Lords Sitting of 9 March 1893

Preamble
Earl of Ravensworth—Took the Oath.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [H.L.]—(No. 19.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid, as this Bill had been passed four times in their Lordships' House without Division (though not without discussion) he would not say more on this occasion, than simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

COINAGE (No. 2) BILL—(No. 28.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Kensington.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES BILL. (No. 20.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, if he were moving the Second Reading of this Bill in an assembly of lawyers, it would not be necessary to say anything by way of apology or introduction; but as their Lordships were, perhaps, not familiar with the mysteries of English law, and the nice distinctions which had grown up between real and personal property, he would shortly explain the object of the measure and the grounds on which he recommended it to the House.
  1390
  There was one distinction between real and personal property, singular in its application and in its origin, which their Lordships might not be aware of. A man of full age and competent understanding, not under duress or undue influence, but acting of his own free will, might make a gift of personal estate which he could not afterwards revoke or defeat; that was not quite the case with regard to real estate. If a man competent to deal with his property made a gift or settlement by way of gift of real estate he could not indeed revoke it afterwards— that the law did not allow—he could not recall the gift and take back the property, but he might do what was practically the same thing—he might defeat and destroy the gift to any extent he pleased, if he was not ashamed to do so. In parting with the property he might have acted from the highest, the best, and the purest motives; he might have been impelled by the force and pressure of moral obligations which he could not resist; it might have been a provision for a child, a wife, or a parent, but the law paid no regard to such considerations; the law held that those considerations were not valuable; the conveyance was voluntary, and the persons taking under it were mere volunteers; and the author of a voluntary conveyance who had already parted once with his property for nothing might part with it again if he took care to get something for it, and then he might put the price in his own pocket, and disappoint and laugh at the person to whom he had given the property, and from whom he had taken it away, without any amends or recompense. And what was more extraordinary still, he might deal, by way of sale or mortgage, with a person who knew all the circumstances, and who knew that the property was no longer his, and that person might safely take a conveyance of the property, and keep it. The law would hold that he had done nothing wrong in colluding with the author of the voluntary conveyance to defeat his solemn instrument. That was, perhaps, a startling proposition—that one man might honestly sell what was not his, and keep the price, and another, knowing all the circumstances, might honestly help him to rob the owner—a proposition,

  1391
  he should think, puzzling to a lay mind, and to a legal mind not wholly satisfactory; but it was undoubtedly the law. But how did it come to be the law? It was not drawn from any maxim of the Common Law, nor was it derived from any doctrine of equity (anything more inequitable could not be imagined), nor was it to be found in any Act that was, or ever had been, in the Statute Book; it was Judge-made law, pure and simple. There was, too, this singular feature about it: that whereas as regarded Judge-made law generally we knew who the Judge was that made the law or laid down the principle on which it was founded, all that was known in this case was that some Judge, whose name could not be ascertained, at some time which could not be fixed, had discovered that that was the proper construction and true interpretation of an Act of Parliament now 300 years old, which said nothing of the kind. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth two famous Statutes were passed, one for the protection of creditors and the other for the protection of purchasers. With the former this Bill had nothing to do; it did not affect the rights of creditors, whether enforcible by any process of law or arising in bankruptcy. The Statute referred to in the Bill was the Statute for the Protection of Purchasers, 27 Eliz. cap. 4. Though the language was involved, the meaning of that Statute was clear enough. It dealt only with conveyances "meant and intended by the parties that so make the same to be fraudulent and covenous." and declared all conveyances of land "made for the intent and of purpose to defraud and deceive" such persons as purchased the same lands "to be utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect." In order to show the sort of Acts struck at by the Statute, the 3rd section provided that if anybody had the hardihood to maintain, justify, or defend such conveyances he should forfeit one year's rent of the land so conveyed and suffer imprisonment for six mouths. That was the Act upon which so very singular a construction had been placed. But that construction was not accepted at once. From time to time when cases arose of an honest conveyance followed by a conveyance for value intended to defeat it, some Judges said the first con-
  1392
  veyance was honest, and the second fraudulent, and there were two lines of authorities. Ultimately, in 1807, the question came before Lord Ellenborough in the Queen's Bench, and after going through the authorities, he came to the conclusion that the preponderance of authority was in favour of declaring the first conveyance fraudulent and the second honest. From that time that had been held to be the law. But for all that, Judges had not thought the result satisfactory altogether, and had said that was not the construction which they would themselves have placed upon the Act of Parliament; but they had also said that the law had become so fixed that the legislature alone could interfere with it. For example, Sir William Grant, one of our greatest lawyers, observed in one case—
  "I have great difficulty to persuade myself that the words of this Statute warrant, or that the purpose of it requires, such a construction, for it is not easy to conceive that a purchaser can be defrauded by a settlement of which he has notice before he makes the purchase."
  It should be mentioned that in America, where this Statute had been accepted either tacitly or by direct legislation, the construction placed upon it in this country had not been adopted. There it was held that a voluntary conveyance was good against a subsequent conveyance for value when the purchaser had notice of the earlier deed. Enough had been said to explain the purport of this Bill; and, as an instance of the hardship now inflicted by the law, reference might be made to a case before the Privy Council two or three years ago. A lady, possessed of considerable real property, had married, having an illegitimate son by her intended husband. A settlement was made on the wife for life, on the husband for life, and then on the children of the intended marriage, and a fair and reasonable settlement was made by the same instrument upon the illegitimate child and his issue. Some years afterwards, however, the lady changed her mind, and, in collusion with a purchaser, she defeated the interest of her son's children. That case was brought before the Privy Council because there had been decisions in this country which seemed to show that in a case of that kind a fair and honest settlement would be upheld; but, unfortu-

