Lords Sitting of 7 February 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Lunacy Acts Amendment* (7); Lunacy* (8); Appellate Jurisdiction* (15).
Committee—Report—Pluralities Act Amendment* (14).

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl of Selborne Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl of Lathom, the Earl de Montalt, and the Viscount Oxenbridge; the Lord Halsbury, Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor; the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl of Lathom, the Earl de Montalt, the Viscount Oxenbridge, and the Earl of Selborne; and the Lord Herschell, Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor; the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl of Lathom, the Earl de Montalt, the Viscount Oxenbridge, the Earl of Selborne, and the Lord Halsbury: The said commissions were read.
LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 7.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it had been introduced for the purpose of carrying out a Resolution which their Lordships had come to on two occasions for amending the Lunacy Acts throughout the country. The clauses in the Bill were apart from all controversial matter, with the exception of one point, which he would mention thereafter. There had been a general consent, on both sides of the House, that some alteration was required in the Lunacy
738
Laws; and in preparing a great part of the Bill which he had presented to their Lordships, he had inherited the fruits of the labours of two noble and learned Lords—one his Predecessor in Office (Lord Herschell), and the other a noble and learned Lord, whom he did not see present (Lord Selborne), and he had followed as closely as he was able in the lines they had laid down. In one particular, however, the controversial matter differed from the Bills which had preceded this one. The greater part of the Bill was entirely based on matters beyond controversy, and it was agreed that it was of serious importance that legislation on this subject should not be further delayed. That the matter was an important and urgent one could be seen from the fact that the total number of lunatics shown in the last Return of the Lunacy Commissioners was now 80,126, being an increase of 452 on the previous year; making the smallest increase for the last 27 years in proportion to the population. There were 4,440 licensed houses, and the patients therein had increased by 8.5 per thousand, but the admissions had been lower than since 1880. It was suggested that the small increase in the number of lunatics was due to the reluctance of medical men to sign the certificates of lunacy; but the Commissioners of Lunacy did not think that this had any appreciable effect on the general statistics. For himself, he did not know, however, that the increase was out of proportion to the increase of population. With regard to the gradual decrease of licensed houses, he thought it right to adopt the views generally entertained with respect to their gradual decrease, and he hoped that subject of controversy would cease. With regard to the matter of controversy, the Commissioners refused to accept the conclusions of their Lordships' House, and emphasized the view the late Lord Shaftesbury entertained as to the introduction of some judicial authority to examine persons who were to be confined in a lunatic asylum. That subject, he believed, had passed beyond the region of controversy; and, having regard to the state of public opinion, he thought no alteration of the law would be satisfactory that did not make further provision for the liberty of the subject. There had been a very strong

