Lords Sitting of 3 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Naval Enlistment* (175); Women's Suffrage* (176).
Second Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) * (155); Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment (152); Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment* (135).
Committee—Improvement of Lands (Ecclesiastical Benefices) * (131).
Committee—Report—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (151); Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order * (148); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* (149).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [17 & 48 Vict. c. 25]; National Debt (Conversion of Stock) [47 & 48 Vict, c. 23]; Settled Land [47 & 48 Vict. c. 18]; Greek Marriages [47 & 48 Vict. c. 20]; Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 19]; Fisheries (Ireland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 21]; School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) [47 & 48 Vict. c. 22]; Colonial Attornies Relief Act Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 24]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c, lxxiii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxiv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 10) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxv]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxvi]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxvii]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Waterworks) [47 & 48 Vict, c. lXxviii]; Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxix]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict, c. lXxx]; Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) [47 & 48 Vict, c. lXxxi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxxii];
1856
Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxxiii]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxxiv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. lXxxv].

EGYPT (TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE)—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.—EXPLANATION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that the noble Marquess opposite told to your great amusement on Monday a sparkling little anecdote about the answer which the Government Whips had given in "another place" to the Question put to them by the Liberal Members as to how they were to vote. The anecdote was excellent; it had nearly all the merits of a good anecdote. It was very racy in its conception, and very pat in its application. But it had one very little defect, from which even the best of anecdotes are not always exempt. I am authorized by the Gentlemen who are supposed to have given the answer to state that there is absolutely no truth in it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What Gentlemen?
EARL GRANVILLE: Lord Richard Grosvenor and Lord Kensington. The Italians say—"Se non è vero, è ben trovato;" and I agree that, although this anecdote is not true, it was well invented by those who communicated it to the noble Marquess, and I can quite understand that the temptation to repeat it for the amusement of your Lordships' House must have been irresistible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the contradiction of the noble Earl is very ingeniously framed; but I never accused Lord Kensington and Lord Richard Grosvenor of having said it, nor did I use the phrase "the two Government Whips;" the Gentlemen to whom I referred were Mr. Cotes and Mr. Duff. I quite accurately described their functions in saying that it was their duty to marshal the forces of the Government; at least, if that is not their duty, I do not know that they have any other. They are Junior Lords of the Treasury, and I am informed, on referring again to those from whom my information conies, that those Gentlemen did undoubtedly say to those who applied to them that it was not a Government question; that they had to go

1857
into the Government Lobby; but they indicated the other Lobby as the one into which the applicants for information should go. Of course, if there was a mistake, I am very sorry for it. But the noble Earl has not contradicted the statement as it came to me, and I can only repeat that it came on good authority. And although the noble Earl's contradiction is, of course, made in perfect good faith, yet he has left the matter exactly where he found it.
EARL GRANVILLE: If my memory does not fail me, the noble Marquess did not use the euphemious phrase, "Lords of the Treasury."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I used the words "the two Gentlemen whose function it is to marshal the forces of the Government."
EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot now answer a new charge against two new persons, but I will inquire about it.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  NOTICE TO AMEND AMENDMENT.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I wish to give an amended Notice to that which I gave the other day with regard to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. I wish to state that I shall move that the Bill be replaced, in regard to the Judges, in the form in which it was introduced by the Government, because I find on consideration that, in my opinion at least, it would be in the highest degree inexpedient to separate any of the judicial offices in Scotland from the patronage of the Home Secretary.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether, considering that the debate on the Franchise Bill would probably last over Tuesday, it would not be more convenient to postpone the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland Bill, which was put down for that day?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was of opinion that, under the circumstances, it would not be convenient for their Lordships to take the Secretary for Scotland Bill on Tuesday.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second
  1858
  time, said, that it contained some matters which had passed their Lordships' House some time ago, and which he need not now specially refer to. The 4th, 5th, and 6th clauses needed no particular observations from him. The most important clauses in the Bill which were new were the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, which related to certain proposed limitations in the powers of appeal.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he desired to call attention to the 7th, 8th, and 18th clauses of the Bill. He thought that one great defect, as he ventured to think, in the Judicature Act had been the immense multiplication of appeals in the Division over which he had the honour to preside—that part of the High Court which dealt with the Common Law of the country. In 1876 he took the trouble to obtain a Return of the total number of appeals from the Chancery Courts in five years, and also the number of appeals in the Common Law Courts during the same period. From 1871 to 1875 the total number of appeals from the Chancery Courts was 1,012; the total number of appeals from the Common Law Courts during the same period was 245. He thought that was a very striking difference. From 1877 to 1882 the appeals from the Chancery Division increased to 1,379; while those from the Common Law Courts rose to 1,296. Thus it appeared that, while the Chancery appeals had risen from 1,012 to 1,379, the Common Law appeals had risen from 245 to 1,296. Those were very striking figures. He, as Attorney General, was, it was true, in a great degree responsible for the Judicature Act; but the other two persons who were mainly responsible were his noble and learned Friend now on the Woolsack and the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, who was at the time Solicitor General. The Lord Chancellor and the then Solicitor General were persons of enormous experience in the Chancery Courts; but they had not much experience of the practice at Common Law. He, on the other hand, knew very little of the Chancery Courts. He thought he was wrong in not foreseeing that what was good for the Chancery Division, would not work as well for the Common Law Division, and that the general power of appeal which was given under