  1393
  nately, in the result the honest settlement was declared fraudulent, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. All he asked was that their Lordships should restore the real meaning of the Act of Elizabeth, not declaring fraudulent perfectly honest conveyances. It was to be regretted that Judges and, in some instances, even Acts of Parliament, should have created constructive and artificial frauds. Surely the fraud was on the part of those who colluded to defeat an honest and fair settlement. He apologised for having trespassed so far on their Lordships' time, but it seemed a serious thing to ask the House to alter a rule of law which had prevailed so long; and he had, therefore, thought it right to explain the grounds on which he asked them to do so. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I certainly do not intend to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. I quite concur in the view of my noble and learned Friend that a change in the law is desirable and necessary. My attention, however, has been directed quite recently to the question whether the rights of creditors in a case of bankruptcy would be completely secured, and whether they might not be interfered with by this Bill. I express no opinion upon it. The matter has come to my attention so recently that I have not had time to consider it; but I know that some of the heads of Public Departments and those before whom bankruptcy matters come, desire that some little time should be given by my noble and learned Lord before the Committee stage for the consideration of that question. He will agree with me that in dealing with a law which has so long existed, it is necessary to carefully consider the provisions of the Bill in order to be quite sure that the result obtained will not go beyond what he intends.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I personally concur with the views which had been so clearly set forth to your Lordships by my noble and learned Friend in presenting this Bill for your acceptance, but I am quite of the opinion which my noble and learned Friend on
  1394
  the Woolsack has expressed, that some little time should be allowed to elapse before the next stage of the Bill is proceeded with, as I should like to have the opportunity of taking the opinion of the Judges in Ireland as to whether the Bill should deal with the Irish kindred Statute, the 10 Chas. I.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he would be most happy to postpone the further consideration of the Bill for such time as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thought right.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read second time accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF GOODS BILL.—(No. 8.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL.—(No. 21.)
Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
COUNTY MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked if the Return being prepared by the Home Office relative to appointments of County Magistrates in England and Wales would be laid before Parliament; and in what form it would be presented? He said he had put this question on the Paper in consequence of an answer given in another place that the Report would give full particulars of the political opinions of County Magistrates. As it was difficult to see any connection between the business of Petty Sessions and the performance of political duties, he hoped the Lord Chancellor would be able to inform the House that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place County Magistrates on the rack and to extract from them a statement of their political opinions, and how they had voted at the General Election. That would be so improper a course that he hoped the Home Office did not contemplate insisting upon any such questions or particulars.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Returns which the noble Duke refers to were consented to by Her Majesty's Government in the House of

