last before their Lordships, had raised objections. With regard to the first of those provisions, that which related to the selection of Puisne Judges to be Judges of the Appellate Court, his noble and learned Friend had told them he would not persevere with it this Session; and he (Earl Cairns) was therefore glad to find that his noble and learned Friend intended to move as an Amendment the omission of Clause 5, which provided that the Judges should annually select three of their number to sit in the Court of Appeal. The second provision to which he had taken exception was that which made future Masters of the Rolls not only Judges of the Appellate Court, but to take precedence of the other Judges of that Court. He believed that that provision was quite unnecessary, and that it would have a most injurious

  1235
  effect on the constitution of the Appellate Court. No doubt, the Chiefs of the Common Pleas and the Exchequer were appointed direct from the Bar; but there were objections to that system. Under the Acts now in force the Appellate Judges were of equal rank, having taken office on that understanding, and sat according to seniority. He had heard that there were objections on the part of Appellate Judges to future Masters of the Rolls taking precedence. Indeed, one of them had stated that if a future Master of the Rolls were to be appointed under this Bill he would at once resign his office. He hoped, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend would not persevere with this part of the Bill. His third objection was to the 20th clause, which related to the patronage of the Courts. It was now proposed to vest it in three Judges—namely, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the Senior Puisne Judge of the Queen's Bench Division. This proposition was worse than the clause as framed originally. He thought the patronage should be vested in an officer of State, and he hoped the proposed Amendment in this respect would not be persisted in. He never heard before of a proposal that a Senior Puisne Judge should have patronage which properly belonged to the head of a particular Court, or to the head of the general Court of Judicature. It was intended to place the patronage in a most inconvenient quarter without any reason whatever, and if the clause were passed, he might, perhaps, at a future stage of the Bill, feel it his duty to propose that it should be altered.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the only objection he had ever heard to the performance of their duties by the Lord Chief Justices of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Barons of the Exchequer was that some of their Lordships had been so long at the Bar that they became too much like advocates for one side or the other when on the Bench. All their duties were well done, and their patronage was fairly distributed. The Members of this House might recollect that about 80 Peers were descended from Dignitaries of the Law. The noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had said that common sense was equal to law; but when that noble and learned Earl was a Lord Justice of Appeal, he agreed to the surrender of the Ulster Glebes with-
  1236
  out the privity of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), the then Leader of the Opposition, and—in 1867—without the approval either of the then Premier, and against the speech of Mr. Disraeli, brought in his minority representation—which actions were not proofs of his common sense. He hoped that the Lord Chief Justice of England would have his full share of Common Law patronage, and would sooner see the Senior Puisne Judge able to choose for himself and his brother Judges clerks and officers than intrust the patronage to any single Equity or Common Law Judge.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he proposed to omit from the Bill the clause which provided for what might be called the circulation of Judges from the Courts of First Instance into the Court of Appeal. He expressed no change of opinion on the subject, for he by no means agreed that the proposition in the Bill, and which would now be struck out, was not the best way of settling the question; but he could not deny the force of his noble and learned Friend's (Earl Cairns') remarks that the subject was one of great importance upon which considerable diversity of views might exist, and that it might, therefore, be proper to allow more time for its consideration than would be possible in the present Session. The present constitution of the Court of Appeal was not, as their Lordships were aware, the one which he preferred, or which he had suggested in 1873. He acquiesced, with very great reluctance, in the alterations afterwards introduced. He thought considerable inconvenience had resulted from those changes, because they had made the amount of judicial power available for the Appeal Court less than was desirable. This, however, could not be regarded as a final settlement of the question. The matter would now stand over for further legislation, as there had not been time to collect opinions respecting it; but it appeared to him that the present arrangement could not be maintained without the Appellate Court being strengthened. With respect to the position of the Master of the Rolls, he should be glad if he could obtain the concurrence of his noble and learned Friend, from whom, on all questions relating to the administration of justice he was always reluctant to differ, though on that question he did decidedly differ from him. The precedence given by the Bill to the Master of the Rolls over the

  1237
