Lords Sitting of 14 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bishopric of Bristol (181).
Committee — Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment (152–191).
Committee — Report — Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160).
Third Reading—Post Office Protection* (185), and passed.
Royal Assent — Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 26]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 27]; Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 28]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ciii]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks) [47 & 48 Vict. c. civ]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (The Labourers' Act) (Carrick-on-Suir) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cvi]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxii]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order [47 & 48 Vict. c. cviii]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cix]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cx]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6) [47 & 4 Vict. c. cxi]; Tramways Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxii] Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxiii]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxiv]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lxxvii.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move the following Resolution:—

  873
  "That this House is prepared to proceed now with the consideration of the Representation of the People Bill, on the understanding that an humble Address shall be presented to Her Majesty, humbly praying Her Majesty to summon Parliament to assemble in the early part of the autumn for the purpose of considering the Redistribution Bill which Her Majesty's Ministers have undertaken to present to Parliament on the earliest occasion possible."
  I should explain that the wording of this Resolution, my Lords, is somewhat different, though in sense it is practically the same, as the Resolution which has appeared on the Paper. I think that, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I may be allowed to say that I drew up that Resolution without any communication whatever with any Member either of your Lordships' House or the other House of Parliament on either side, and that I at once put it on Saturday morning in the hands of the Clerk of the Parliaments. My object is simply this—to endeavour, after what passed on Friday last, to find some common ground for agreement for the effectual settlement of the question of the reform of Parliament. And if the Resolution appears to either Party of this House or to both not exactly what it should be, I earnestly hope the Leaders of the Parties will be able to come to some common understanding for the peaceful solution of this great question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have to protest very earnestly against the inconvenience of the course taken by the noble Earl. Without giving any Notice on Friday night or Saturday morning, he puts on the Paper a Notice cancelling and tearing up the Resolution to which your Lordships came, after great debate and solemn Division, on Tuesday last. Then he fixed his Resolution for to-morrow night. Now, I believe to-day and to-morrow are days on which a great many Peers have engagements elsewhere—the Agricultural Association, for instance—making it a matter of very great inconvenience for them to come down to this House, yet it was necessary, in view of the Notice of the noble Earl, to ask them to alter their engagements. Now, at the last moment, the noble Earl makes another change, and puts it off till Thursday. I can only say that is not the way in which Business is usually conducted in this House. I doubt, moreover, whether the Motion of the noble
  874
  Earl is in Order. The House has solemnly recorded that, for certain reasons, it will not read the Representation of the People Bill a second time; until that Resolution is formally rescinded and removed from the Journals, it is not competent for any Member of this House to make a Motion that the Bill be read a second time. Therefore, I believe that the Motion is, in fact, informal and disorderly; but I mainly rose for the purpose of protesting against the extreme inconvenience caused by the course which the noble Earl has adopted.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville); but before doing so, I would like to point out that the remarks of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) seem founded on a misconception, for the Notice of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) is not for to-morrow, but Thursday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; it was originally given on the Paper for Tuesday.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: For Thursday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was given for Tuesday. That was the inconvenience in the matter; and now at the last moment the noble Earl puts it off till Thursday. That is partly what I complain of.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I made the alteration after consulting with Friends of both Parties. It seemed to us that it would be best to put the Resolution down for Thursday, so that there should be more time to consider it after the meeting of Conservative Members, which, as I believe, is to be held to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then I proceed to the point of Order, which will doubtless be settled by a greater authority than myself; but, at the same time, I wish to point that, as I understand it, the Resolution of the noble Earl would not supersede any Resolution that has been arrived at, because it is hypothetical on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill. Now, that Bill is still down for second reading, and there is nothing, as it appears to me, to prevent your Lordships proceeding to its consideration. But the noble Earl on the Cross Benches wishes