  1395
  Commons upon the motion of two Members, one sitting on the Government side, and the other on the opposite side of that House. They are the continuation of Returns which have already been granted in previous years, and furnish no novel information. They give the addresses, description or profession, qualification, and there is a heading for remarks, which, as far as I have seen, have reference only to the question of residence or non-residence. That is the entire substance of this Return. The other asks for the date of appointment. Those were the only Returns consented to by the Government, and they are in preparation. I do not think this is a convenient time for entering upon the question of the constitution of the County Benches from a political point of view. I quite agree with the noble Duke that a man's politics does not make him more or less fit to exercise the duties of a Magistrate; but, at the same time, I think there are reasons why it would be desirable if it could be avoided that there should not be a great preponderance of one set of opposing political opinions upon the Bench, because it might be supposed that the composition of a Bench of Magistrates of one particular political opinion had some connection with the decisions given. I do not enter into the question of this preponderance, or the reasons which had led to it, inasmuch as the noble Duke has said it is quite immaterial what are the opinions of those who occupy the Bench; but I thought it right to say there is a point of view from which it does become material, and that if you find the political complexion of the Bench is entirely opposed to the general political views prevailing in any particular part of the country or in any particular county, such a state of things has its disadvantages; and I think everybody would agree that is the case whatever may be the preponderating political views of the Magistrates on the Bench or of the people who differ from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rather regret that the noble and learned Lord does not see his way to give us at an early period the explanation at which he is glancing, and which I think is very much required in the present state of public opinion on the subject, from rumours which have been going about. Unless I am greatly misinformed,
  1396
  he noble and learned Lord has undertaken in addition to the task of regulating the conscience of the Crown, which we know is his Constitutional prerogative, to regulate the consciences of all the Lord Lieutenants in the country, and he has been pressing them to do what hitherto the more conscientious, and I hope all, Lord Lieutenants have carefully abstained from doing, that is to make appointments on political grounds, and in the direction of the politics which are favoured by the noble and learned Lord. I should be very glad if the noble and learned Lord would break the silence he has observed and let us know how he is exercising these powers which are certainly novel, and which may obviously lead to great abuse. I am afraid his motives will be very much misunderstood; and I doubt very much whether Lord Lieutenants generally will be ready to accept and to submit to this novel discipline to which he has endeavoured to subject them. I am told there are precedents upon which the noble and learned Lord can act for appointing Magistrates of counties without asking for the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenants; but of course if he does that we must expect to see in the county lists one set of Magistrates in a separate list from another: one set of Magistrates appointed by the Lord Lieutenants on the ground of their general competence for the duties they have to fulfil, and another set of Magistrates appointed on the ground of their political opinions. I cannot think that is a desirable result. Of course we know why the difference has arisen. A certain separation took place in the Party opposite, and many Magistrates who had been known as Liberals became known as Liberal-Unionists instead; and if we choose to add the Liberal-Unionists to the Conservatives I have no doubt that would give a large preponderance on the Benches. I am not speaking of what the result of such a state of things would be. My own impression is that Magistrates have always been too careful to keep their judicial duties and their political views much too separate from each other for such a state of things to arise: and I think the noble and learned Lord might very well let well alone. I do not know by what motives he has been actuated, but I repeat that in the public interest