  other members of the Court of Appeal made no change, for that precedence already existed. At present the Master of the Rolls took precedence of the other Judges of Appeal, except the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England; and if the proposed arrangements should be dropped, the future Masters of the Rolls would do the like. The only change introduced was that the Master of the Rolls would be relieved of his present duties as a Judge of First Instance. His noble and learned Friend had said—what he (the Lord Chancellor) could not imagine to be the case—that there would be a feeling which he could not otherwise describe than as one of jealousy on the part of the other members of the Court of Appeal towards future Masters of the Rolls. He had certainly been informed of the opinion to which reference had been made by his noble and learned Friend—and to which he himself should not otherwise have thought it right to allude—as having been expressed by one very eminent member of that Court. But, fortunately for the present purpose, that was entirely immaterial to the operation of the Bill, for the learned Judge to whom he referred, who had been for many years a great ornament to the Bench, and for whom he entertained the highest respect, had intimated his fixed intention to retire from the Bench at the close of the present sittings. He had not himself heard of any similar feeling on the part of any of the other Judges. For his part, he could not understand a feeling of that sort, and he should be extremely sorry if it existed. Appointments had from time to time been made directly from the Bar to the Court of Appeal. His noble and learned Friend had been made Lord Justice with everybody's approbation from being Attorney General; and he had also, when Lord Chancellor, appointed to the Court of Appeal a distinguished member of the Bar who had recently been too early lost to his country. Under the old system, it was customary to appoint Solicitors and Attorneys General to the Mastership of the Rolls, the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Barony of the Exchequer, and not unfrequently to the Lord Chancellorship and the Chief Justiceship of England, and no objection was taken to it; and in future the Master of the Rolls might often be taken from the Judges of the
  1238
  Court of Appeal. In one respect, the new arrangement would be more advantageous to the Profession than the old one. Hitherto the Master of the Rolls had been usually selected from the Equity side of Westminster Hall; but if the arrangement now proposed was agreed to, that appointment would be opened more than it had been in the past to both classes of lawyers, so long as the Judges in the Court of Appeal were equally balanced. The objection of his noble and learned Friend pointed practically to the abolition of the office of the Master of the Rolls at the next vacancy; because, if the office was not to be maintained with its present advantages, there could be no reason for retaining it at all. He (the Lord Chancellor) would be the last man to advocate the retention of mere professional prizes, when their retention would not conduce to the public interest; and, actuated by that feeling, he had thought it desirable that the offices of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer should cease to exist. But with regard to the ancient office of Master of the Rolls, he held that it ought to be preserved in its integrity and with all its advantages, unless it could be shown that the public would gain something by its abolition. In his opinion, the public would gain nothing by such a step. The Master of the Rolls was not only a Judge, but also the principal head of the Record Office. It was desirable that he should continue to fulfil the duties of the latter post, because, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, it had been of great advantage to the country; and the records were, to a great extent, connected with legal and judicial matters. If the duties of the Master of the Rolls in connection with the records were transferred to some other person there would almost certainly be an increase of cost, for he would probably have to be paid more than £1,000 a-year; and the absence of official relations between the Record Office and the Judicature would be likely to be attended with inconvenience. Another objection of his noble and learned Friend was levelled at the arrangements for the regulation of judicial patronage. Under an Act passed in 1879, when his noble and learned Friend was in Office, this patronage was confided to the Master of the Rolls for the time being, to the Lord Chief Justice for the time being, and to

  1239
  the two abolished Chiefs. He, therefore, thought the proposed arrangement would be fair, considering that the greater portion of it would be connected with the business of the Queen's Bench Division. The patronage to which he referred affected the offices of 22 Masters, who would be reduced to 18, as vacancies should occur, and of a number of clerks of whom hereafter there would be about 80, only one or two vacancies having happened among them since the Act of 1879 was passed; from which it would be seen that the matter was not very large. It appeared to him to be right that the Master of the Rolls should retain his share of that patronage, as he had previously the exclusive appointment of certain clerks in the Record and Writ Clerks' and some other Chancery offices, which he had now given up. He had at first proposed that the Lord Chancellor should take the place of the two abolished Chief-ships in this matter of patronage; but, seeing that a considerable preponderance of this patronage was connected with the Common Law side of the High Court, he now thought it would be better to substitute in lieu of the Lord Chancellor the Senior Judge for the time being of the Queen's Bench Division. For those reasons, he hoped the arrangements proposed would be agreed to.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Master of the Rolls to be Judge of Appeal only).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 4, leave out ("if he were a judge"), and insert—
  ("He would have been under the last-mentioned Act, or any Acts or Act amending the same, if he had continued to be a judge of the Chancery Division.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Three puisne judges to sit in Court of Appeal).