  875
  to know what the view of the Leaders of the two Parties would be with regard to the matter? What has fallen from the noble Marquess, I am afraid, leaves little doubt as to what his attitude will be; but I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are prepared to give their support to the Resolution of the noble Earl?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Like my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), I should not like to give a definite opinion without further consideration on the point of Order so suddenly stated by the noble Marquess; but, at the same time, I should have thought that, primâ facie, the Resolution of the noble Earl is perfectly in Order. I believe that all we resolved the other day was that the Bill should not be read a second time on that day, except on certain conditions. The Bill still remains on the Minutes of your Lordships' House for second reading; and that may be done at any time, if it is the pleasure of your Lordships that it should pass. With reference to the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) as to my view of the Resolution, of which Notice has been given, I agree with him in regretting that the noble Marquess has taken the earliest opportunity of putting his foot down against the proposition which has been started by an independent Peer with the object of removing a great difficulty, and enabling some adjustment to be arrived at between the two Houses of Parliament. Certainly, if that spirit is to obtain, the Government are prepared to support the proposal of the noble Earl, reserving, of course, the question of the exact date at which Parliament should meet. I may say that, in November, we should be prepared to undertake—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Resolution says in the early autumn.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; but I think November might be a more convenient time, and in the course of that month I should say we would be able to undertake the great task of redistribution—on the condition, of course, that the Bill do pass this Session.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that in 1859 the hon. Member for Berkshire had intended, as he said, to oppose Lord John Russell's Amendment, which occupied seven days in debate (and this House, he said, was lucky to escape with two); but he
  876
  was surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have proposed such an Amendment as he so severely blamed Lord John Russell for proposing it, that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had to defend the then Solicitor General from an attack upon him for having imputed interested motives to the Mover of the Amendment (Lord John Russell). It certainly was on the 31st of March, and this was so late as 7th of July; but it had not succeeded in advancing Reform as in the hands of a supposed ardent reformer, who caused the question to sleep for seven years.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): I would be much obliged to the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), if he would answer the Question I am about to put to him—Does he believe that, until the matter of redistribution is settled, anyone can determine in what manner the extension of the franchise will affect the constitution of the House of Commons?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I will answer the Question when I give my reasons for moving the Resolution on Thursday.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: After the conciliatory speech of the noble Earl opposite the Leader of the House—which shows a silver lining to the cloud—I trust we shall not allow such a chance to be lost for arriving at a solution of this grave political difficulty through any informality in the Resolution presented to the notice of the House.

THE WESTERN PACIFIC — DEPORTATION OF FRENCH RECIDIVISTS.

  WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who had a Notice on the Paper, to call attention to the proposed deportation of Recidivists from France to the Western Pacific, and to move for Papers, said, it had been on the Paper for several weeks; but it had been postponed more than once. Their Lordships must have felt how important the subject was to the people of Australia; and one of the objects which he had had in view with regard to the Motion was to show the people of this country how very important also were the issues involved to influence the Government of this country to make such representations to the Go-

  877
  vernment of France as they might think proper, in order to secure the object in view—namely, to prevent the Bill then under consideration in the French Parliament from passing into law. That night he proposed to withdraw the Notice of Motion from the Paper; and, in doing so, he wished to give a short explanation of the reasons which had induced him to take that course. Several circumstances had occurred since be last had had the honour to allude to the subject, which had very materially modified both the attitude of the French Government, and also the position of the Recidivist Bill that was then before the French Senate. Since that time a gentleman, M. Courbet, who had been sent out by the French Government to New Caledonia to report as to what the practical effect of the Bill would be, had made his Report, and that Report was as unfavourable as it could be to the main objects of the Bill. That he (the Earl of Rosebery) regarded as a great point in the case. Since that Report the French Senate, who had charge of the Bill, had asked for further explanations as to the Bill from the French Government. The result of all this was that the Under Secretary for the Colonies in France had demanded increased powers, in order to deal with the matter. One of these powers was to keep those criminals under restraint when they arrived at New Caledonia, and that power, practically, was a direct reversal of the whole policy and spirit of the Bill. The next proposal was that the Recidivists should have guardians, in the proportion of not less that 4 per cent of the criminal population, to restrain those men in New Caledonia. There, again, was a deliberate reversal of the policy which previously prevailed. And, in the third place, they asked for power to make the convicts work. Taking these facts into consideration, he thought that if the French Government did really insist upon those demands before the French Senate, it would be far better to leave the matter to its natural solution before the French Senate, more especially as he was convinced Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Ministers at Paris were doing all they could to further the objects they had at heart with respect to the matter. Two other circumstances had arisen which, he thought, were worth their Lordships'
  878
  notice. It was said that the danger of the Bill was very much overrated; but, in April last, no less than nine persons, whose sentences had expired, landed in New South Wales from New Caledonia. These persons were not those who escaped in boats; but they arrived by the Messageries Steamship Company, that great ocean line of French steamers. That showed that the Australian Colonies had very good reason for their fear as to these people. But there was a still greater question raised than that; and it was that, at present, these men were being sent over to New Caledonia in daily increasing numbers. They numbered from 500 to 600 a-year. We had always flattered ourselves that the French Government could demand their extradition, and thought that it would be a wearisome and expensive process. Yet we could get rid of them. But that hope had been roughly destroyed. A very celebrated lawyer, a Professor of the University of Paris, had been writing letters to the French papers, in which he pointed out that the extradition of these criminals could not be demanded of the French Government by the Convention of 1876, the theory being that these people were not to be tried again for a crime, nor to be further punished. That would increase the difficulties to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that the French Government should take these circumstances into consideration not only as they regarded Australia, but also the other islands in the Pacific. He had no right to make any speech on this occasion, because he was withdrawing his Notice; but he had wished to lay before their Lordships the various circumstances which had arisen since he last addressed them on that subject, and which had materially altered the situation; and he believed that it was now the best course to leave the matter to diplomacy and the exertions of Her Majesty's Government, reserving to himself, however, he need hardly say, the right, should circumstances change, to bring it in again, and more at length, before their Lordships.
  After an interval,
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, this was a subject on which he should like to make a few remarks. He should have been glad if the statement of the

