Lords Sitting of 21 April 1893

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN CURRENCY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, there is a question which deeply interests all who are concerned in any way with India which I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, and of which I have given him private notice. It is generally understood that a small Committee or Commission has been appointed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the Chair, to inquire into the question of the Indian Currency in some shape or other—I do not know exactly in what form; but a great deal of anxiety is expressed in India upon the subject, and I shall be very glad if the noble Earl can tell us whether he is likely soon to receive the Report of the Commission. I presume that as soon as he receives it the Government will take it into consideration, and that it will be laid on the Table.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I am not surprised at the anxiety which the noble Viscount manifests for the production of this Report. I may say that, personally, I am most anxious it should be ready as soon as possible. I am informed that the Committee are approaching the termination of their labours, and that the Report may be expected before long. As soon as we receive it I need scarcely say it will receive our very earliest consideration.

BOMBAY AND MADRAS ARMIES.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the law relating to the Bombay and Madras Armies, and to move that it be read a first time. I propose to appoint the Second Reading from Monday the 1st of May next.
  Bill read la. (No. 66.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether some despatch has not been received from India on the subject? If so, no doubt it will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: A despatch has been received from the Government of India, and I believe it will be printed and circulated before the Bill is read a second time. If not, I shall put off the Second Reading for it.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: There is always a difficulty, I know, in getting these documents printed in time, and I hope the noble Earl will use all the despatch possible to get it printed at once.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is sometimes the case, but this document being printed by command the printing is in my own power.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER (BANSTEAD) BILL (No. 51.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
  The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER (ORPINGTON) BILL. (No. 32.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ARMY ANNUAL BILL.—(No. 1.)
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, in accordance with what I stated yesterday, I move that instead of the words "twenty-one" in Sub-section 1 the word "fourteen" be substituted.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the words ("twenty-one") in Sub-section 1, and insert the word ("fourteen").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST)said, he had stated yesterday that if the noble Earl brought forward an Amendment to this effect the Government would accept it. At the same time, having given that

  879
  assurance and the Secretary of State for War being ready to agree to it, be should like to state that both the War Office Authorities and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman entertained great objections to the Amendment. As the noble Earl pointed out yesterday, it would be a very easy matter another year to substitute 14 for 21 if it was thought advisable. In the opinion of the Military Authorities it was extremely undesirable to keep on altering the Army Act if it could be avoided, because it was, in the first place, confusing to the officer who had to administer the Act, and, in the second place, it unsettled the minds of the soldiers who were affected by it. Though the Army Act was, of course, the basis of authority, Regulations were made from time to time by those who were responsible to the Secretary of State for the discipline of the Army under his supervision, for the guidance of the officers who had the carrying out of the Act. The section in the Queen's Regulations relating to discipline contained, among other things, a series of instructions such as this with regard to the 14 days to those officers. The Order with regard to the 14 days was a temporary instruction given in the hope that the important change introduced by the Bill would be worked as smoothly as possible to begin with. He had had the opportunity of seeing His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and on his behalf might state that he held very strongly to the retention of the clause as it now stood. These clauses had been most carefully considered by those who thoroughly understood the Army—by the Adjutant General, an officer of great experience, and also by the officers responsible to the Secretary of State who possessed legal knowledge. He would regret the substitution of the figure proposed by the noble Earl for the standing in the Bill which, if it remained, would, he believed, greatly diminish the number of Regimental Courts Martial. Lord Chelmsford had stated yesterday that he would like to see the clause remain as it was, because it was a lesser slur upon a soldier, and rendered it much easier for him to make a fresh start in his career if he was dealt with by his commanding officer for an offence instead of having to go before a court martial. The Report of the Commission on Courts Martial, presided over
  880
  by Colonel Wilson Patten, recommended that the commanding officer's power of punishment might be increased to 21 days. If the noble Earl, however, pressed the Amendment, in accordance with the assurance he gave yesterday he would not oppose it; but it would be more satisfactory to the War Office Authorities, to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and to the Secretary of State if the noble Earl could see his way to withdraw it.
