Lords Sitting of 9 August 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—St. Giles Restoration (Scotland) Act Amendment* (261); Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; Bail (Scotland)* (262); Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations)* (263), Sea Fisheries Regulation* (264); Sale of Goods* (267); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (268); Public Works Loans* (269); Expiring Laws Continuance* (270); Hawkers* (271); Oaths* (272).
Report—Third Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) (257), and passed.
Third Reading—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (246–266), and passed.

ST. GILES RESTORATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD BALFOUR: I desire to present a Bill for the purpose of amending an Act passed in the year 1879 concerning the restoration of St. Giles' Cathedral Church, Edinburgh. The circumstances under which this Bill is presented are as follows:—The late Dr. William Chambers offered in 1879 to restore St. Giles' Cathedral Church, provided the congregation worshipping in one part of it were provided with another church elsewhere. £10,000 was subscribed for that purpose, and the congregation of West St. Giles' had another church built for them. The sum of £500 was also set aside in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Scotland for the upkeep of the fabric of St. Giles',
  56
  but in the Act a clause was inserted for the purpose of preventing, as it was then thought, the use of St. Giles' Church for secular purposes. Under that clause the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting, I believe, from the purest motives and in pursuance of what they thought to be their duty, have claimed the right to draw seat rents from the part of St. Giles' Church formerly occupied by the West St. Giles' congregation, in spite of the fact that a new church has been furnished in lieu of it. The object of this Bill is to declare what we believe to have been the real intention of the Act of Parliament, as carrying out the bargain between the late Dr. William Chambers and the public. The only other purpose of the Bill I am now presenting is to make a slight increase in the managing Board of St. Giles' Cathedral. I should like to add that in this matter I am acting on behalf of the representatives of the late Dr. Chambers and members of the Committee who got this £10,500 from the public; and I may further say that there is no intention of attempting to proceed with the Bill until the Autumn Session. I hope before long it will be printed and circulated, so that if anybody objects, which I do not anticipate, no one will have reason to say he has been taken an undue advantage of.
  Bill to amend an Act to make provision in regard to the restoration of the ancient church of St. Giles' in the city of Edinburgh—Presented (The Lord BALFOUR).
  Bill read 1a (No. 261).

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATE GERMAN EMPEROR.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS. [JUNE 18.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)read to the House the following translation of a letter from the German Ambassador expressing the thanks of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, for the special Resolution of sympathy passed by the House of Lords with the sorrow of the Imperial family of Germany on the occasion of the death of the Emperor Frederick:—
  "German Embassy, London,
  "July 31, 1888.
  "My Lord,—On the occasion of the decease of His Majesty the Emperor and King Frede-

  57
  rick, my gracious Sovereign, the two Houses of the English Parliament sent expressions of condolence to Her Majesty and Empress-Queen Frederick, the House of Lords and the House of Commons both in the form of resolutions dated June 18. Besides this, the House of Lords expressed by a special resolution of the same date their deep sympathy with the sorrow of the Imperial family, of the Government, and of the people of Germany. Although I may remark that the thanks of Her Majesty have already been conveyed to the two Houses of Parliament for the resolutions of sympathy addressed to Her through the British Ambassador at Berlin, I am instructed to express the thanks of His Majesty the Emperor and King for the second resolution of the House of Lords, and I beg your Lordship to inform the Upper House of the fact.
  "I have, &c.,
  "V. HATZFELDT.
  "The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G."