  879
  noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had been followed by a few words of explanation from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby); but, as the latter had preserved silence, he wished himself to make a few remarks, not in any way to find fault with Her Majesty's Government, but to express his hope that they would not fail to make the French Government distinctly understand how seriously critical that particular question was. He had no doubt that the noble Earl opposite had done right in withdrawing his Motion. The facts he had stated probably rendered it expedient not to open the whole question, and to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Under those circumstances, it was desirable the Government should speak out frankly to the Government of France, as a few timely warnings might prevent the two countries being engaged in unfriendly discussions with each other. At the same time, he trusted that the Government of France would rightly appreciate what the position of affairs really was, for he foresaw that if there should be any misunderstanding on the question, Her Majesty's Government might, before long, have to choose between giving support to the Australian Colonies and finding themselves engaged in some adverse action with the Government of France. They would have to require explanations of a definite character, and there would be some very plain speaking. He was afraid that, at present, the grievance of our Colonies in Australia was a very real one. There were now in New Caledonia about 6,000 of those criminals, who were not ordinary criminals, but relapsed and incorrigible desperadoes, who, according to the statements of French officials themselves, were steeped in vice, crime, and debauchery of every kind; and, indeed, at that moment, the French Government were subjected to strong protests on the part of their own Colonists in New Caledonia that the number of those criminals might not be increased. In deference to those protests, he believed the French Government had resolved not to increase the number; but still the presence in their neighbourhood of so many malefactors was a very great grievance to the Australian Colonies. The feelings of the Australian Colonists were still stronger, all classes
  880
  of the people, the whole Press, and the members of every trade there were unanimous in protesting against the influx of such criminals into the same communities with themselves. Victoria was, perhaps, less affected by that matter than the other Australian Colonies, yet she was making their case her own; and New Zealand was also prepared to take common action with them in regard to it. He might mention that some few years ago an Act was passed by the Colony of Victoria, called the Criminals Influx Prevention Act. That Act was intended to prevent any escaped criminals from our convict station in Western Australia finding their way into Victoria. It enacted that anyone coming into Victoria from a British Possession, whose sentence had not expired three years before, might be sent back in custody by two Justices, or be sentenced to three years' hard labour; but the next provision was more serious—namely, that any master of a ship who brought such a criminal would be liable to a fine of £100, or to undergo six months' imprisonment with hard labour. That Act applied solely to criminals escaping from British Possessions; but it only required the addition of the three words "or foreign countries," to at once place French Possessions in the same category as Western Australia in regard to those penalties. At the Intercolonial Conference, a Resolution was passed in favour of uniform legislation on that particular point; and if the Australian Colonies were to pass an Act similar to the Victoria Act, but with the addition of the words "or a foreign country," he put it to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, could he, or would he, advise the disallowance of such an Act? He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not think he could. Again, he would ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) how he was prepared to deal with such a grave international complication as would arise if the master of a French steamer were thrown into prison and sentenced to six months' hard labour in the Colony of Victoria, or fined £100, for taking one of those criminals there. He did not say that in order to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but to open their eyes to the gravity of the situation, and to induce them to use every effort to make the French Government under-

