Lords Sitting of 4 March 1890

ECCLESIASTICAL BUSINESS FEES.
Ordered, That the Returns respecting (ordered 12th August, 1889) and laid before the House on the 13th of February last be withdrawn, the same having been found incomplete: The order for printing discharged.
COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL.—(No. 29.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the main object of the Bill to which I have to ask you to give a Second Reading is to make a more satisfactory arrangement as regards the constitution of Vice Admiralty Courts in the colonies, and to confer upon the chief Courts of the colonies the Admiralty jurisdiction which is now possessed and exercised by the High Court of Justice in England. The existing state of things is shortly as follows: By the Act of the 30 and 31 Vict. cap. 45 a Vice Admiralty Court may be established in any colony, whether it be a Crown Colony or a colony possessing a representative and independent Legislature, but the Court is Imperial and not Colonial. The appeal from it, speaking generally, is direct to the Queen in Council. The Admiralty have the power of appointing the Judges and officers to that Court; but, as a rule, they very rarely exercise that power. In the absence of any appointment by the Admiralty, the Chief Justice or the highest Judicial officer in the colony is the Judge of the Court ex officio; and it rests with him also, in the absence of any appointment by the Admiralty, to appoint officers and registrars to the Court. The Chief Justice may also appoint one of the puisne Judges to act as Deputy Judge; but, of course, that Judge acts as Judge of an Imperial Court, although he is also a Judge of the Colonial Civil Court, and no appeal lies from any judgment, or decision of his given in Admiralty matters to the full Court of the colony, but only direct to the Queen in Council. This state of things is not satisfactory.
  1762
  We have thus in a colony two Courts side by side—the Civil Colonial Court and the Imperial Vice Admiralty Court, with separate Rules of Procedure, and separate Judges and officers, and although the same persons are acting as Judges and officers of the two Courts, yet it is clear from what I have brought to you Lordships' attention, that they are acting under separate jurisdictions and authorities. This matter is somewhat more complicated from the fact that the Colonial Civil Court and the Vice Admiralty Court in the colony have very often concurrent jurisdiction, as, for instance, in cases arising under the Customs Acts. In 1883 a proposal was sent out to the colonies for consolidating, and in some measure extending, the jurisdiction of the Vice Admiralty Courts in the colonies, but not altering the constitution of those Courts, or taking away their Imperial character. When the replies were received to that Circular Despatch, the question arose whether it would not be better to altogether abolish Vice Admiralty Courts in the colonies, and to transfer all their jurisdiction to the Chief Courts in the colonies. The replies showed, in fact, that the Vice Admiralty Court was more and more regarded as a Colonial Court—a Court of the colony—and that the Colonial Courts required more and more Admiralty jurisdiction to be vested in them. Her Majesty's then Government decided in favour of this scheme; and a Bill was drafted and sent out to the colonies by the noble Lord the Earl of Derby with a Despatch in March, 1885. That Bill was, in substance, the same as is now under the consideration of your Lordships. It was accepted by all the colonies but four—Victoria, New South Wales, British Honduras, and St. Helena. The first two of those colonies are, of course, colonies of great importance, and their fear seemed to be lest Imperial control was to be exercised over the Colonial Courts; a fear which, I think, arises from a misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill. However, I need not trouble your Lordships further with any objections that were raised, because those four colonies have been placed in Schedule 1 of this Bill; and the Act will not apply to them unless they subsequently desire to be admitted under