  LORD DENMANmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the clause, and insert the following clause:—
  "The titles only and divisions of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and of Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and not their 'offices' having been abolished by the Order of Council laid before Parliament on sixth January
  1240
  one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, those offices being reduced to an equality with the judges not ex officio members of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a 'president' of each sub-division of the new Court of Queen's Bench, in banc, as has already, by seniority only, been found needful, to supply the place of the chiefs and their divisions (nominally but not really abolished), such divisions of offices and courts not to exceed two for sittings in banc."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Amendment proposed to restore the Chiefships of Divisions which had been abolished.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Loam CHANCELLOR, Clause omitted.
  Clauses 6 to 12, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, after Clause 12, to insert as a new clause:—
  (In cases of urgency, &c., one judge may officiate for another.)
  "In any case of urgency arising during the absence from illness or any other cause or during any vacancy in the office of any judge of the High Court of Justice to whom any cause or matter may have been according to the course of the said court or of any division thereof specially assigned, it shall be lawful for any other judge of the said court, who may consent so to do, to hear and dispose of any application for an injunction or other interlocutory order for or on behalf of the judge so absent, or in the place of the judge whose office may have so become vacant."
  He said the object of the clause was to prevent inconvenience.
  Motion agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13 (Selection of judges for trial of election petitions).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 31, to insert as a new paragraph:—
  "If at the end of the year for which any such judge shall have been appointed, whether before or after the passing of this Act, any trial or other matter shall be pending before him, either alone or together with any other judge, and not concluded, or if, after the conclusion of any such trial or of the hearing of any such matter, judgment shall not have been given thereon, it shall be lawful for every such judge to proceed with and to conclude such pending trial or other matter, and to give judgment thereon, after the end of such year, in the same manner in all respects as if the year for which he was appointed had not expired."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Extension of Winter Assizes Act of 1876 to all assizes).
  THE EARL OF POWISasked whether it was proposed to hold extra Assizes by an Order in Council, and objected to the abolition of the Assizes in some counties in Wales, the inhabitants of which considered that a great slight would be done to them if their ancient privilege of holding separate Assizes were done away with. If there were any reason for economizing judicial strength a single Judge might be sent to some towns. He regarded the clause as aimed at Wales in the interests of the Judges and barristers, which were in direct conflict with those of the public. The noble Earl concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
  Moved, "To omit the Clause."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure the noble Earl that it was no part of the object of the clause to save trouble to the Judges or the Bar, although he would not himself desire to impose unnecessary trouble upon them. The object of the clause was to promote the conduct of public business. All that was asked was that the arrangements of Assizes might, if necessary, be modified by an Order in Council according to the requirements of public business, so as to give an optional power to the Government to hold Assizes only in places where they were required. Of late years, the number of Assizes had been increased, and the power would not be exercised unless the convenience of the public business were such as to require it. Experience had shown that such a power might be advantageously exercised in other parts of the country than Wales. It was frequently found that the Judges had to go to places at which there was practically no business to be done; while, at other places, there was more than could be got through in the time allowed. The consequence was that, besides incurring considerable expense, there was a great waste of public time, which the clause would do much to obviate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the power which was being asked for was too wide. He would prefer to see the arrangement that might be thought desirable laid before Parliament, rather than that they should be asked to give the Government a large
  1242
  and unrestricted power without knowing how it would operate. The difficulty in dealing with the matter was owing to the difference of views taken by the Central Government and the localities. The Central Government desired nothing so much as facility; while the localities were anxious to preserve their local rights and traditions. He hoped that if the changes proposed were carried out ample notice would be given to the localities.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the Amendment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis).
  THE EARL OF POWISadmitted that if full notice were given to the localities a great portion of his objections would be met.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that an Order in Council would be made when a change was proposed, and such Order would be laid before both Houses of Parliament within a month from the date of such Order; or, if Parliament were not then sitting, within a month after the meeting of Parliament.
  On question, resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following new clause, to follow Clause 15, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—
  (Quorum in Court of Criminal Appeal).
  "The jurisdiction and authority in relation to questions of law arising in criminal trials, which, under section forty-seven of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, is now vested in the judges of the High Court of Justice, may be exercised by any five or more of such judges, notwithstanding the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Justice of the Exchequer; provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England shall always be one of such judges, unless, by writing under his hand or by the certificate in writing of his medical attendant, it shall appear that he is prevented, by illness or otherwise, from being present at any court duly appointed to be held for the purpose aforesaid, in which case the presence of the said Lord Chief Justice at such court shall not be necessary."