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he wished to call attention to a recent case in which a young woman named Catherine Morgan was arrested and charged with the murder of her infant child. Some comments had been made upon the statement of the Judge who tried the case that the conduct of the police towards the prisoner had been cruel and inhuman. He fully justified the criticisms of the learned Judge. The girl was arrested by the police late at night, and examined at once by a medical man in the presence of a female searcher. After a lengthy experience he could say that there was no class of evidence which required more careful watching than that given by the police.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he did not quite follow his noble and learned Friend in his statement of what had occurred. The evidence given by the police was amply corroborated. The facts appeared to be that the girl was secretly delivered of a dead child, and, for the purpose of concealing her shame, she placed the body in a tub. If that was for the purpose of concealment, she was guilty of a misdemeanour and ought to have been found guilty of it. The police appeared to have been under the impression that there was some evidence which justified them in suspecting, at all events, that the child was murdered. Consequently they
  58
  were bound to act as they did. The girl, who denied altogether the birth of the child, assented to the examination by the doctor, and immediately afterwards she was placed in the infirmary. Neither the girl nor her friends made any complaint whatever of the conduct of the police. He only said this much upon the facts as stated before them. There might or there might not have been an error of judgment on the part of the police in not waiting till the next morning for the examination, but he thought the young woman, who had been so near to committing an offence against the law, had not very much reason to complain. Occasionally the police failed. Like other men they were at times guilty of error of judgment, but this was a failing to which all, from the highest to the lowest, engaged in the administration of justice, were equally liable. He certainly could not agree with the implied censure of the police, for after a very lengthy experience in the Courts of Justice he maintained that a finer or more respectable body of men it would be difficult to find anywhere.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was very glad the Lord Chancellor had spoken out in the way he had, and he certainly did not in any way agree with the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice. The police, not merely in London, but in the provinces, gave their evidence as well as any set of men who came before the Courts. They had a most difficult duty to perform. They had no right whatever to question a prisoner, but very often the kindest act they could render him was to put a question to him. In the case mentioned, had the girl's statement been confirmed by a medical man, she would have been at once liberated.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he entirely concurred in what the noble and learned Lord had just said about the high character and the general good conduct of the police both in London and throughout the country. He thought they were subject to very great temptations, and it was not remarkable if at times they deviated from the course which calm judgment would dictate. Without in the slightest degree wishing to cast discredit on the evidence given by the police, it must be remembered that the evidence of any body of men ought to be carefully scrutinized. There was a natural temptation to men in the position

  59
  of the police which might load them sometimes to exaggerate. Considering, also, the rate of pay given to the police, it was not marvellous that occasionally they acted improperly. The wonder rather was that they could get a body of men to discharge their duties so well. It was owing to the temptations to which they were subject that proper caution—he did not mean unreasonable caution—should be attached to the evidence they gave.
  LORD COLERIDGEwas understood to say that he did not desire to make any general charge against the police. A body of men engaged in the pursuit of crime were naturally sometimes over zealous, and their evidence required to be watched.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a first time, said, I wish to say a word in respect to our proceedings with regard to this Bill. We propose to read it a second time to-morrow, but we are much in the hands of the House as to what the further proceeding shall be. If the House accepts the second reading, we propose to take the Committee stage on Saturday, and if there is no objection, which seems to be entirely reasonable to suppose, we will take the third reading on Saturday also. That, however, is not a method which I should like to use with the power of a majority. It must be entirely a question for noble Lords opposite as to whether they think that is a reasonable course or not.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have, of course, no objection to the Committee being taken on Saturday, but I should not like to give a decided opinion now as to the third reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 263.)

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Moved to resolve
  "That the following be made a Standing Order: A copy of every Local Bill, if amended
  60
  in Committee, shall, as so amended, be deposited at the Office of Her Majesty's Treasury and at the General Post Office three days before the Bill is read a third time: Agreed to; and the said resolution ordered to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders, to be numbered 143A, and to be printed. (No. 265.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order) and dispensed with during present sittings of the House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 257.)
  (The Lord Balfour.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Report of Amendments be received that day six months, said, that the rejection of Lord Basing's Amendment for selection of County Councils out of magistrates only was a condemnation of Lord Lieutenants, who, especially in Derbyshire, had nominated Justices of the Peace without any bias as to Party. The noble Lord (Lord Balfour), who piloted the Bill so ably, admitted that they had conducted the financial business of each county with economy and ability; but it was proposed to transfer this important duty to a Council, the election for which—only partly admitting women—had to be registered in a most complicated manner, and the election would be far more disturbing than a General Parliamentary Election—a step which he wished to see put off until the new electors had a more thorough knowledge of the great questions of the day. When cloture was first proposed by another Government, he (Lord Denman), at a meeting to celebrate the return of a Conservative Member for South Derbyshire, held at Ashbourne, said he should look with great suspicion on any Bill from "another place" which might not have received orderly consideration; but this Bill was passed by suspension of the Standing Orders, in a late Sitting in the House of Commons, and hastened by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and read a first time in their Lordships' House on the same night. What was its origin? A talented M.P. had