  881
  stand how very critical and serious that matter was, so that they might not be led away as to the feeling of the Australian Colonists in regard to it. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would let them know that the Home Government had been ill-advised enough to twice attempt to make these Colonies the receptacles of our own criminal convicts, and had been twice forced to forego the attempt, having signally failed. Those were small cases as compared with this, and the power of the Colonies was then much less than it was now; and he was certain that if the French Government were, through any misapprehension, to commit themselves to any such difficulty as that, they would find that they had to count the cost of their undertaking. The French had a great trade growing up in those parts of the world, and they had granted a very large subsidy — 2,000,000 of francs yearly—to a line of steamers for the carrying on of that trade. He entreated them to consider whether it was worth while to sacrifice these great and growing interests, that they might push that proposal further. There were many international questions which were often all the better for delay, as it enabled passions to cool down; but this was just one of those questions from which he foresaw great danger and difficulty, if much more delay was allowed to intervene; and, for those reasons, he sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government, and the French Government in particular, would thoroughly understand how very serious that matter was.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, he would remind their Lordships that, as New Caledonia was within easy access of the shores of the Australian Colonies, it was not likely that the Australians would long tolerate the sending by France of criminals of the worst class into such close proximity to them. He had lately been in the company of many Australian Colonists; and he found that, if there was one feeling among them more unmistakable than another, next to the loyalty they expressed to Her Majesty the Queen, it was their repugnance at the prospect held out to them of Recidivists reaching them from a neighbouring French Colony. When it was asked, Is it likely that a great and independent group of Colonies, who refused, years ago, to accept convicts from the Mother Country, would permit convicts from a French settlement to be
  882
  landed in the vicinity of their shores, the question was responded to by cheers which left no doubt as to the spirit and determination of the audience. He would urge upon the Government the importance of remaining on the best terms with France, in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this matter in the interests of the Australian Colonies.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he so entirely approved of the spirit and also the reasons which his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had given for withdrawing his Motion on that occasion, that he did not intend to prolong the discussion on a Motion which he understood was to be withdrawn; but the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), following his noble Friend, had stated his views on the question. It was not the first time this Session the noble Earl had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government were aware of the importance of the question. Three times he had done so, and on each occasion he (Earl Granville) had stated that Her Majesty's Government were fully aware of the importance of the matter; and not only were they fully aware of its importance, but they had done their very best. In looking back, he could not see how they could have done anything more than they had done in making friendly, but urgent representations to the French Government as to the feeling and sense of the Colonists in the matter, and appealing to their sense of the comity which ought to exist between the two countries on a matter of so much importance. The noble Earl said that it was necessary to make a speech that night, in order that the French Government might know the real position of the matter. Up to that moment Lord Lyons had, quite as clearly as the noble Earl himself, presented to the Government the exact position of the question now in dispute.
  Notice of Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 — THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE—THE BARBAVILLA MURDER CASE — WILLIAM BARLOW SMYTHE, ESQUIRE.

  PRESENTATION OF PETITION.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWN, in rising to present a Petition from William