  Clauses 16 to 19, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Patronage under Officers Act, 1879).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments

  1243
  made:—In page 7, line 14, leave out ("the Lord Chancellor"); line 15, leave out ("and"), and after ("Rolls") insert—
  ("And the senior puisne judge for the time being of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice");
  Line 17, leave out from ("determine") to end of clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Extension of section 14 of Courts of Justice (Salaries and Funds) Act, 1869).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 30, after ("judicature") insert ("and all officers in Lunacy.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Appointment of District Registrars).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 15, leave out ("as to the manner of appointing,") and insert ("for the appointment of"); line 16, after ("justice") insert—
  "(Other than persons holding or having held the offices in section sixty of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and section 13 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, respectively mentioned");
  After ("that") in line 16 leave out all the words down to and including ("by") in line 17, and insert—
  ("If on any vacancy in the office of district registrar under the said Acts, or upon the appointment by any Order in Council to be hereafter made of any new district within which there shall be a district registrar (unless by such Order in Council it shall be otherwise directed), it shall appear to the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that from the nature and amount of the business to be transacted by such district registrar it is expedient that such office should be conferred upon a person not so qualified as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for");
  Line 18, after ("Treasury") insert—
  ("To appoint to such office any barrister-at-law of not less than five years standing or any solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of not less than five years standing.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 26, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Commissioners for acknowledgments of Married Women).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 37, after ("office") insert ("or shall be hereafter made by the Lord Chief Justice of England for the time being.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 171.)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT—IN DUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON, in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether anything is being done for the amendment of the law, promised in the early part of the Session, by which the 35th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act may not stand in the way of a parent of a child sent to an industrial school being made to pay for it maintenance? said, he would remind them that in answer to a Question asked in "another place" some months ago, it had been stated that the matter would be considered, and that a short Act would, if possible, be passed in the course of the present Session. Under the 35th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the contribution of a parent towards the maintenance of a child in an industrial school became a civil debt, and was not, therefore, one on respect of which a warrant of apprehension could be issued, unless the parent had means to pay and refused to pay. By the indirect effect of this law parents avoided, without risk of punishment, the responsibility of maintaining, even in part, children whom their neglect had got sent to industrial schools, and threw the charge unjustly, and most mischievously, on the ratepayer.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that the subject had been under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, unfortunately, the chances of introducing a measure this Session were growing less and less, and he was unable to hold out any hope that the question would be dealt with before next year.

RAILWAYS (JOINT STATIONS).

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to move the Resolutions of which he had given Notice, said, that, in the enlargement of railway stations which were used by more than one Company, it was often difficult to apportion the expenses between the several parties. He had communicated with the manager of one of the largest Companies, and had asked him to consult his friends and colleagues on the subject, with the result that a proposal very nearly the same as that contained in his 1st Resolution had been endorsed by the solicitors of the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North-Western, and the Midland Railway Companies. The solicitors to the Railway Association had also signified their approval. He understood that his Resolution would be opposed by the Board of Trade; but he hoped that their objections would not be based on the ground that it would discourage the joint use of stations, as it would always be cheaper for a new Company to share the use of an existing station than to make a separate one for itself. He had originally proposed to make a Standing Order of the Resolution; but, as he understood that the Chairman of Committees objected, he would not press that part of the Motion.