  61
  said that, "whichever Party might be in Office, a Local Government Bill would be framed." But this Bill did not satisfy the Opposition, who wished to carry it much farther; and it was rumoured that a like Bill was to be proposed for Scotland, whilst the noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), as well as the right hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Birmingham, wished to adopt a similar Bill for Ireland; but their Lordships knew how much the views of the last two were distrusted in Ireland, whilst the noble Lord had not gained their confidence. The grant of part of the Probate Duty and of the Licensing Duties might he invalid through a change of Votes in Supply. The abandonment of the Licensing Authority disappointed the temperance advocates, and the withdrawal of the Compensation Clause took away the attempt to satisfy the licensed victuallers. The only place of distinction he (Lord Denman) had in the county was as Chairman of the Committee for conferring or rejecting new licences. He had attended all meetings where a quorum was requsite for 34 years. He had often gone 12 miles to Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, and had often given up a day's hunting to do so. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had been told that his speech should have been against the second reading. The same was said as to the Irish Land Bill by the Earl of Derby—the advocate of Life Peerages—and of this Bill, of which he is to be the head. His Lordship said—"You should have voted against the second reading of a Bill confessedly a failure." He (Lord Denman) was sure that great confusion would arise if this Bill were to become law. The new elections were to begin in January, 1889, and business to commence not earlier than 1st of April. He could not hope to see the effect of this measure, for he ought to say, like Prospero—
  "Every third thought shall be my grave."—(Tempest, Act V., Scene I.")
  On third reading, passed by suspension of Standing Orders, it was said they were creating a rival power which no Local Government Board would be able to control.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and add at the end of the Motion, "this day six months."—(The Lord Denman.)
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I do not rise to enter into any general discussion such as the Notice of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) is framed to open, but to make one or two remarks upon the London Clauses which could not well be made at any former moment, so great was the desire on Monday to go at once into Committee, and then to get through all the work of the Committee in one evening. I desire merely to support the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Fortescue) who has twice spoken in the sense which I approve of. He ought not it seems to me to be alone. Beyond this House, indeed, he is not. Mr. Bowles, who has brought much ability to bear upon the subject, in an elaborate arraignment of the Bill contributed to The Fortnightly Review of April last, decidedly sustains him. Mr. Baumann, a Metropolitan Member, in The National Review of June, as regards the London Clauses, has unanswerably backed him. He has a yet more powerful supporter in the country. It is the most authoritative organ of the Party which the Government belong to, in an article intended to explain the Bill and recommend it. What is the language of The Quarterly Review in a recent number? Although I hardly ever read an extract, your Lordships ought, I think, to be possessed of it.
  "It would have been wiser to have postponed the Metropolitan portion of the Bill till another Session. The Bill is rural in its essence. The scheme for London government set out in the Bill would depend for its success on a healthy and influential public opinion which exists in country districts but does not exist in the Metropolis. The impossibility of getting more than a small percentage of voters to exercise the franchise, which has been demonstrated in a long order of various Metropolitan elections, proves that there is no such common interest in London government as would result in a strong and able County Council. But looking to the state of affairs which had been reached in this month, they might have been dropped without disadvantage. They are admittedly imperfect. And it is far better that London should wait a while for some more comprehensive and well-worked out system of government, than that valuable time should have been consumed in the discussion of temporary proposals, which must be amended in another Session."
  Such is the language of The Quarterly