739
opinion abroad—whether exaggerated or not he would not say—that it was possible, without any proper investigation at all, for designing persons to take away the liberty of their fellow-subjects by the instrumentality of the Lunacy Law as it at present stood. It would, therefore, he believed, be impossible to amend the law adequately without taking notice of and, at the same time, giving effect to, the state of public feeling. He proposed, therefore, to insert in the Bill a provision for the protection of personal liberty; and this question of importance was as to what degree the judicial interference should take place. It was a subject of controversy whether the magistrate should be directed to see the alleged lunatic. The Lunacy Commissioners, on the other hand, disapproved of any alteration in the direction of introducing a judicial authority to examine whether or not a person should be confined in a lunatic asylum. He, therefore, proposed to make it a condition of the power to restrain that there should be served on the alleged lunatic a notice giving him information that if he pleased, and at his option, he would be brought before a magistrate. If the person was, in truth, improperly detained, he would be intelligent enough to understand the notice given him and act upon it. On the other hand, if he was a person who ought to be restrained, he probably would not insist on the production of himself before a magistrate. The Bill, however, was in their Lordships' hands, and the wish of the Government was that they should be assisted in making an amendment of the law which would have the desired effect. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he gladly supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, for, in his opinion, it was worthy of passing such a stage. He did not propose, at this stage, to say anything on the only point of controversy. He entirely sympathized with his noble and learned Friend's desire to safeguard the liberty of the subject, so far as it could be done with safety to the lunatic, and with a due regard to his interests and the interests of others. The
740
requirement of the Bill, that the magistrate should have an interview with the alleged lunatic, if he desired it, however, was not absolute. If it were, it might be regarded with some apprehension. But the notice to be served upon him, that he might have an interview with a magistrate, might be dispensed with in any case where the magistrate satisfied himself that the service of such notice would be prejudicial to the lunatic, or dangerous to the public. For his own part, previous to committing himself, he (Lord Herschell) would like further to consider the matter before coming to an absolute conclusion upon it, and there would be an opportunity of doing so before the Bill went into Committee.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he must take that opportunity to express the great satisfaction he felt that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Halsbury) had, so early in the Session, brought forward that most important measure. On a former occasion, he had himself expressed a hope that the Legislature might see fit to vest all lunatic asylums in public bodies, and to do away with all private asylums; and although he was aware of the difficulty of enacting such a change, in consequence of the large vested interests affected, still he trusted that that object might be attained at some not distant date. In furtherance of that view he would ask their Lordships' attention to an extract on the subject from a letter which he had received from the late Lord Shaftesbury, dated April 16, 1885. In it, the noble Lord said that he had not changed by one hair's-breadth his opinion of the danger which beset all private asylums, and of the necessity of placing the whole care of lunacy on a public basis; but that that could not be done by permissive legislation, and the enactment must be compulsory; that when he wrote to the Lord Chancellor in December, he did not venture to suggest more to begin with than enabling provisions in the Bill that he introduced; but that then he would go much further, and make counties and boroughs responsible for the initiation and the maintenance of such institutions, which he was sure would be self-supporting; and that the terrors and suspicions in the mind of the country in regard to the nature and tendency of private asylums could not be eradicated or abated until such a change

741
was effected. He would only add that, as his noble and learned Friend had not found it possible or desirable to adopt those views in the present measure, it was to be hoped that, at any rate, he would do everything in his power to strengthen the Bill so as to prevent abuses arising, as there were no less than 80,000 lunatics confined; and it was absolutely impossible for the Lunacy Commissioners, who were only six in number, and had to go in couples to visit them, as they should do, four or live times a year. He considered that it should be compulsory upon the proprietors of private houses to transmit to the Commissioners a report of his condition on the admission of every lunatic into their houses. He further thought two medical certificates, and not one only, should be necessary for an Urgency Order.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday, the 15 th instant.

LUNACY BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 8.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was simply a Bill to codify the numerous Acts of Parliament—somewhere about a dozen in number—dealing with the subject of lunacy; and, in the event of the Bill which their Lordships had just read a second time going to the other House, it might be possible to refer both the codification of the existing law and the new Bill to a Committee together, so that the new Bill might be incorporated with the other measure, and the whole law in regard to lunacy be reduced to one Statute.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly.

INDIA (MADRAS)—THE COVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE—LAND SPECULATIONS—CASE OF MR. SULLIVAN.

  QUESTION, OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the Secretary of State for India, What steps have been taken with
  742
  regard to Mr. Sullivan's infraction of the regulation against land speculations by members of the covenanted Civil Service, now that Mr. Crole's accusations of Mr. Sullivan have apparently been substantiated, inasmuch as Mr. Crole had been replaced in the Service after having been suspended by the Madras Government for making them? said, that the case was one of the Madras scandals, but not the first. The first of this nature had been the speculations in gold mines in Mysore, in which several officials in Madras had taken part in 1880. That had given rise to a Question in the other House; and the late Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) had written, on the 28th of December, 1882, to the Governor of Madras (Mr. Grant Duff) for explanations. This despatch and the reply of the Madras Government, with enclosures, had been laid before the other House of Parliament on the Motion of Mr. O'Donnell. This Parliamentary Paper was, however, incomplete, since it did not contain the despatch of the Secretary of State in reply to that of the Madras Government. A list of lands held by Civil officers of Madras contained the name of Mr. H. E. Sullivan as owner of 75 acres for building purposes. This, however, was not the estate which had given rise to the accusations of Mr. Crole. Mr. Sullivan had tried to pass this other estate as belonging to his son, though he had a mortgage on it to its full value. An attempt was made to sell this estate, which led to Mr. Crole being consulted by the intending purchaser, and to his receding from his intentions, and to Mr. Crole making charges against Mr. Sullivan of infraction of the regulations against land speculations by civil or military officials, supported by nine documents containing affidavits in support of his allegations. There was no inquiry into Mr. Sullivan's conduct; but Mr. Crole was suspended. He then appealed to the late Secretary of State, who directed that he should be replaced in an office of equal emolument, and also allowed the time during which he had been suspended to count for his pension. Mr. Crole, however, lost his salary during the time of his suspension, as the post he occupied had been filled by another official; and some of the Indian newspapers stated that, when reinstated, he was placed in a post