  883
  Barlow Smythe, Esquire, of Barbavilla, Westmeath, said, that there could be no doubt that Mr. Smythe had a grievance to complain of. His case would seem to show that there was some defect in the administration of the law as it at present existed in Ireland, which required amendment. Mr. Smythe, it would be remembered by their Lordships, was returning from church one Sunday in his carriage, in which there were also two ladies. He had just got within his own gate when a shot was fired at the carriage, killing his sister-in-law. It was believed that the shot was meant for Mr. Smythe himself. The crime created a great sensation in the district at the time. In due course steps were taken under the Prevention of Crime Act to follow up the murderer; and, among other things, application was made for compensation for the murder. The charge provided for by the Act was levied on the district—the townland of Barbavilla—and as Mr. Smythe was owner of a good deal of property in the district, the townland in question being almost entirely his property, it appeared to him (the Earl of Courtown) that the Lord Lieutenant could scarcely, consistently with justice, expect that this charge of compensation should be continued to be paid by Mr. Smythe. It came to this—that Mr. Smythe had to share in paying this compensation for the murder of his sister-in-law, and was also asked to pay for his own attempted murder. Naturally he felt surprised at this, and he had applied to the Lord Lieutenant to exempt him from paying his share, under the belief that the Lord Lieutenant had the power to grant such exemption. This supposition turned out to be wrong, the exemption granted by the Lord Lieutenant being in the case of charges for extra constabulary. In these circumstances, Mr. Smythe presented his Petition, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be induced to give their serious consideration to the question. He (the Earl of Courtown) thought by an expression of opinion on the part of the Government the Lord Lieutenant might be induced to reconsider the mode of levying the tax, so as to relieve Mr. Smythe from bearing any share of the burden.
  Petition read, and presented.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in supporting the prayer of the Petition, said,
  884
  that, as he was connected by residence with the district, he desired to say a few words on a matter which he thought was certainly worthy the attention of the Government, as to seeing whether or not something should be done to relieve Mr. Smythe from this burden, so painful in its circumstances. Besides this incidence of taxation referred to, he thought the Government could be little aware of the system of black mail which still prevailed in Ireland, and which had been supposed to be partially suppressed at least by the Prevention of Crime Act. Respectable farmers, shopkeepers, and others, who had no sympathy with agrarian offences, under threats that they would be ruined, had to subscribe to the fund for the defence of the miscreants who had committed this crime, and a very large sum had been collected in this and other districts from very unwilling contributors for similar purposes. He added his testimony regarding the merits of Mr. Smythe. He was a neighbour of his, and he knew what he had done in the way of philanthropic and other good works, and he also knew the reward he had received for so doing.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, this question arose out of that dreadful tragedy in which Mr. Smythe was the intended victim, but which resulted in the loss of the life of the lady who was seated beside him in his carriage. Mr. Smythe had presented a Petition, representing that he should not be called upon to contribute to the tax which had been imposed upon the district for compensation on account of this horrible crime. He (Lord Carlingford) was informed that under the Prevention of Crime Act, which exclusively regulated this matter, the Lord Lieutenant had no power to exempt any individual, as suggested. Beyond that, the noble Earl must remember that the district and area charged in these cases was not ascertained and fixed at the will and pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, but after a careful and public inquiry, conducted by competent persons. It was upon the Report presented by the barrister who held this inquiry, after ascertaining all the circumstances of the case, that the area was fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant felt that it was very important, if possible, to act upon the result of such an inquiry, and the Report which he received from the gentleman who had conducted it.

  885
  It was, therefore, a very difficult matter for him to alter the area so recommended upon any private application. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, in this case, as in all other cases, had accepted the area so recommended. As to whether that particular provision in the Prevention of Crime Act might not possibly be improved, when occasion offered, was another matter; but, while quite understanding the wish of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Courtown) that Mr. Smythe should not be called upon to contribute to the tax imposed upon the guilty neighbourhood, the reasons he had given made it quite impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to alter the decision arrived at.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he thought that, under present circumstances, the clause in the Prevention of Crime Act, which levied on a district the compensation to be paid to the relatives of a murdered person, lost its deterrent force. The tax fell so lightly upon the people guilty of crime and their accomplices that they did not mind it much, and they rather rejoiced at seeing their neighbours whom they disliked paying it.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 152.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he thought the clauses in the Bill restricting the right of appeal were somewhat novel, and seemingly of a dangerous character. The Bill would, for the first time, place restrictions on the right of appeal in cases heard before the Superior Courts, and would place those restrictions with reference to the amount of the subject-matter in dispute. There were a great many objections to such a limitation. In the first place, he did not see how a line could be drawn between the amount at stake, if the case was one of principle. How were they to draw a line of distinction, and say to one man, whose claim was in respect of property worth £250, that he could appeal, and to an-
886
other, whose claim was in respect of property worth only £200, that he could not? Everyone must know that some of the highest and most important questions, as to the construction of wills and documents, which had to be decided, arose on the trial of cases where the subject-matter of dispute was very small. But there was another observation to be made. They had just made arrangements for strengthening the Court of Appeal by providing that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should not be taken from their Appellate work to go Circuit. They had not yet had an opportunity of seeing how that would work; and it seemed to him to be a very unfortunate time to make this change, limiting the right of appeal to a Court that had just been strengthened. He should like to know whether the Judges of the Court of Appeal had made any representations to the effect that the right of appeal had been abused, and that frivolous and vexatious appeals were often brought, so as to render the proposed regulation necessary? As far as he knew, that was not the opinion of the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal. In cases where only small amounts were involved, the right of appeal was to be abolished, and appeals were only to be brought by leave of the Court that heard the case, or by leave of the Appeal Court. To give to the Court from which the appeal was sought to be brought the right of giving or refusing leave to appeal was, he thought, most unsatisfactory. There were many Judges who were so clear in making up their minds, and so confident of being correct, that they regarded the giving of a right to appeal as injurious to the suitor, and they refused it. On the other hand, there were Judges whose scruples as to the possibility of an error on their part not being corrected were so keen, that they leant immensely in favour of giving leave to appeal. As to the application to the Court of Appeal itself for such leave, the Bill provided that such application should be made ex parte, and they all knew how erroneous was the impression created by an ex parte application, however bonâ fide made. Instead of curtailing the stages of litigation, this Bill would really drop an additional one in, thereby causing increased delay and expense to the suitor. On these grounds, he must repeat that he had the gravest doubts as