  Moved to resolve, "That whenever powers are sought to be taken in any Private Bill to enable the promoters of any new railway to run into and use compulsorily the station of any existing railway company, a clause shall be inserted in the Bill to provide that if in consequence of such user it is necessary to enlarge such station, or in case at any time thereafter the traffic of such railway station shall, in the opinion of the owning company, have outgrown the accommodation necessary for the safety and convenient use of such station by the public, and the said owning company shall have in consequence enlarged the said station, they shall be entitled to be paid by the other company so using their station an amount equal to such proportion of the expense of the enlargement, or at the option of the owning company such an annual sum as shall be considered right by an arbitrator to be named in the Bill, or, failing such arbitrator, by one to be from time to time appointed by the Board of Trade, and such payment shall be taken into consideration in the settlement of the terms of user of the said station, and if the using company shall at any time make default in payment of any sum due from them in respect of their use of the station, or any enlargement thereof, their right to use such station shall,
  1246
  during the period of such default, cease and determine."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  LORD SUDELEYhoped that the Motion would not be pressed, as he could not say that it would be for the interest of the public to pass such a Resolution as this. The object of a Standing Order was to carry out some arrangement in the interest of the public generally; but this Resolution merely desired to carry out and lay down rules between the Railway Companies inter se. The real objection to the Resolution, therefore, was that it was not in the nature of a Standing Order. It had never been thought fit to adopt a Standing Order of the kind, and the Board of Trade strongly objected to it. Besides, if it were to be of any avail, a Standing Order of the sort must be adopted by both Houses of Parliament; whereas the fact was that the officials of the House of Commons, who had charge of private legislation, had the greatest objection to the Resolution, and maintained that it ought not to be made a Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he quite agreed with what had just fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley). It would be most inconvenient and objectionable to agree to the Resolution as a Standing Order. At the same time, there could be no doubt that in some cases a grievance existed on the point, which might have been provided against if the Company, whose station had been invaded, had taken care to have reasonable protection given to them in regard to future expenditure in the Act sanctioning the junction, and Companies should attend to this hereafter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso thought that the Resolution was objectionable, because it went beyond anything that could be justified on the ground of reason or justice.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —FORGED STAMPS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to ask, Whether, it having been discovered that forged stamps to the number of many thousands have been circulated in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to protect the

  1247
  innocent persons who may otherwise suffer from the illegality of the documents stamped with such stamps? said: Your Lordships will probably have seen the statement in the newspapers of the extensive forgeries of stamps attached to legal documents which have been discovered in Ireland. I do not propose to go into the details of that discovery, or make it a question as to whether there was proper supervision or not, as the matter will be considered in a Court of Law. I only want to draw the attention of the Government to the extreme hardship, if innocent persons are allowed to suffer by these forgeries. I believe it has been stated on oath that in the Common Law Division, in one year alone, stamps to the value of £6,400 have been discovered to be forgeries, and these forgeries have been running on for a term of years. Not being a lawyer, I presume I am right in supposing that the documents to which these forged stamps are attached are worth precisely the same value as documents that are unstamped altogether. The people who possess these documents are, however, under the impression that the present state of the law makes them liable to a penalty of £10, and they do not know whether there is a power of remitting that penalty or not. The subject seems of some importance, and I know that in Ireland especially there is much interest attaching to it, and therefore I thought it right to put this Question.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, in reply, said, that he had caused inquiries to be made into the matter, and it seemed pretty certain that this was a false alarm. Although the inquiry into the forgery of the stamps was not yet completed, it was believed that the forged stamps were merely those used in payment of Court fees, in lieu of cash, and were not of a character to affect the legality of any document.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT (for Lord DORCHESTER)rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that since Saturday a considerable portion of this Metropolis has been deprived of the high service water supplied by private companies reaping large and yearly in-
  1248
  creasing profits from the inhabitants; also, whether any, and, if so, what means of redress are afforded to payers of water rates suffering under this privation? The noble Viscount said that, during the last few days, the Western and Northern districts of London had suffered much from deficient water supply. He had made inquiries at the offices of the Water Companies, but could not get any satisfactory explanations from them. He then went to the various Vestry halls, and found that those Vestries had communicated with the Water Companies, and had also failed to receive satisfactory replies. In support of his statement, he had received a letter from the Vestry clerk of St. George's Union on the subject, which he would read to their Lordships.
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room,
  "Mount Street, W., July 19, 1881.
  "My Lord,—I beg to forward herewith, by direction of the Nuisances Removal Committee of this parish, copy of a letter sent by the committee to the Grand Junction Waterworks Company to-day, with regard to the failure of the water in the in-wards of this parish. I also forward a copy of a letter on the subject from the Medical Officer of Health, read to the committee to-day. I may add that numerous complaints have been made at this office of want of water, and that I first communicated the fact to the Water Company on Saturday last.
  "The in-wards of the parish are the portion lying between and including Piccadilly and Oxford Street.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant,
  "J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk, per A. C. H.
  "The Lord Powerscourt."
  The Vestry clerk's letter to the Water Company was as follows:—
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room,
  "Mount Street, July 19, 1881.
  "Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Nuisances Removal Committee of this Parish to inform you that the committee have to-day heard with much alarm that there is a failure in the water supply in the district supplied by your Company.
  "In such hot weather a failure in the water supply is likely to lead to a serious outbreak of disease. Many of the water-closets are without water, and complaints of nuisance in consequence are continually being made to the Inspector of Nuisances.
  "The Committee, in calling attention to this matter, earnestly hope your Company will remedy the evils complained of without delay.