  1763
  it. Broadly speaking, then, the object of this Bill is to do away with the Imperial Vice Admiralty Courts in the colonies, and to transfer the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in England to the Colonial Courts, and also to allow inferior Courts in the colonies, if the colonies so desire it, to exercise the partial and limited Admiralty jurisdiction which the County Courts in England exercise. It is provided, therefore, by the 3rd section of this Bill that the Colonial Legislatures may declare what Courts of unlimited jurisdiction shall act as Colonial Courts of Admiralty, and also what inferior Courts shall have that partial and limited jurisdiction to which I have referred. By Clause 4 the laws upon this point are to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure, or else there is to be a suspending clause which will prevent their coming into operation until Her Majesty's assent has been signified. By Section 5 an appeal is given to the local Court from decisions of the Admiralty Court, thus avoiding the necessity of a direct appeal to the Queen in Council; but in case there is no local appeal, or in casa there is no further local appeal, the right to appeal to the Queen in Council is preserved. I think I need hardly trouble your Lordships with any further details upon the sections of this Bill. But perhaps I might bring one point under the notice of your Lordships: As the Admiralty jurisdiction is one of an Imperial character, and as it deals with acts committed on the high seas all over the world, and as, therefore, it may affect our relations with foreign nations, and thereby place some responsibility upon the Imperial Government, it is thought right that some control should be reserved over these Colonial Courts of Admiralty. Such control is clearly important for the purpose of securing uniformity of practice through the Empire, and of laying down the lines by which the Courts would be guided in the exercise of their jurisdiction when dealing with questions of International Law. That control is secured partly by a provision which requires that all Rules of Procedure, except Rules of mere detail of Procedure, shall, in the first instance, be submitted to the Queen in Council, and partly by providing that the Crown shall have the right, as heretofore, of creating a Vice Admiralty Court in any colony.
  1764
  It is manifest that with regard to some small colonies—as, for instance, in Heligoland, where the Governor is Chief Justice, as he is also in the Falkland Islands and St. Helena—it would be important to make provision, if the necessity should arise, for constituting a Vice Admiralty Court for the time, and to appoint thereto a man having a legal training. My Lords, the Bill is one of considerable importance; but I refrain from going now further into the details of the question because, if your Lordships will grant the Second Reading of the Bill, I propose to refer it to the Committee on Law.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL. (No. 14.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. (No. 15.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is not my fault that this question was not put to Her Majesty's Government some days ago; but it has been postponed for the return of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, whom we are all, I am sure, glad to see among us again with renewed health and vigour. The question is a very simple one. It is to ask Her Majesty's Government what course they propose to take in this House in reference to the Report of the Special Commissioners appointed under the Special Commission Act 1888. I am not going to refer in any way to the circumstances which called forth that Act, but your Lordships will remember that under it three eminent Judges were appointed to decide the matters referred to them. Those eminent Judges have applied themselves during the greater part of two years with the utmost public spirit, ability, and energy to the discharge of the duties which were entrusted to them, as mani-

  1765
  fested by their Report. That Report has been presented to the House of Commons, and it has been presented to your Lordships. I understend that in another place (as I learn from, perusing the Parliamentary Notices) that a most wise and temperate Motion has been moved by the First Lord of the Treasury; and it appears to me that if it is right and proper that the House of Commons should take notice of that Report, it would be an abdication of your Lordships' functions if you did not also pronounce an opinion upon the subject. It seems to me that the Report, being as it is a Report to both Houses of Parliament, challenges an expression of opinion from both Houses. I might even say that I think the labour and pains which the three Judges have bestowed upon the matter deserve an expression of thanks from this House in the most formal manner, and I do not know any reason which can be alleged why your Lordships should not take action in the matter. If, indeed, the three Judges had been appointed under a Resolution of the House of Commons, it would then have been a matter entirely under the cognisance of the House of Commons, or if the matters referred to the Judges had concerned only the conduct of Members of the House of Commons, then, perhaps, a reason would have existed for your Lordships not interfering in the matter. But your Lordships must remember that the matters referred to the Judges were not merely limited to the conduct of certain Members of the House of Commons, but other persons, too, were implicated, and their conduct also was referred to the Judges for investigation. It appears to me, therefore that your Lordships would be failing in part of your duty if you did not take some action in the matter. It is therefore that I ask Her Majesty's Government, to whom we naturally look for guidance in these matters, what course they intend to pursue with respect to the Re port of the Special Commissioners appointed, under the Act of 1888?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I concur with my noble Friend in saying that the Report prepared in obedience to the prescription of both Houses of Parliament, the result of so
  1766
  much labour and energy, ought not to be passed by on the part of the House of Lords without notice. But the position of the two Houses is not exactly the same in respect to this Report. It deals very largely with imputations made against Members of the other House of Parliament. I do not know that there is any Member of your Lordships' House in that position, and, therefore, it is natural that the House of Commons should first deal with that Report, and I think, as a mere matter of courtesy, it is well that we should allow the House of Commons to take what action it thinks best before we move in the matter. I suppose the House of Commons will come to some decision in the matter, and I see no reason why, as far as I know, the action of this House should differ materially from the action of the House of Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Do I understand the noble Marquess rightly that it is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to recommend this House to do not what is now proposed to be done in the House of Commons, but anything which may be settled by the House of Commons which takes the same line?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That, perhaps, would be a bold promise. It might be a safe one, but I do not think I have ventured so far as that. The only thing is, we shall not resolve upon the Motion which we shall ask your Lordships to accept until we have seen what the action of the House of Commons is.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.