887
to the wisdom of the proposal now made of placing restrictions on the right of appeal, which, so far as he knew, had not been abused, and especially at the present time, when the Court of Appeal was being strengthened. In conclusion, he would further say that he had great doubt as to whether the new arrangements for conducting the Assize business in Lancashire would prove satisfactory, which doubt had been much increased by a Petition he had presented from the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, complaining of the proposed changes.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there had been some misunderstanding as to the intention and probable operation of the new orders as to the Lancashire Assizes. It was intended, first of all, that the sittings should be so arranged, in respect of their commencement, that they might be begun a considerable time before the usual time for the commencement of the ordinary Assizes elsewhere; and, secondly, that they should be continued in substance until the business was disposed of. The scheme, if in any respect it should not be found to work satisfactorily, would, of course, be open to further consideration. The object at which most reasonable persons would aim would be to provide for the real requirements of these important populations. This matter was to be ultimately determined by experience; he entirely agreed that such sittings as were necessary for getting through the local business in those great centres of population should be provided; but he doubted whether there was business enough at Manchester and Liverpool to justify sittings being held there at all such times as the Courts happened to be at work in London. This Bill contained 20 clauses, 16 of which were not, he thought, of a controversial character. As to the other four, he was perfectly aware that differences of opinion existed with respect to them, and that the Judges were not unanimous on the subject mentioned by the noble and learned Earl. A Committee was appointed some two or three years ago to consider and report upon this subject, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Justice James, Sir James Hannen, Sir Charles Bowen, Lord Shand, Mr. Justice Mathew, and others; and that very strong Committee recommended those limitations of
888
the right of appeal which were embodied in the Bill, which were designed to limit expenses, and so to keep down the power of the purse. That Committee recommended that where the subject-matter of appeal was less than £200, there should be no appeal, without leave, from any final judgment. That seemed to him reasonable, when it was considered that £1,000 was the appealable value from India, and that £300 was the lowest appealable value from the Colonies. There were, he thought, few greater evils than the consumption in costs of the whole subject-matter of an action. Then, as to new trials, in accordance with the recommendation of that Committee, the 8th clause provided that there should be no appeal, without leave, from any decision of a Divisional Court, consisting of not less than three Judges ordering or refusing a new trial, except in case of difference of opinion among the Judges, or unless the value amounted to £500. A very large proportion of these questions as to new trials turned very much upon the weight of evidence; and, the application to the Divisional Court being really in the nature of an appeal, it certainly did seem undesirable that an unlimited power of multiplying costs in that way should be given. His noble and learned Friend had taken exception to the clauses providing for a relaxation of the proposed rules limiting the right of appeal; but when a Court might think that a principle was involved in a case, or an amount beyond the value of the immediate stake, or a question of character, it would be only right that an appeal should be permissible. The Bill, with the limitations which it contained, would result in the exclusion of costly, unnecessary, and improper appeals. Such appeals, however, as were desirable would still be allowed.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he entirely concurred as to the necessity of additional sittings being held in Lancashire, and even considered that there was enough work for a Judge sitting permanently there, for the purpose of hearing all matters that were dealt with by a single Judge in London. He considered it all-important that appeals should be limited; and he, therefore, disagreed with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) in his observation as to the limitation which the Bill proposed to place on the