  63
  Review, although so very far from hostile to the measure. For anything we know, it is an emanation of the Cabinet. For anything we know, it comes directly from the Minister. But we are not to fathom the anonymous. One thing is manifest. In the course of these discussions, no vindication of the London Clauses has been offered. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill with so much mastery of detail seemed to pass them over altogether. The noble Marquess did not say a word on their necessity or policy. No answer either was attempted to the speeches of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. The ground I take is that London must be separately handled, and cannot be disposed of parenthetically. Opinion is exceedingly divided between the plan of an immense municipality like that presented by Sir William Harcourt and the plan of many corporations which was urged by Mr. S. Mill, by Mr. Buxton, and, I believe, by Mr. Torrens. The subject is one which merits long debate and long deliberation. The partizans of neither scheme ought to be contented with this precipitate arrangement. To create a London Council suddenly and blindly, while the mind of Parliament is not directed to that topic, would be a sacrifice of prudence. A London Council may always be a great political organization, full of menace and embarrassment to Cabinets and statesmen. Even the City was so in the last century, as you may see by merely glancing at contemporary pages. At this moment, unless I am wholly misinformed, every French Government is more or less engaged in a struggle with municipal authority in Paris. There are two or three grounds on which Her Majesty's Government might well accede to the omission of these clauses without the faintest loss of dignity. They form a specimen of tacking which the Government would have been certain to expose if it had come from any other quarter. It is much as if in some measure to reform one House of Parliament, a few sections to reconstruct the other had been surreptitiously injected. Again, when legislation has been active for more than 50 years, its material must be inevitably circumscribed. It is not expedient to consume by mixing in one Session the problems upon which two Sessions would be legitimately exercised.
  64
  In this very year the noble Marquess delivered an anathema against large and comprehensive measures, in which he pointed out with emphasis that separate enactments are more prudent. Indeed, on two questions—the adjustment of tithes and the alteration of this House—he has conspicuously acted on the view which he put forward. Why is it now to be abandoned? Does this Bill emerge from quarters independent of the Government? There has seldom been one more large, more comprehensive, more heterogeneous, or, therefore, less in accord with the principle the noble Marquess had laid down for his direction. If any defence is given, it is that the Metropolitan Board ought at once to be superseded. How do we know that a London Council suddenly created will be less corrupt or more effective. If the Metropolitan Board of Works has not turned out well, there cannot be too much deliberation in replacing it. It is not likely that for many months the Metropolitan Board of Works will be hurried into error. It is now under the vigilant control of the Press, the public, and the Chairman is thoroughly awakened. There is no tendency more common or less prudent than to be full of caution against evils which have recently appeared, and full of blindness as to those which may emerge from the securities adopted. On that point illustrations might be given from history and from private life, if I was not reluctant to detain your Lordships any longer. What I suggest is, that without any adverse vote Her Majesty's Government should from their own initiative eliminate these Clauses 40 to 45 inclusively—under the shelter of the friendly counsellor whose language I have brought before them. By such a course the Bill might be retarded, but if it is there will not be a national calamity. Delay will be no injury to them nor to the public.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  LORD THRINGwas understood to appeal to the Prime Minister to allow the matter as to the division of Suffolk to be an open question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)could not assent to this, as it might lead to a conflict between the two Houses.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of council and position of chairman).
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, having forborne, with a view to your Lordships' convenience, moving an Amendment in Committee, I venture to ask your kind indulgence for the few remarks with which I shall have to trouble you with regard to the Amendment which I have placed on the Notice Paper. On the advantages of the collection of votes given by the electors of voting papers instead of at polling booths, of sending the few collectors round to the many electors instead of the many electors to the few clerks at the polling booths, whether to vote by ballot or otherwise, I have long had strong convictions—indeed more than 30 years ago I wrote a private memorandum upon it for the then President of the Poor Law Board, who asked my leave to lay it before the House of Commons, and moved for it accordingly, as some Peer did soon after in this House. And, though I individually, after repeatedly risking my seat by opposing the ballot for Parliamentary elections, became a convert to it shortly after being called up to this House, I did so, retaining my preference for the system of voting long in use for the election of Guardians. But it should be remembered that the County Councils which the Bill creates are not at all analogous to the House of Commons. They will not decide the fate of Ministries. They are to be purely administrative, not legislative; and it is desirable, therefore, that the Councillors should be elected with a view to their businesslike rather than oratorical qualities, and that the votes for and against them should be given calmly, and under the influence of quiet conviction, not of political excitement. The ballot—according to an American statesman in The Contemporary Review, in 1880—has in the United States failed to suppress either intimidation or bribery. In England, as the Election trials after the Dissolution of 1880 proved, the ballot has not prevented, though it has much shielded, electoral corruption. The difficulty is, as it always has been, to get ordinary voters to vote without
  66
  payment; and that will, of course, be greater in the rural districts, where they have much further to go for that purpose than in urban districts, where the polling booths are comparatively close to the voters' houses. In the two last General Elections, a large proportion, doubtless of the newly-enfranchised electors, voted for the pleasure of exercising their new right twice within a year, and with exaggerated hopes of the happy result to themselves of doing so. The proportion voting then should therefore not be taken as probably normal. But, reverting to elections taking place under more ordinary conditions, we find that even in the larger boroughs, with their numerous polling booths, the proportion who did not take the trouble of voting was very large. There were contests in each of the 24 largest boroughs in Great Britain in 1874, when less than two-thirds of the electors in them voted. In 1880 there were contests again in 23 out of the 24, when only half could be got to vote in spite of the great exertions made and the great amount of money spent. Nor was this a new feature, for only 55 per cent of the electors were found to have voted at the General Election in 1852 in 12 very large boroughs. But there was an opportunity of testing the working of the two systems in connection with elections for local as distinguished from Parliamentary purposes, given at St. Pancras, in consequence of a legal mistake made by the Poor Law Commissioners, who erroneously thought themselves empowered to issue the same election order to that as to other parishes. An election by voting papers accordingly took place there in 1837, at which more than half the electors voted. Shortly after that, in consequence of a decision of the Courts, the elections there had to be conducted again under what was known as Hobhouse's Act, and under that a more than usually exciting contest took place in 1853. But only about one-seventh of the electors could be got to vote at it. In 1879, after the parish had been divided into wards, there were contests in four of them, when nearly half voted with voting papers. Mr. Rendle, a Medical Officer of Health, told the Committee of the House of Commons on the Metropolis Local Management Act, that he himself was elected as a vestryman by about 12