  1397
  information on this subject is to be desired.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought the noble Marquess might have waited for that information without making this attack upon me upon most imperfect and inaccurate information without any notice to me that such an attack was to be made, because that really is what the noble Marquess has done. I did not come into the House prepared with the materials to go fully into the subject on the present occasion, and I can only say if the noble Marquess represents my action with regard to the Lord Lieutenants as it has been represented to him my action has been misrepresented to him, and very grievously misrepresented. I do not propose to go fully into the matter now, but after what the noble Marquess has said perhaps your Lordships will indulge me for a moment. There is nobody who would be less desirous than I should be to introduce unnecessary politics into appointments to the Magisterial Bench, or any other appointments whatsoever; but whether naturally or unnaturally—I think very naturally— there is grievous irritation and discontent existing in many parts of the country from the belief that the Magistrates have been appointed because they belong to one political Party, whilst persons perfectly fit and competent, not competent merely on account of their politics, but competent to fulfil the duties of Magistrates on the Bench have been passed over because their politics have not been of the description required. I am not going into the question of how far that opinion is just or unjust; I think the grounds for it are not as real as many of those who have entered into this subject believe—I do not myself regard them as so real. But one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that this feeling did exist. The noble Marquess has said that it would be in the power of the Lord Chancellor to put anybody he pleased upon the Bench. That is a question I would rather not discuss at the present time, for one would have to go somewhat elaborately into the matter. There is, no doubt, a question as to the manner in which that power has been ordinarily exercised, but I do not think this is a convenient time for going into that question. But, assuming there was that power in the Lord Chancellor to appoint whom he pleased, I desire to
  1398
  say that I did not in the slightest degree desire to dictate to any Lord Lieutenant the appointment of any person whose name would be brought before him. I transmitted to the Lord Lieutenants in certain cases names which had been suggested to me, where there was a great preponderance of any one political opinion upon the Bench, but I left it to the Lord Lieutenant in every case to inquire into the circumstances, and to ascertain whether they were fit persons, and I never suggested that he should recommend to me any one of them if he thought them unfit; on the contrary, I suggested to him that he should only recommend to me such of them as he thought proper. And as my ground for doing so, I called attention to the state of opinion which prevailed upon the subject, and that in my opinion it was not expedient that people should think the magistrates were only taken from one side, even though that view might not be as just as they supposed. Therefore I asked them to take the matter into their consideration, and to consider the claims of those persons who had been suggested to me as fit persons to perform magisterial duties on the Bench, and I left it to them, if they thought fit, to recommend them to me. In some instances this has been done. I am not going into all the cases, but those were the steps I took. The communications I made to the Lord Lieutenants were made in a friendly spirit, and in every case, from their replies to me, were accepted in that spirit. It was not an official communication, and it was not done with any view of dictating to the Lord Lieutenants the action they should take, but simply inviting them, in concert with the Lord Chamberlain, to say whether the Bench could not be so constituted as to give general satisfaction. All I have to say is that it seems to me in doing that I have done nothing wrong. The noble Marquess has said that the preponderance has only come into existence in consequence of a division in the Liberal Party. That is entirely a misapprehension. If, instead of adding the Liberal Unionists to the Conservatives, you add the Liberal Unionists to the Liberals, that preponderance will be still impossible in almost any county in England, and therefore the question of preponderance does not arise in the way the noble Marquess has suggested. I believe

  1399
  that for the most part the state of things has not arisen from any partisan action on the part of the Lord Lieutenants, and I have never suggested that the Lord Lieutenants have purposely put upon the Bench those who were of their own political views. What has certainly appeared to me to be the case is that in certain counties, at all events, the Lord Lieutenants have too generally accepted nominations of the local Benches, and the local Benches I do not believe to have been in all cases as free from political feeling and political bias as the Lord Lieutenants to whom those recommendations have been made. There has prevailed in many counties a sort of co-optation of the magistrates. But the appointment is after all with the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Lieutenant recommends to him; but if the Lord Lieutenant is to be merely a conduit-pipe through whom the local Benches are to nominate the magistrates, that does not appear to me to be a desirable system, and if that view has been communicated to the Lord Lieutenants by any action I have taken, it appears to me it is a very desirable view to convey to them. As I have said, I did not come prepared to enter into a discussion upon this subject. I believe that persons outside this House who are not subject to the same potent influences as the noble Marquess will believe that in these matters I have acted in a friendly spirit towards the Lord Lieutenants, with the view of bringing about as satisfactory a state of things as could be brought about, and, if possible, of satisfying public opinion without any violent change, and it has not been with the motive, as the noble Marquess has insinuated, of placing magistrates of my own political views upon the Bench, because all the Lord Lieutenants have stated that if they had called upon every person whom I suggested they would have put the party I represent in a minority decidedly small.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKdid not wish to continue the discussion upon the more general question, but would ask the noble and learned Lord whether the House was to understand that the Return would have anything to do in any respect with the politics of the magistrates; that in the column for remarks it was not intended that their politics should be
  1400
  stated, but that it was merely the continuation of the old Return? He hoped there was no political intention whatever in the Return now moved for.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt that is so. As far as I know, the Return will be filled up by the authority to whom it is addressed exactly as in the old way. It contains no new heading or statement of politics. No new subject will be contained in the Return. With regard to the question of the politics of the magistrates, in making the statement I did I, of course, had no Return to go by and it was derived from information sent me by those with whom I communicated, and who were dissatisfied with the constitution of the Bench. I do not suppose it was literally accurate, but all I can say is that it was not from any Return, either in existence or in preparation, that I derived the information I have.