  743
  inferior to that which he had before occupied. It would appear, from this decision of the late Secretary of State for India, that Mr. Sullivan was in fault, and that Mr. Crole was justified in the charges he had made. It had also been stated that Mr. Crole wrote an intemperate letter; but it was only natural that he should be betrayed into some heat when he found himself suspended by Mr. Sullivan, amongst other members of the Madras Government. It had not yet transpired what notice the India Office had taken of Mr. Sullivan's conduct in the matter; and, as far as the public were aware, Mr. Crole was the only sufferer. As it appeared that the Government regulations against land speculations by civil officers would not be upheld as they should be, he would put the Question which stood on the Notice Paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, the question whether Mr. Sullivan had infringed the rules relating to the holding of land by Government servants—and, if so, to what extent—was taken into consideration last year by the Secretary of State in Council. Before any final decision had been come to on the case, Mr. Sullivan placed his seat in the Council of the Governor of Madras at the disposal of the Secretary of State; who, after a careful examination of all the circumstances, arrived at the conclusion that it was his duty to advise Her Majesty that his resignation should be accepted. Mr. Sullivan ceased to be a member of the Council on the 7th of December last.

ARMY—SMALL ARMS—DEFECTIVE SWORD BAYONETS.

  QUESTION, OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: I have to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question which appears on the Paper, with reference to defective bayonets. This is not the first time the matter has received public attention. Indeed, I believe that in the battles of the Soudan more than one valuable life was sacrificed by the defective quality of the bayonets supplied to Her Majesty's Land and Sea Forces; and, since then, a large number of bayonets have been tested, and of those about one-third were found to be in a defective state. Your Lordships
  744
  may have seen, from the public prints, that about 10 days ago a number of bayonets and cutlasses were served out on board Her Majesty's ship Indus, at Devonport; and every one of those, without exception, on being tested, was either bent double or twisted round like a corkscrew. I desire, therefore, to ask Her Majesty's Government, If they can give any information as to the reported defects in the sword-bayonets lately supplied to one of Her Majesty's ships; whether any of these bayonets are in London; and if so, if they can be seen by Members of this House; also to ask, if Her Majesty's Government can inform the House of the date of their manufacture and the firm supplying them; and also when, and by whom, they were passed into the service?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, I have to say that the sword-bayonets in question are some which were altered from cutlasses at the time of the adoption of the Martini-Henry rifle. They were reduced in size in order to suit that weapon, and were approved of by the Director of Naval Ordnance in 1871, after reference to the captain of Her Majesty's ship Excellent, then stationed at Portsmouth. That officer reported that the new weapon was suitable for the new Martini-Henry rifle, and for the then sword exercise was a more efficient weapon than the old cutlass. The cutlasses in question had been many years in use, having been made in 1859, and had passed muster, or had proved satisfactory, until the year 1871. They were then withdrawn, and altered to suit the Martini-Henry rifle issued in 1874. They had been in use from 1874 down to 1886, and there was no complaint made about them which the authorities could trace until last year, when the Training Squadron did complain that one or more cutlasses had bent. They are being gradually withdrawn, however, and are being retested, and put to a severer test. Some of the sword-bayonets are at the War Office now; and if the noble Earl, or any other noble Lord, wishes to see them, I will have them placed in my room for their inspection. I must say that they have bent in a very remarkable way; but their having bent does not prove that they were not