  67
  votes, but as a Guardian by voting papers by some 1,200 votes; and that that proportion was not at all unusual in his parish. I do not contend that under the voting paper system no voter is bribed or coerced into destroying or making void his voting paper, or into filling it up contrary to his convictions. I only maintain that a far greater number of electors being thus induced to vote, the general result of an election gives a much truer representation of the real, deliberate feeling of the whole body of electors than does going to the poll, whether publicly or under the ballot. Moreover, the abstention from voting is not that of the least desirable electors. Of course, the very best men take a part in elections from a sense of duty, religious or patriotic, or both. Then a certain number, placing a just value on their time—namely, a very small one, take a part in them from a love of the excitement, the conviviality, and the gossip attending them, to say nothing of any hope of possible personal future advantage. There is, however, a large number of men of good average industry and character who, caring much for their own interest and their families, cannot be persuaded—however decided their preference or however clear their convictions—to sacrifice for any public cause or any candidate by going to vote at a polling-place, the time and labour which they value so highly and know so well how to turn to good account. If the opinions of Committees of Inquiry are to be regarded, it should not be forgotten that one, of which Mr. John Stuart Mill was a Member, unanimously recommended the adoption of the system of voting by voting papers in use for the election of Poor Law Guardians, not as being without disadvantages, but as being on the whole the best. I have to thank your Lordships for the kind patience with which you have listened to my arguments in favour of an Amendment to which I am not sanguine enough to expect you to assent; and I will only repeat in this late stage of the Bill that, notwithstanding my objections to its mode of dealing with the Metropolis and with the mode of voting, I hail this measure as on the whole being not only comprehensive but satisfactory.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, at the end of the line insert ("The
  68
  councillors shall be elected in like manner as guardians of the poor").—The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he must resist the Amendment, which was utterly inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill, and for all practical purposes, if it were insisted upon and inserted, the House might just as well have accepted the Motion of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Denmam) and stopped the Bill. Therefore, he hoped at this stage the House would not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Lord BALFOUR, the following new sub-section was inserted at the end of the clause:—
  "The county council may from time to time appoint a member of the council to be deputy chairman, to hold office during the term of office of the chairman, and, subject to any rules made from time to time by the county council, anything authorized or required to be done by, to, or before the chairman may be done by, to, or before such deputy chairman."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Powers as to police).
  On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 6, line 17, at end of line, by inserting—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers, duties, and liabilities of justices of the peace as conservators of the peace, or the obligation of the chief constable or other constables to obey their lawful orders given in that behalf."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Adjustment of financial relations between counties and boroughs).
  On the Motion of the Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 24, line 13, after Sub-section (2), by inserting as a separate sub-section—
  "In the adjustment regard shall be had to the considerations that the county is not to be placed in any worse financial position by reason of the boroughs therein being constituted county boroughs, and that a county borough is not to be placed in a worse financial position than it would have been if it had remained part of the county."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 76 (Application of Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to county councils and this Act).
  On the Motion of the Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 69, line 14,