  *THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I confess I am very much surprised at what has taken place. The noble Lord stated yesterday on behalf of the Secretary of State and the War Office that the Amendment would be accepted. It was moved on the ground that in the House of Commons the Secretary of State had undertaken that the matter should be treated as if it were 14 days: that is to say that an order should go forth that 21 days should not be given by the officer, but 14; and this being an annual Bill, it struck me as contrary to all precedent and reason that a dispensing power should be exercised at the beginning of the Act, and that it should not be intended to mean what, on the face of it, it says. For that reason I thought it right to move the Amendment, and it was accepted on the part of the Government. The strongest opinions have been expressed that an Act of Parliament should not be passed by us even for a single year when the provisions made in it are not intended to be fully carried out, but only to the extent promised by the Secretary of State. With regard to alterations of the Army Bill, I feel quite as strongly as the noble Lord that, in the interests of all concerned, it is desirable there should be a certain Code. It is necessary for commanding officers to refer to a number of Acts in order to see what his powers really are, and therefore I should press this Amendment on the ground that if the War Department is anxious, as I hope it will be, to codify this law and make it complete, there will next year be an opportunity of putting in this 21 days if it is so important. But the importance of it I cannot imagine to be so great as is expressed, because the Secretary of State himself promised in the House of Commons to, dispense with it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I certainly, like, my noble Friend, consented to accept the Amendment, but I do not say that we approved of it. That is quite a different thing. However, we are perfectly prepared to carry into effect most fully the engagement we have entered into both here; and elsewhere, though the Amendment is not one that we can approve of. That is all that we think it is necessary to say. I believe Mr. Campbell-Bannerman stated in the House of Commons that it was intended to bring the 21 days' power into operation gradually; and I should myself have thought, though I do not in the least press it, that, looking at the undoubted evil which the Act deals with, at the view entertained by the War Office Authorities, and at the general consensus of opinion in favour of the 21 days' power, it would have been better to have left it in the Bill. But as we agree to the Amendment there is nothing further" to be said about it.
  LORD CHELMSFORDvery much regretted that the Amendment should have been forced upon their Lordships. He quite understood the ground on which it Was pressed, but thought it would have been much better, in the interests of the Army and of the soldiers themselves, had the number of days remained 21 instead of 14. The blame did not lie with their Lordships at all, as, unfortunately, the pledge had been given; and no doubt in the circumstances, if the Act had been passed with the 21 days in it, it would have been illegal and unconstitutional for the Secretary of State for War to so far alter the provisions of an Act of Parliament as he had proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment in Subsection 3 agreed to.
  LORD SANDHURSTproposed another Amendment in Sub-section 8, page 4. The Bill at present ran—
  "(8) Where a commanding officer has power to deal with a case summarily under this section, then, unless he awards one of the minor punishments referred to in this section, he shall, after hearing the evidence, ask the soldier charged whether he desires to be dealt with summarily or to be tried by a district court martial,"
  and so forth. He proposed, in line 13, to leave out the word "then," and insert
  882
  in its place "and, after hearing the evidence, considers that he may so deal with the case, he shall"—then leave out the words "after hearing the evidence," and continue "ask the soldier," and so on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order), and dispensed with.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 35.)