  "I may add that the street watering was neglected all day yesterday, as the water could only be drawn at one stand-post throughout the whole of the in-wards of the parish.
  "I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
  "J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk.
  "E. O. Coe, Esq., Secretary of the Grand Junction Water Company."

  1249
  He would also read the letter of the Medical Officer of Health.
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Sanitary Department, 10, Bolton Row, Mayfair,
  July 19, 1881,
  "Dear Mr. Smith,—I have written twice to the Grand Junction Company about the deficiency of water, and been to the office once; they say they are pumping all they can, and that so much is used in the streets, that they cannot get pressure enough up to carry it to the top of the houses.
  "I think that a strong representation to them should be made by the Committee, as water is most needed now, and it seems to me that the Company are failing in their undertaking to the public, who are not responsible for the weather, and who have a right to insist on being supplied as long as they pay their rates.
  "I am, dear Mr. Smith, yours very sincerely,
  "W. H. CORFIELD, M.A., M.D. (Oxon.)"
  An eminent legal authority had been consulted on the subject; but it would appear there was, practically, no redress. By an Act of 1847 penalties might be inflicted by the Board of Trade, and it might be desirable to make complaint in that quarter. No doubt, the subject was a matter which opened up the wide question of the general water supply for the City of London, and he thought that was a question which Parliament would have to take up very shortly. He did not see why London should be in a worse position with respect to its water supply than Dublin, Manchester, and other large towns, all of which had a constant and not an intermittent supply. Liverpool was making a great effort, and he did not think London should be behind. The noble Viscount concluded by asking the Question of which Notice had been given.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, since Saturday complaints have been received by the Local Government Board that portions of the district supplied by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company have been partially deprived of high service water, and yesterday the Board directed their Water Examiner, Colonel Bolton, to inquire into the matter. The shorter supply seems to have arisen from the heavy demand on the Company's low service, owing to the increased demand for road watering and private use, more especially for garden purposes. Moreover, this has been aggravated by the accidental bursting of a 30-inch main at Shepherd's Bush at 9 a.m. yesterday morning. It was, however, repaired, and the main put in
  1250
  working order by 12 o'clock last night, and the Water Examiner reports, on the information of the Company's engineer, that it would take all to-day to fill the exhausted low service and to reach the high ones. It is believed that in most cases where a Metropolitan Company fails to afford a proper supply of water, unless prevented by unavoidable cause or accident, a ratepayer might proceed, under the Waterworks Clauses Act, to enforce a penalty against the Company. The Local Government Board, however, can only take cognizance of any complaints of a short supply for domestic use upon a memorial signed by not less than 20 inhabitant householders paying rents for and supplied with water by the Company. If, after inquiry, it appears that the complaint is well founded, the Board are required to give notice to the Company, who, on failure to remove the cause of the complaint, render themselves liable to a penalty of £200, and a further penalty of £100 for every month while they remain in default.

METALLIFEROUS MINES—INSPEC- TORS' REPORTS, 1880.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEasked, Whether the attention of the Home Office has been directed to that portion of the Report of the Inspector of Metalliferous Mines for Devon and Cornwall in which he says—
"On looking down the list of fines, one cannot help being struck by the fact that most of them are absurdly small. It almost seems that some magistrates think more of the life of a pheasant than they do that of a man, for I believe that if a similar number of convictions for poaching cases were taken at random, the average fine would be greater; the fact is, a very large number of the magistrates are interested directly or indirectly in mining. Many of them are owners of mining property, and have been troubled by repeated notices to fence dangerous abandoned shafts, and have thereby been put to considerable expense, some indeed have been prosecuted for neglecting to attend to these notices, others are shareholders in mines in the district, and, as such, are not disposed to look favourably upon Government restrictions which they think may interfere with their profits. As a natural consequence fines have on the whole been light, and the inspector's labours have been increased considerably; if the offences had been punished with greater severity, mine agents would have attended to the provisions of the Act with much more diligence. I am convinced that this mistaken leniency on the part of the magistrates leads to a delay in carrying out all the provisions of the Act, and thereby tends to keep up the death-rate from accidents;"

1251
and whether the Department will call upon the Inspector for a categorical statement of the circumstances which have led him to make this most serious charge against the magistrates of Cornwall?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that the attention of the Government had already been called to the matter from more than one quarter, and the Inspector of Mines had been requested to make a further Report on the matter.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.