  69
  at the end of line, by inserting as a fresh sub-section after sub-section 13—
  "The quorum of the council shall be one-fourth of the whole number of the council, and one-fourth shall, for the purposes of this section, be substituted for one-third in paragraph ten of the second schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882."
  "'Ten days' shall be substituted for five days' in section thirty-four of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as the time within which a person elected to a corporate office is to accept that office, and twelve months shall be substituted for six months in section thirty-nine of the said Act as the period of absence which disqualifies an alderman or councillor."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill read 3a with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he desired to say a few words on the passage of this great measure. He wished to say one word as to the intimate knowledge of the subject displayed by the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) who had charge of this complicated Bill, and the ability with which he had conducted it, and he was sure that the noble Lord would be ready to acknowledge that he had received valuable assistance from his noble Friends sitting behind him (Earl Granville). The Bill contained a very valuable principle for the country generally and for the Metropolis. He gathered from what the noble Marquess was reported to have said yesterday that he regarded this Bill as a final measure. If so, that would very much diminish his own satisfaction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in using the word final he merely meant that it was final with respect to the matters with which it dealt. He did not mean that no supplementary provisions would be necessary. In fact, there was a whole branch of the subject which had been left out of the Bill on account of the impossibility of passing it, owing to the lapse of time.
  LORD BALFOURthanked the noble Earl for the more than kind manner in which he had spoken of himself. He cordially concurred in the remark that he had had valuable assistance, not only from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, but from all sections of the House. He desired to add that he was quite certain that the Bill could not
  70
  have been dealt with by the House with the ease with which it had been were it not for the intimate knowledge of the subject shown and the excellent work done by the permanent officials of the Local Government Board, to whom also he wished to express his thanks for the services rendered to him.

SALE OF GOODS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he rose to call attention to the expediency of codifying certain branches of the Criminal Law, and to present a Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods. Whatever opinion might be entertained as to the practicability of the general codification of our law, experience had proved that the codification of certain branches of it was both possible and desirable. Their Lordships and the country had had experience of a code passed some years ago of the laws relating to bills of exchange and negotiable instruments. That code, he believed, had worked in the most satisfactory manner, and it had been adopted by more than one of our own Colonies. He believed, also, that a proposal had been laid before the Congress of the United States for the adoption of a precisely similar code. It was desirable that the same principle of codification should be applied to other branches of the law. He had, therefore, brought before their Lordships a Bill codifying the law relating to the sale of goods. If anything could be done to codify the law at all, it could only be effected by taking special subjects and devoting to them that minute care and attention which was only possible when isolated subjects were dealt with. The Bill had been drafted by the same learned Gentleman who was now the County Court Judge of Birmingham, and who was the author of the Bill codifying the law relating to bills of exchange. He had sufficiently examined it to be able to say—though he could not pledge himself to every detail—that the work was very satisfactorily done, and well worthy of the consideration of Parliament. He introduced it now, not because he proposed to proceed with it during the present Sittings, but for the purpose of making it public and obtaining that criticism of the Profession which was a most import-

  71
  ant aid to the satisfactory passing of a measure of this description. After the Bill had been read a first time, he hoped that the assistance of the Profession, which, on such a matter, was never asked in vain, would enable their Lordships during the ensuing Session to make a practical effort to pass the Bill into law.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, your Lordships should be thankful to the noble and learned Lord for the care he has taken in relation to a very difficult, and, in some particulars, an obscure branch of the law. The noble and learned Lord has wisely adopted the plan of codifying the law on one subject at a time. The more ambitious plan is unsuited to our legislative requirements, and consequently fails. I may mention that it is to the noble Lord we owe the successful Code of the law as to bills, notes, cheques, and other negotiable instruments; and I anticipate that his present attempt will be equally successful.
  Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods.—Presented (The Lord HERSCHELL).
  Bill read 1a. (No. 267.)
  House adjourned during pleasure at 6.10 P.M.
  House resumed by The Lord KINTORE (E. Kintore) at 3.31 A.M.
  Several Bills brought from the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock, A.M., till half past One o'clock, P.M.