889
power of appeal. Many appeals, especially from the Queen's Bench Division, were most frivolous and vexatious.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, though agreeing with much that had fallen from the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, he thought the limit fixed (£200) an arbitrary one. In actions of trespass the amount of damage was often far less, while the importance of the right claimed was of the greatest consequence. He feared that much opposition was to be anticipated in the Lower House.
LORD DENMANsaid, that he could not refrain from calling to mind the state of the Court of King's Bench, when first Sir Thomas Denman was made Lord Chief Justice. There were 700 causes at Guildhall and 500 at Westminster Hall, and the time for a first trial was after a delay of two years, and after a new trial—two years more of delay—but great labour reduced the arrear so that at last it was quite a pleasure to put the date of the writ—the beginning of an action—at the head of the abstract of the record. It was to the great joy of his father that such men as Sir Nicholas Tindal and Lord Lyndhurst were each at the head of two efficient Courts, and that two Chiefs could travel together on the same Circuit; whilst in London and Middlesex each Court had its list, beginning with No. 1, and going down to its end; but now, from the want of a Lord Chief Justice and a Lord Chief Baron—who were recognized by an Act for Ireland passed only last Session—all the Common Law Courts were blocking the Queen's Bench Division, and causes were taken from the middle and nearly the end of the list, without due notice or preparation, and at great expense. His duty was to appoint causes, and he was blamed if he put down too few for each day. Though neither Marshal nor Chief Clerk, he would do all in his power to improve the administration of justice in the Common Law Courts.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made.
An Amendment moved, and negatived.
Amendments made.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 191.)

BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL.—(No. 181.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL.—(No. 181.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was not to provide for the creation of a new Bishopric, but for the restoration of an old one, by disconnecting the Sees of Gloucester and Bristol, which were joined together as late as the year 1836. From the Reformation until just half-a-century ago, Bristol was a Bishopric in itself; but at that period the See was united to that of Gloucester, though, in order to satisfy the objections of the people of Bristol, it was arranged that the Bishop should reside in that city alternately with Gloucester. This condition had, owing to circumstances, been unfulfilled. There had been plenty of evidence of the desirability of restoring the two Sees to their ancient integrity. There would be something like 400,000 persons included in the Bishopric of Bristol, a larger population than that of some other dioceses, and so thoroughly in earnest was Bristol in its desire for its object that £50,000 had been expended in the rebuilding of the nave of the Cathedral. Within a period of three weeks 10 sums of £1,000 each were subscribed to the endowment of the See, and a total sum of £20,000 had been raised for the same object. Application having been made to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to take steps to sanction £500 a-year being deducted from the income of his Bishopric in the future, his reply was that as soon as the money was raised for the endowment of the Bishopric of Bristol, which that £500 a-year would supplement, he would desire to pay that sum over in his lifetime. Bristol was willing to contribute the whole sum necessary (£80,000) for that purpose, and not a penny would come from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Beyond that, it already had, in addition to its own Cathedral, preserved all the organization and jurisdiction requisite for the establishment of a Bishopric. It came then to

  891
  this—that Bristol asked, at its own expense, to have its ancient Bishopric restored on the lines of Sir R. Assheton Cross's Cathedrals Act of 1877, which had been found so useful and so practical.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he heartily approved of the Bill. After the lucid statement of his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury) it would not be necessary for him to detain their Lordships at length. He, therefore, deemed it only necessary to add that it was not an exact restoration of the old See of Bristol, but was an annexation of a portion of Wiltshire to Bristol and its neighbourhood, which now, from the circumstances of railway and other communication, was especially desirable. Dorsetshire was formerly connected with Bristol. Now it was proposed to form a diocese for Bristol by annexing to the old Deanery of Bristol a portion of Wiltshire, in which was the populous and rapidly increasing town of Swindon. This portion of his present diocese was not readily approached from Gloucester, but was in very easy communication with Bristol. He entirely concurred in the principle of the Bill for two broad reasons which had weighed considerably with him. First, that a wrong done to the ancient City of Bristol, 50 years ago, would now be removed; and, secondly, that two men could always do in the same area more than one. For these reasons he wished to give the Bill his heartiest support.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he thought that some of the patronage of the Crown might be given to some of the new Sees, as the Church had already, in the most generous manner, provided for the endowment of a number of new Sees. He asked whether the endowment fund for the See of Bristol had already been provided as there were seven new Bishoprics already to which the patronage of the Crown ought to go?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in reply, said, that £20,000 had been collected out of the total of £80,000 required; and they wished the Bill to pass, in order that they might go on with the matter.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.