  1859
  the Judicature Act would have most mischievous effects in the latter Courts, In the Court of Chancery the states were usually much larger, the facts were more complicated, and the whole matter generally gave far more occasion for an appeal than did the cases with which the Common Law Courts had to deal. Appeals in Common Law cases now often took place in cases where the amount at stake was exceedingly small; and it, therefore, frequently happened that the costs formed by far the larger part of that which the losing part had to pay. He was informed by some leading solicitors whom he had questioned that since the Judicature Act the costs in Common Law cases had, at least, doubled. They had, therefore, to deal with the fact that appeals had in these cases multiplied fourfold, and that there had been an enormous increase in the costs. The principle of limiting the right of appeal was one that was already in existence. It applied to County Court cases and Quarter Sessions cases, criminal cases, and cases from the Revising Barristers. The fact had been recognized that a multiplication of appeals often amounted to a practical defeat of justice. Practically, the limitation of appeal proposed by the Bill would apply almost entirely to Common Law cases. If it was not carried into effect, the present arrears would become greater than they were now, and more Judges would have to be created; the distinction of classes of Judges would be aggravated; and it would become more and more difficult to get the first men of the country to take the position of Judges of First Instance. The only other matter he had to deal with was that of patronage; and with reference to that he only desired to say that, although he knew patronage was very safe in the hands of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, it was for their Lordships to consider whether it was a wise and desirable thing to take away the patronage from the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Bolls, and to place it in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. In referring to that subject, he wished it to be understood that he did not do so from any personal motive, as he himself would not be affected.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — THE IRISH MILITIA.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid, he rose to call attention to the inadequacy of the lodging allowance paid to noncommissioned officers of the permanent staff of Irish Militia battalions not serving on Army engagements; and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase the allowances, or to build, hire, or otherwise provide suitable quarters, as was done in England, for the permanent staff where no permanent accommodation could be given in barracks?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the allowances to non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff of Militia battalions were precisely the same in all parts of the United Kingdom, and he feared that he could not hold out any hope that the allowances to the permanent staff sergeants would be increased. The noble Earl had some cause for complaint in connection with the head-quarters of his own regiment at Mullingar. It was sometimes difficult for the non-commissioned officers on the permanent staff to obtain good accommodation; but the Secretary of State for War had recently been in communication with the General Commanding in Ireland with the object of having further accommodation provided at Mullingar.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — THE IRISH MILITIA.—QUESTION.
  NAVAL ENLISTMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Naval Enlistment Act, 1853, and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Earl of NORTHBROOK; read 1a. (No. 175.)

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extending the right of voting at parliamentary elections to women—Was presented by The Lord DENMAN; read 1a. (No. 176.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.