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

COUNTY AND BOROUGH MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked the Lord Chancellor whether he was correctly reported as having stated that he had appointed 401 supporters of the present Government out of 433 Borough Magistrates during the last eight mouths; and from what sources of information he had obtained the politics of County and Borough Magistrates? Referring to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the other day, he protested against the noble and learned Lord arrogating to himself and his own political friends the term "Liberals." Their Lordships on that side of the House denied that Home Rule principles represented the traditions of the Liberal Party; and he might, therefore, be permitted to substitute the term "Gladstonian" for "Liberal" in that regard. The Lord Chancellor, in excusing himself for his appointments to the Borough Bench, was reported to have accused himself of having added 25 per cent. to the Borough Bench, and to have admitted that of 433 Magistrates he had appointed 401 Gladstonian political partisans. Well, 90 per cent. seemed rather a startling figure. But the Lord Chancellor had plumed himself on his moderation; and then he went on to say that he wished the Bench to be non-political, and that to make

  883
  it non-political he proposed to appoint the Magistrates equally from the two Parties. Now, they contended on that side of the House that the best men should be appointed irrespective of Party. Lord Cairns, he was told, always inquired first into the strength of the Borough Bench, and, secondly, what assistance it required; and that Lord Halsbury had always insisted that a given number of Gladstonians, a given number of Liberal Unionists, and a given number of Conservatives should be appointed. He would not presume, in the presence of Lord Selborne, to say what method he adopted when Lord Chancellor. Since the present Government came in he had been told that a large number of Gladstonians had been appointed in Leeds, for which place the son of the Prime Minister was one of the Members; in Bolton, 13; in Nottingham, 7 out of 8; in Brighton, 6 Gladstonians; and in Birmingham nothing but Gladstonians, although in that city the Liberal Unionists were certainly not an extinct political species; while to secure the political equilibrium in Devonshire the Lord Chancellor had had recourse to appointing the Magistrate's Clerk, who could not, of course, sit as a Magistrate. The Gladstonian equilibrium was difficult to maintain; and in the incubation of Lord Kimberley's eggs a certain moulting process had taken place in the Gladstonian Party when the Local Veto chick came out of its shell. The Government shed some supporters. They had alienated Lord Burton to-day, perhaps they might lose Lord Battersea to-morrow, and then they would be catalogued by the Lord Chancellor as Conservatives. He would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether in the division of Parties he merely put down the supporters of certain Bills? The Borough Bench had been degraded by its connection with Party politics, and he would appeal to the noble and learned Lord whether he thought it was desirable to reduce the County Bench to the same level? The Lord Chancellor the other day stated the case for the Lieutenants of the Counties with that justice and that fairness which had made him popular on both sides of their Lordships' House. The statement was eminently satisfactory, but he was squeezed at the end, and, unfortunately,
  884
  he proved himself squeezable. He was reported to have said that he would be bound to change what he described as an ancient customary Constitutional practice resting on Parliamentary sanction if a Resolution was passed in the House of Commons; and he seemed almost to have suggested to his friends that such a Re-solution should be passed. Constitutional changes had not been altered up to the present time by the Resolution of one House of Parliament, and he would ask the noble and learned Lord what he would do if a Resolution in a contrary sense should be passed by their Lordships' House, of which he was the Speaker, and the honour and dignity of which had been entrusted to his hands. He was curious also to hear from the noble and learned Lord from what authentic sources he bad been able to ascertain the politics of the Borough and County Magistrates? The noble and learned Lord was an eminent lawyer, and would probably not be satisfied with hearsay, although he seemed to have tried to meet the difficulty by turning the Magistrate's Clerk into a political tout. In country districts beyond those who appeared in Party polities there were many who held political principles and who placed patriotism above Party, and voted Liberal and Conservative—as regarded the honour and glory of their country. Those the Lord Chancellor had made a present to the Conservative Party. He would finally ask the Lord Chancellor whether he had received any complaints that justice had not been properly administered on the County Bench; and also whether those who had been recommended to him by the Lord Lieutenants were qualified and fit persons to sit on the County Bench except for the fact that they had embraced the Gladstonian belief? Much virtue was shown in respect of the poor man's beer and of bribes to constituents; but it seemed to him worse bribery and worse corruption to make the Borough and County Benches a bid for political support or a remuneration for political services? He believed the Lords Lieutenant would prefer to be relieved from the duties now imposed upon them rather than put their hands to making the County Bench the payment for votes' which had been given, or a bribe for political support.