  745
  equal to the test originally demanded of them at the time they were issued. The test which was then required of them was that they should be bent to the extent of four inches over a block; and there is no doubt they will still stand that test. The conjecture is that they have been put to a severer test than that; and I am informed that there is no steel which is made which will not give way when put to a severer test than that which it was originally intended to stand. These naval sword-bayonets were originally supplied by contract in 1858, when 15,000 were obtained from Charles Reeves, of Birmingham; some 3,000 since from Chevasse, of Birmingham; and 900 from R. and W. Aston, of Birmingham; and in 1859, 3,300 were bought from Kirschbaum, of Solingen. On the introduction of the Martini-Henry rifle, they were altered at the Enfield Small Arms Factory, to meet the views of the naval authorities; all so altered being tested so as to comply with the sealed pattern. The tests were on the responsibility of the Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory, who, in all deliveries, is responsible that the supply is equal to the specification and sample; and they stood the tests satisfactorily. All cutlasses and cutlass sword-bayonets are in course of being re-tested, and are now being subjected to a more severe test than was considered necessary at the time of the approval of the present pattern in 1871. As that pattern has been complained of, it comes within the subject of reference now being considered by the Royal Commission on Ordnance Stores, and the question will, therefore, be submitted to them. These cutlasses have been in use since 1874; and when, in March 1884, General Graham was instructed to report as to some complaints that had at that time appeared in the public Press respecting defective cutlasses and bayonets which had been in use in Egypt—he reported that no reports had been received in reference to cutlasses.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 15.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be
  746
  now read a second time, said, that provisions had been introduced in the Act of 1876, apparently under the idea that the only persons who could sit during the Prorogations were the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The consideration appeared to have been overlooked that there might be persons competent under the Act to sit and hear the appeals who were not within the description of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Indeed, the framer of the Act had so framed the provisions that they were confined to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The result of this had been that during the recent Prorogation, it became impossible for the House to avail itself of the services of those noble and learned Lords like Lord Herschell and Lord Bramwell, who, had they taken the Oath during the ordinary Session, would have been able to give their assistance. It was desirable, therefore, that the power should be extended to all persons capable of sitting and forming part of the Court of Appeal. The next point in the Bill had reference to the provision of the statute, that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, by his appointment, was entitled to rank during his life as a Baron; but, upon his ceasing to hold the Office, the provision was made that he should no longer be entitled to a Writ of Summons. No doubt, there was great jealousy among their Lordships as to Life Peerages at that time; but the recent resignation of Lord Blackburn offered an example in point. The noble and learned Lord was a Judge to whom he (Lord Halsbury) thought it was no exaggeration to say that the jurisprudence of the country was deeply indebted for his great learning, his logic, and acuteness. Although a Lord of Appeal might not be desirous of continuing to hold his Office, so as to be bound to attend every day; yet it was extremely inconvenient that, on occasions on which a noble and learned Lord was quite willing to give the advantage of his great learning to their Lordships, the language of the statute should prevent him from any longer affording that assistance, notwithstanding that he still retained the rank and title of Baron. The other provision of the Bill had reference to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. By the Act constituting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun-