IMMIGRATION INQUIRY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Her Majesty's Government for information as to the nature of the inquiry to be undertaken by the two Commissioners from the Board of Trade recently sent to the United States to examine into immigration in that country; and as to the instructions given to them. He presumed this Board of Trade inquiry had reference to the question of immigration into this country. He had seen a statement that one of the Commissioners was Mr. Burnett, whose name was familiar to the House as Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, than whom it would be impossible to find anyone better qualified to undertake such an inquiry as far as labour was concerned, though possibly in other branches of the subject he might not he so well fitted to act. The other Commissioner, he understood, was Mr. Schloss, whose name probably was not equally so well known, and he wished to be informed whether that gentleman was also in the employ of the Board of Trade, or whether he had been selected for this particular mission on account of some special qualification or fitness? It was difficult to understand what information Her Majesty's Government expected to obtain that was not already accessible in the Reports of various Committees and Commissions,

  1401
  Consular Reports, and other evidence of the kind, and he would ask what the exact Reference of the Commissioners was, and what the nature and scope of the Inquiry was to be. The House and the country regarded the subject as of importance, and it was desirable some information should be given with regard to it.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid the noble Lord had probably seen that a Return had been made in another place of the actual letter of instructions issued to the Commissioners, but, if not, it should of course be placed before the House as an unopposed Return. Possibly the noble Lord merely wished to draw out a short statement of the nature and object of sending out the Commissioners to the United States. A considerable amount of alarm had arisen, shared apparently by the noble Lord, from his remarks in the Draft Report of the Sweating Committee, from the supposed number of destitute aliens who had come to this country in recent years. In the Census of 1891 the total number of foreigners of all kinds in this country, including all possessed of means of their own, or earning a subsistence by trade, was singularly small— under 200,000. This number, however, had not excited alarm; the alarm was due to the increase among the Russian and Polish Jews, who came here in a state of poverty and with habits and customs which were not understood by our people, but their numbers were not so great as some imagined. The average number of Polish and Russian Jews, of Germans and Austrians, who came into the country was nearly 5,000 a year; but the number rose in 1891 to 10,000, though the number in 1892, not yet, however, complete, did not exceed about 7,000. The Board of Trade desired to obtain information from the United States, which had a larger experience, derived from the larger numbers of Russian and Polish Jews entering that country. In 1891 the number of Russian and Polish Jews entering the United States was 100,236,and in 1892 the number was 79,156. As America had tenfold the number of such immigrants that we had, she had tenfold the experience that we had of them. It was therefore desired to find out how these immigrants conducted themselves on their arrival there, and how far they were destitute of the means of living. It was thought that the best way
  1402
  to obtain useful information was to send out Commissioners to make specific inquiries. The existing law…, and proposals which are before Congress, may largely affect the emigration from this country, and the Government desired to know the tendency of feeling in the United States, and what was likely to be its action in the future. There was an influential party, headed by politicians of high repute, including General Walker, one of the highest authorities there, which advocated the total prohibition of immigration into the United States. It was impossible to conceive that that party could succeed in obtaining total prohibition, because a constant stream of immigrants seemed to be essential to the industries of the country. In the New England States one-half the population were immigrants or of foreign birth, and they performed almost all the labour. The immigration into the New England States included 40,000 Canadians annually. The Government desired to know what was likely to be the effect of restrictions upon emigration from this country, and upon emigration from Canada, for these French Canadians already formed one-tenth of the population in the New England States. All the menial labour was performed, and almost all the railways in the United States had been built, by foreigners; nearly all the mines were worked by them; much of the domestic labour was done by them; and he, therefore, could not think the Government there would go so far as total prohibition, which would be very serious to us, as our emigrants to that country numbered 88,000 annually. The United States law already authorised the sending back of immigrants who could not earn their own livelihood, but the numbers so sent back had only been 99 in 1890, 57 in 1891, 170 in 1892. As absolute prohibition or increased restrictive law was likely to have a great influence upon this country, and on Canada especially, it was desirable we should know what had been the restrictions upon foreign immigration, especially that of Russian and Polish Jews, and with regard to-the subject generally. He did not know the official position of Mr. Schloss, but was assured that he was a very competent person to assist in such an inquiry. He was to inquire specially into the laws