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I will answer the question which has been put to me. I confess that the question did not give any indication of the insinuations contained in the speech of the noble Duke— insinuations which I feel to be absolutely and entirely unjust. I repudiate altogether the notion that a sense of what is fitting in a Magistrate is confined to Lords Lieutenant, and I deny altogether that in any of the steps I have taken I have been in the slightest degree actuated by any desire to serve Party ends. I think the speech of the noble Duke— himself a Lord Lieutenant—will not tend to re-assure those who are not altogether satisfied of the impartial and strictly non-Party conduct of Lords Lieutenant in these matters, or that a calm and judicial mind is brought to the consideration of appointments to the County Bench. I have made no charge against Lords Lieutenant—I have abstained from doing so; neither have I suggested that they have made appointments from Party reasons generally, though I will not deny that in particular instances they may have been actuated by Party motives; but when the noble Duke cross-examines me on the subject of my appointments, I think some very edifying information might be obtained if Lords Lieutenant were cross-examined in the same way with regard to their appointments, and if I were to ask them to furnish me during the last six years with the numbers of Conservatives, Liberals, and Liberal Unionists respectively, on the Bench at the time they made their appointments. If, as is contended, the appointments I have made show that I have been acting from Party motives, that would apply in a far greater degree to the Lords Lieutenant if that were a just argument to use, but I do not admit that it is, because they might have made more appointments from their own political Party without being actuated by Party motives. The noble Duke seems to suggest that I have obtained information of the politics of those I have put on the Bench for the purpose of assisting me in manning the Bench with members of my own Party. I say the very reverse was the case. The recommendations for the Borough Bench came to me from a variety of sources. If I had done as many Lords
  886
  Lieutenant do, and shut my eyes to the sources from which the information came, if I had made no inquiry as to the politics of the persons recommending and the persons recommended to me, I should have packed the Bench with a far larger number of Liberals than have been put upon it at present. The truth is that, unless inquiry is made as to the political views of the persons recommended, political appointments are certain to be made. The less inquiry you make about the political views of those you appoint the more certain you are to make political appointments—that is to say of those who will deal with matters politically. If you do not make any such inquiry, if you shut your eyes, if you do not think what are the politics of those who suggest particular names, if you do not look out yourself to see that persons of one particular view are not being pressed upon you, it is certain that you will have persons of one particular Party thrust forward for appointment. It cannot be done by shutting your eyes; you must regard the politics of those who put names before you, otherwise you may be certain that, pure as you may be, and unwilling as you may be to be actuated by any political views, those who put names before you will not always take the same course. To suggest that there are not people who, without political bias, do not regard those of their own politics with more inclination and consideration than their other neighbours is, of course, absurd. If there are local Benches who see the merits of their Conservative neighbours much more keenly than they do the merits of their Liberal neighbours, or vice versâ, it is certain that there will be a tendency for their recommendations unfairly to flow in a particular channel. Therefore it is not by shutting our eyes to politics altogether, living under the clouds, and asking no questions, that you insure dealing fairly with the matter and getting the best men, irrespective of politics, but it is by making inquiries and trying to act fairly in the matter. The noble Duke, in alluding to the number of appointments made in the boroughs, would have been fairer if he had given the figures showing that at the time the matter was dealt with there was a very limited number of Liberals on the Benches; and that after I had made the additions there were,

  887
  taking the Benches dealt with as a whole, only a percentage of 36 sharing the politics of the Government. I would appeal to anyone not a Lord Lieutenant, who may, perhaps, shut his eyes to politics altogether, but to anyone outside the House, who will deal with the matter fairly, to say whether I can he accused of having in any way unduly favoured my own Party? And I would say this: that wherever the Benches have been nearly politically balanced I have left them as they were. In one case, for example, when the balance was nearly equal, I appointed four Liberals and three Conservatives, and in another similar case I appointed two Liberals and two Conservatives. I have never made a considerable number of appointments on one side without making some on the other, except where the balance was very greatly one way. I am not going into the cases which the noble Duke mentioned. I have given a general account of my stewardship in this matter, and I am prepared to stand or fall not by the opinion of the noble Duke, but by the opinion of my countrymen generally with regard to it. I am conscious that in this matter, so far as it was possible for a man to do it, I have held the scales fairly. There is hardly an instance in which I have made appointments where I have not been attacked, because I have not appointed enough of my own Party. But I have stood firm; and there is no single case where I have put my own Party in a majority. The noble Duke, alluding to the case of Birmingham, said— "Look at Birmingham, where there are so many Liberal Unionists, and the Lord Chancellor appoints 14 Liberals to the Bench there." I am not going to attack my Predecessor, but when I am attacked in this matter, and a specific case like Birmingham is alluded to, I must be allowed to refer the noble Duke to figures. When I came into Office there were 74 Magistrates in that borough. Thirty-six of these were appointed in the last six years, and every one of the 36 was either a Liberal Unionist or a Conservative, and not a single member of my own Party. It is perfectly true that I appointed 14 of my own Party, with this result—that there are now 88 Magistrates, consisting of 20 Liberals, 37 Conservatives, and 31 Liberal
  888
  Unionists. When, just before the late Government went out of power, there wore 12 appointments made to that Bench, and almost every one of them were either Liberal Unionists or Conservatives, I ask whether anybody can say that I have dealt unfairly with that Bench? The figures given by the noble Duke did not state the whole case, for they related only to existing Benches. Forty appointments have been made to new Benches, and in these cases I have appointed equally from the two Parties. Then the noble Duke asked how I obtained information as to the political views of the Magistrates, I did not, as regards the County Magistrates, make a single inquiry myself. I have never done anything for the purpose of making an attack on the Lords Lieutenant. All the statements I had with reference to the condition of the County Benches was volunteered by those who complained, and asked me to interfere. When complaints have been made as to the constitution of the Benches, I have always urged my correspondents to exercise the utmost caution; and I have endeavoured to insure, to far as I could, that the information sent by them was correct. I have never asked anyone to give me an account of the County Bench. And more than that, in those cases in which I have called the attention of the Lords Lieutenant to the complaints made to me, I have simply put to them the statement so made to me. Why that should be resented I am absolutely at a loss to understand. Here is a complaint made to me: that the Lord Lieutenant has dealt, or is dealing, unfairly, and is unduly putting members of his own Party upon the Bench. I sent this forward to the Lord Lieutenant, in order that he might see, as it is right and proper he should see, what the complaints are which have been made. And that is all I have done in relation to these lists of the constitution of the Benches beyond pointing out to the Lords Lieutenant, as I point out now to the House, that the question is not, Do the people who have been put on the Bench always administer justice rightly and fairly? I am quite prepared to give a general good character to the Magistrates. I am not prepared to vouch for them universally. There are good Magistrates and bad Magistrates, no doubt, of both political

  889
  Parties. Some are certainly ornaments to the Bench, and others would, I think, assist in the administration of justice if they would less frequently attend. But what I would point out is that if you want the administration of justice in any country to be satisfactory it is not enough to be able to say that those who administer it act honestly and, to the host of their lights, not unfairly. There must be general confidence in the administration of justice; and if people think the Benches are unfairly manned with their political opponents, and that those of their own views are passed over and not put upon the Benches, confidence in the administration of justice is impaired. Nobody could read the letters that I have received without seeing that that is so. It may be that the views expressed to me have been often exaggerated, and have been, perhaps, unjust to the magistrates; but it is undesirable that they should be held. I am bound to say that many Lords Lieutenant have frankly and generously acknowledged that in calling attention to the facts as I have called attention to them I have done that which they were glad to have had done, and that they had very often not been aware of the circumstances. They have quite agreed that it is desirable that there should be no notion amongst the people that the Bench is unduly manned by those of one political opinion, and they have done their best to bring about a more satisfactory state of things. That has been the case with many Lords Lieutenant. I desire to acknowledge, in the fullest way I can, my obligations to those Lords Lieutenant, in the public interest, for the manner in which they have sought to remedy a state of things admitted by themselves to be undesirable. The noble Duke has alluded to the statements made on the occasion of the deputation that waited on me. The noble Duke cannot be ignorant of the fact that the greatest dissatisfaction exists with regard to the appointment of Magistrates in counties. It does not matter whether it ought to exist or not; we must deal with things as they are; and I am certain that none of the arguments of the noble Duke will remove that feeling. They do exist, and they will not cease to exist unless something is done in the matter. The strongest pressure has been put upon me since I have been in Office to take the matter into my own
  890
  hands, and to put the Lords Lieutenant aside. I have declined to do that. When I was asked what I should do if a Resolution were passed by the Representatives of the people in the House of Commons indicating that I should take steps to bring the Benches more in accord with what is believed to be the general representation of the people, my reply was that I should not feel myself justified in acting in defiance of that Resolution, but would feel bound to follow it. I was also asked what I should do if the House of Lords passed a Resolution in a contrary sense. I declined to entertain that hypothesis. When that time arrives I shall have to find a solution of the difficulty; but in the meantime I decline to believe that the House of Lords will be so unwise as to set itself in conflict with the opinion of the Representatives of the people. I can assure your Lordships that in everything I have done and in everything I shall do in the matter I shall, in spite of taunt or sneer or insinuation— because I care nothing for either taunt or sneer or insinuation so long as I know that I am acting straight forwardly and honestly —proceed to do that which I believe to be the best on the whole for the purpose of inspiring in my countrymen confidence in the administration of justice, and for removing any impression that any set of political views are unduly represented on the Benches in any part of the country.
  *THE DUKE of RUTLANDsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had appealed to those of their Lordships who were not Lords Lieutenant. He had the good fortune not to be a Lord Lieutenant himself, and, after what had passed that day, sincerely hoped he would never become one. The noble and learned Lord seemed to be imbued with marvellous energy and agility by the way in which he hopped first from the twig upon which the County Magistrates were suspended to the twig which bore the Borough Magistrates, and then back again, so that it was really impossible to decide whether the noble and learned Lord was "defending his conduct," as he expressed it, with regard to his appointments to the County or to the Borough Magistracy. He did not wish, however, to enter into that conflict with the noble and learned Lord. He had never had anything to do with the appointment of County Magistrates, but he knew something as to how one or two

  891
  Lords Lieutenant had acted in this matter, and he emphatically declared that they had never been influenced by political considerations in the appointments they had made to the Bench. The noble and learned Lord said he had received considerable assistance from some of the Lords Lieutenant in the action he had taken. He rejoiced that that was so; and if the noble and learned Lord would in future content himself with acting in harmony with the Lords Lieutenant, no doubt the condition of affairs might, in some respects, be slightly amended. But, for his own part, he protested that, living in the country, he knew of no such complaints as those to which the noble and learned Lord had referred. If the noble and learned Lord pursued the course which, in some cases, apparently, he had pursued—and which he had threatened still more to pursue in the event of a certain Resolution being passed by the House of Commons—and practically relieved the Lords Lieutenant of all responsibility in the appointment of County Magistrates, by assuming that responsibility himself, what would be the future of the appointment of County Magistrates? The noble and learned Lord was not fixed upon the Woolsack to all eternity; there were changes in the political life even of exalted personages sitting on the Woolsack; but what an example would the noble and learned Lord have set to his successors! How would they be able to resist following that example? He had told the House he had acted by himself, and for himself, in appointing Magistrates. That precedent would be followed, no doubt, by his successors, and the last state of the Bench would be worse than the first. The system now in operation had prevailed beyond the recollection of any of their Lordships, and it ought not lightly to be changed. While, according to the old system, the noble and learned Lord was responsible for the appointment of Borough Magistrates, it would be better and more judicious on his part were he to continue the old practice of allowing the Lords Lieutenant to appoint the County Magistrates. In that way the evils which he foresaw from the example set by the noble and learned Lord—an
  892
  example, as he had said, so likely to be followed—would be averted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I only wish to say that I have been quite misunderstood. Nothing would be further from my intention, if such a Resolution were passed as that to which I have referred, than to act entirely by myself, without seeking the assistance of the Lords Lieutenant, and setting them entirely aside. The noble Duke has spoken as if this was a task which I am anxious to undertake. On the contrary, the task of appointing the County Magistrates is not one which I have any desire to undertake. I have not stated that the happiness of my life would be increased by such a Resolution being passed. Nobody who knows what it means would, I am sure, think that. Indeed, I very much doubt whether I should have a peaceful hour if such a Resolution were passed. I should, however, feel bound to act upon it—and in some counties it might be necessary to act upon it—but, so far from desiring to act without the Lords Lieutenant, my wish would be to do all I could in harmony with them, and not to set them aside one whit more than I found absolutely necessary.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSassured the noble and learned Lord that he had not wished to make any personal accusation against him; on the contrary, he had to acknowledge the Lord Chancellor's courtesy towards him as a Lord Lieutenant; but he had felt bound to bring before the House the rather startling figures the noble and learned Lord had given the other day, and he considered that those quoted in reference to Birmingham alone had entirely proved his case.

REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 59.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, this Bill merely consolidates existing enactments. It reproduces the Regimental Debts Act of 1863 in a somewhat similar form, and with modifications rendered necessary by the Act of 1881. The only points to which it is necessary to call attention are with regard to the

  893
  payment of the cost of soldiers' funerals out of the public funds; extending the benefits in Clause 10 to the wives and children of soldiers dying six mouths after their discharge; and in Clause 26 there is an alteration in the Act of Parliament with regard to India. I beg leave to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Sandhurst.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Acton and the Lord Playfair to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next. a quarter past Four o'clock.