  747
  cil, two small sums, considering the judicial services rendered, were permitted to be given to anyone holding a high judicial office in India, if he came and gave his assistance to the Judicial Committee. The sum appointed to each person was £400 a-year. He proposed, by a section of the Bill, to give power, where there was only one person, to make the sum £800 a-year; and in that way to induce those with judicial learning and experience gained in the great centres of administration in India to give the advantage of them to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He hoped the Bill did not raise any subject of controversy, and would now move its second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would like to know whether, if he was not mistaken, the Bill was not an attempt to introduce a new class of Life Peers by a sort of side issue?
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he had no further explanation to make. He was not aware that the Bill professed, or did, in fact, make any alteration in the state of the law, or of the Constitution, with a new class of Barons. The Act of 1876 left the Lord of Appeal on resignation with the rank of Baron, without the right to vote. The present Bill did not profess to make any new class of Life Peers; but it provided that on resignation of the high judicial office, the Baron so created by his appointment and maintaining that rank was not, in future, entitled to a Writ, or to vote in their Lordships' House. The Bill was intended to meet that state of things.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he rose, not for the purpose of criticizing the Bill, but rather of supplementing what the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had said in reference to Lord Blackburn—whose character was increasing in public estimation from day to day—as being himself one of the very few Members of their Lordships' House present who remembered Lord Blackburn's first appointment. Lord Campbell, who was Lord Chancellor in Lord Palmerston's Second Administration, had the responsibility of the appointment; and he told us very graphically in his Diary,
  748
  writing in 1859, on what principle he had made his selection:—
  "I have already got into great disgrace by disposing of my judicial patronage on the principle detur digniori. Having occasion for a new Judge to succeed Erle, made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, I appointed Blackburn, the fittest man in Westminster Hall, although wearing a stuff gown."
  The appointment was not popular, for the simple reason that the public did not know Blackburn; and it was censured also, on the ground that Lord Campbell had deliberately passed, over other and more experienced men. The career of Sir Colin Blackburn as a Judge had, however, amply justified the appointment, and shown how well Lord Campbell understood the qualities necessary to constitute a great Judge. He was a great jurist, a strong and learned constitutional lawyer, with a mind so happily constituted that partiality was with him impossible; inflexible in his integrity, inexorable in his pursuit of justice, he dealt out even-handed justice to all suitors who came before him. He had throughout his long career performed with great success the duties of his high office; and his name would be known to posterity as one who, in his own life work, had well illustrated and enforced the principles of our own laws and the foundations of our Constitutional rights and liberties.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he entirely agreed with everything that his noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack had stated with regard to the very great services that Lord Blackburn had rendered. He (Lord Herschell) could himself speak with some knowledge on the subject; for the period of Lord Blackburn's judicial career covered the whole period of his (Lord Herschell's) own professional life; and, having seen the noble and learned Lord constantly discharging his judicial functions, in fulfilment of the duties of the various offices he from time to time filled, there need be no hesitation in saying that those services were most valuable to the country. Lord Blackburn possessed vast stores of knowledge, singular capacity for using them, and a rare grasp of legal principles; and all must regret that circumstances had rendered it necessary that he should perform no longer those great and important public

  749
  services. He had no intention to oppose the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, which contained various provisions, entirely independent of one another, with which he was in entire sympathy. He thought it right, however, to call attention to one of those provisions, so that, at all events, it might be perfectly clear what was being done; for there could be no doubt that, for the first time, their Lordships would, if they accepted it, sanction the creation of Life Peers, who, without filling an official position, might sit in that House. At the time when the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill was introduced in 1876, it contained a provision that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should retain his seat in that House only so long as he held his office—that, in fact, he should be an official Peer; and, though his rank was continued during the term of his natural life, he was not a Life Peer. When the Bill was passing through the House of Commons, a hon. and learned Member moved to omit those words which one section of the present Bill proposed to omit. That Amendment was opposed by the Government of the day—that of Mr. Disraeli—on the ground, among others, that to accept the Amendment would be to trench on the Privileges of the House of Lords; for there could be no doubt the House of Lords viewed with strong repugnance the creation of Life Peerages, and to compel that House to accept Life Peers against its own wish and desire; and the section in question was drawn for the very purpose of preventing the creation of Life Peers, to which their Lordships had expressed such strong objections. On that occasion it had been objected that it would be dangerous to allow a Prime Minister, under the guise of making Law Lords, and inducing them to retire one after the other, to create a number of official Life Peers. For his own part, he confessed he had not much apprehension of such a danger, since a Prime Minister could accomplish such an object in a much more direct manner. Undoubtedly, however, a change was now being made, in that, for the first time, their Lordships were sanctioning the creation of Life Peers—that was to say, Peers of Parliament, occupying seats in that House, and fulfilling all the functions of Peers, without filling any office while they were exercising
  750
  those functions. For his own part, he did not share in the apprehension which had been expressed with regard to such a course; but was glad to see that that which was looked upon with so much hostility in 1876 could now be introduced by the Lord Chancellor of a Conservative Government with every prospect of success. When objection was taken in the House of Commons to the creation of these Peers, he distinctly remembered that the position of the Law Lords was somewhat ridiculed, on the ground that they were Peers having seats in the House, and then, on retirement, were still Peers, but ceased to have seats in that House. He well remembered the reply given by Mr. Disraeli, when asked what would be the position of these Lords on retirement? "I suppose," was his reply, "they will relapse into the position of Irish Peers." For his part, he hoped that they would no longer relapse into that position. He did not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it right to call attention to the fact that it was not a mere formal change, but a distinct reversal of what had been hitherto laid down.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he most decidedly held that the Act which they were now called upon to amend had not created Life Peerages. It had already been decided that the Crown had not had, and did not then possess, any power to create Life Peers. The words of the Act under consideration were to the effect that the Law Lord should "rank as a Baron," not "be" a Baron. This was not a distinction without a difference. Sir James Parke's creation as a Life Peer was impeached by Lord Lyndhurst, on the ground that the Crown could make no such creation. A Committee of Privileges held that Lord Lyndhurst was right; and, in order to get out of the difficulty, the Minister of the day created Sir James Parke an hereditary Peer, under the title of Baron Wensleydale. The difficulty arose from the confusion of the name "Peer" with the name "Lord of Parliament." The two positions were totally different. A man might be a Peer, and yet not a Lord of Parliament, as was the case with certain Peers of Ireland and Scotland, who had at present no seats in that House, while, on the other hand, the Bishops, who

  751
  had seats and were Lords of Parliament, were not Peers.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he should not have troubled their Lordships if his Father, in 1821, had not stated that he would vote for no payment to an ignoble assistant to the Lord Chancellor. This was not used in an offensive sense; but to show that all Peers, except Spiritual Peers, should be on the same footing. Lord Eldon, whose retiring pension was to be only £4,000 a-year, said that no retired Chancellor should receive his pension unless he sat on appeals in the House of Lords; and had formerly, in 1856, divided the House against the Leaders on both sides—4 against 44 on the Life Peerage Bill, three of the four being Irish Peers. The House of Commons had rejected the Bill, and two hereditary Peers were created, according to his father's (Lord Denman's) advice, who, for 20 years, did all the business in an admirable manner, as a respected Member of their Lordships' House, had at one time wished for Life Peers, as he then thought the agricultural interest too strong. He (Lord Denman) said he was on dangerous ground, as the House of Commons' majority wished to extend the principle of Life Peerages much further; but by their vote they saved the country at least £180,000. They had now the Lord Chancellor and two retired Lord Chancellors sitting in that House, and he thought there was already ample provision for discharging the judicial Business of the House, since those three Peers formed a quorum of themselves; and, beyond them, any Member who chose had the right to sit, both in Session and in Recess, as a Lord of Appeal. In his opinion, the Bill was unnecessary. Why not make Lord Blackburn an hereditary Peer as Lord Wensleydale—whom Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Denman wished to see made a Peer when he was Sir James Parke—had been made? His services certainly entitled Lord Blackburn to that honour. Having been present on the first day of the Appeal, "Bradlaugh v. Clark," he sat till the end, and voted with Lord Blackburn. No one could say that the Act of 1801, imposing a penalty on ministers of the Churches of Scotland and of England, was not now in force; and yet a Scotch Member who had preached in the Established Church had so voted several times; but proof
  752
  of his preaching would subject him to the fines. But in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh it would be far better to make him ineligible from having lectured against religion than to let him pay penalty or costs, because the Attorney and Solicitor General had told him that he might lawfully affirm, whereas every case from 1849—when his noble Father was opposed by Lord Brougham on religious grounds—scruples founded on religion were the only ones which gave the privilege of affirmation instead of an oath, and it was merely because Sir George Grey had drawn the Act and not Sir Roundell Palmer that the difficulty occurred. He (Lord Denman) considered the Act wholly unnecessary, and if he had any weight in the House he would at once, without previous Notice, move its rejection, as was done by the Earl of Wicklow, supported by Lord Brougham, in 1849, and as was done the other night on the Woman's Suffrage Bill.
  LORD HALSBURY, in reply, said, it was not the object of the Bill, nor the effect of its provisions, to create any one a Peer. All it did was to leave a Lord of Appeal in exactly the same position after his resignation that he was in before it with regard to the Peerage.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIA MENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Richmond.

  Beauchamp.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Camperdown.

  D. Bedford.

  E. Granville.

  M. Salisbury.

  E. Kimberley.

  M. Bath.

  E. Sydney.

  E. Mount Edgcumbe. (Ld. Steward.)

  E. de Montalt.

  V. Hardinge.

  E. Lathom. (Ld. Chamberlain.)

  V. Eversley.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  E. Devon.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Ker.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Kintore.

  E. Harrowby.

  L. Aveland.

  E. Bradford.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.