  1403
  of the United States and their administration, and Mr. Burnett was to inquire into the economic effect of that portion of the immigration which was of a destitute character from the East of Europe, and from England. The Report was to be ready by July next.
  LORD DE RAMSEYwished to know whether arrangements of last Session were being continued in this country to note the number of immigrants who remained here, and the number who passed through on their way to America; and, also, whether a record is kept of Jews landing in this country, who, we are told, do not come on the rates, they being looked after by the Jewish Boards of Guardians?
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid that these statistics were carefully compiled by Mr. Giffen, and would be found in the last Report on Emigration from the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that complete inquiries of so extensive a character could not be made, and the results embodied in a Report, by July next. In the meantime, as the matter was one of importance to this country, he should take an opportunity of calling attention to it at a future date.

POLICE PROTECTION TO SHERIFFS IX IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether they would lay upon the Table copies of the circulars regulating the giving of police protection to Sheriffs in Ireland in operation (1) on 22nd August 1892, (2) on 1st January 1893, and (3) at the present time? He said that, in the discussions which had taken place in that and in the other House, reference had been made to those circulars, and it had been stated by the Government that when they came into Office in August last they found in existence a circular which violated the law. Mr. J. Morley had replaced that by another circular, which undoubtedly fell into the same error, and in due time that again had been succeeded by another. If the Government had confined their statements to what they had done themselves, and what they believed to be the law, the matter might not have assumed a controversial character, but the line
  1404
  taken was to allege that the late Government had violated the law, he supposed in ignorance, and that during the tenure of Office by Mr. A. J. Balfour, and subsequently, there were 720 instances of police protection to illegal seizures. In answer to questions elsewhere that number had dwindled down to 66. Under those circumstances he wished to have the matter placed in a position for further discussion. He was informed by those competent to judge that the circular of the late Government was not open to the charge made against it, but was, on the contrary, entirely within the law. He wished to know whether there was any further reduction on the figures he had given, and whether the Government had decided to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal?
  THE FIRST LORD OK THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I wish the noble and learned Lord had given me notice of his later questions. I am quite unable to answer them without it. With regard to the other, the Government do not think that the mere production of those three circulars would adequately represent the state of the case in reference to recent Sheriffs' seizures; but they will be very happy to lay on the Table of the House all the circulars referring to this matter which have been issued since 1837. That would enable your Lordships to have fully before you the whole facts of the case, and will, I presume, as the Returns asked for would be included, satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, if the noble Earl would show him the list he would say whether it would answer his purpose. Before modifying the question he was going to put, he had thought it more courteous to ask the Government to voluntarily lay on the Table the three circulars themselves, and instead of doing so, the noble Earl told him he might have a bundle of circulars stretching over half a century; but he would state from the list, if furnished, what would answer his purpose.

LUNACY INSPECTORS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Lunacy Inspectors in Ireland had as yet presented their Report for the year 1892

  1405
  to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, if not, to explain what was the cause of such a long delay. He said the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, under the Queen's Sign Manual, was entrusted with the care, custody, and control of the persons and property of idiots and lunatics in Ireland, and under a variety of Statutes was directly charged with the oversight of property and persons of lunatics in private asylums. Pursuant to statutory requirements the Lunacy Inspectors were bound to furnish the Lord Chancellor in Ireland annually with Reports in reference to such lunatics, and he wished to know whether that requirement had been complied with for 1892, and, if not, the cause of so long a delay. Before leaving Office he received, in June or July, the Report for the previous year, and he understood the Reports would be made with more celerity to meet the dates fixed by Statute. This was not a controversial matter. He was sure the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was as anxious to carry out the duties cast upon him in this melancholy relationship.
  EARL SPENCER: As the noble and learned Lord has said, this is not a controversial matter. Inquiries are being made as to the cause of the delay. I am informed that the Inspectors' Report for 1891 was only presented to the Lord Chancellor in 1893, and that the difficulty arose through a strike of printers. We will inquire further into the matter. Of course the Government are anxious to carry out the provisions of the law with regard to these Returns.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had insisted upon this matter when Lord Chancellor, and as the delay had been so great he would ask the question again on Thursday.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
  Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 27th of February last on the subject of Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session, as desired by this House.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed. (No. 29.)
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock.