Sitting of 26 June 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Wolverhampton, v. Sir Richard Bethell, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Book Unions.
2° Church Endowment Act Amendment.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE,
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th. May],
  "That the Bill be now read a second time;' and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to remind the House that the Bill was only a reproduction of a measure, the principle of which had been previously approved by a Select Committee, and received the sanction of the House in the previous Session. The law on the subject as it stood was not satisfactory. The provision for arbitration in the statute of 1824 was of a very complex character, and did not sufficiently facilitate the operation. The main difference between the Bill and the statute was that the latter did not permit the arbitrator to be named until a dispute had actually arisen, while the former proposed that the arbitrator should be appointed beforehand, while all parties were in concord and good temper. The Court of Arbitration was to be established on the voluntary principle, and to receive the sanction of one of the Ministers of the Crown. Some parts of the Bill which had been most objected to were, in point of fact, taken literatim from the existing Act. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, for instance, opposed the provision for establishing a rate of wages, which it happened was borrowed from the statute.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he believed the Solicitor General expressly pointed out that fact.
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that groundless apprehensions were also entertained that the Bill would create a charge on the Consolidated Fund. It was, however, specially provided in Clause 16, that the expanses of the Courts were to be paid
  1614
  by fees from the parties who made use of them. That was in strict analogy with the present statute, by which certain fees were fixed by the justice who served as arbitrator, and charged upon the parties who appealed to him. The Bill was framed at the suggestion of large bodies of working people as the best mode of getting rid of the difficulties of the present system, and of establishing a tribunal easy of access and simple in operation for the arrangement of disputes. The measure was not intended to settle strikes, but he believed it would tend greatly to prevent them, as it would promote a more friendly spirit between masters and workmen, and afford an opportunity of conciliation before any open controversy broke out. He could have understood the opposition to the Bill if it had come from those who were generally opposed to the claims of the working classes, but he could not understand its proceeding from hon. Gentlemen who were loud in their assertions that the great need of the workman was liberty to vote for Members of Parliament and a larger share of political power, because he knew no better training for the exercise of that power which could be given to working men than by means of such a Bill as this, allowing them to manage their own affairs, and to see how difficult a matter government was.
  MR. G. HARDYsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would persist in his Motion for the rejection of the Bill, because he was anxious that the working men should be allowed to manage their own affairs without the intervention of Parliament by means of a most ineffectual measure. The decisions of the Councils to be appointed under the Bill would only bind those who had become parties to the appointment of the Councils, and would have no power over those who were beyond that line. For that reason the measure would be perfectly useless. Parties were now at perfect liberty to appoint arbitrators and refer their differences to them for settlement. [Mr. AYRTON: Not to establish a Court.] They could have arbitrators; and it was because he did not want to establish a Court of Arbitration, which would be ineffectual, that he thought it would be desirable to reject the Bill at once. The machinery of the Bill would by no means effect the object to which it was intended to be directed. There was to be a registry of voters by whom the Councils were to be elected, and who would be the persons who would be

  1615
  bound by their decisions. But workmen were so continually changing their places of employment that it would be impossible to keep those lists correctly, and new workmen would come in who would not be on the registry, and, therefore, not bound to accept the decisions of the Council; and even if the list were accurate, an employer might at any time practically set aside a decision of the Council by discharging from his service all the men whose names were upon this list, and employing only those who were not inscribed thereon. He yielded to no one in his desire to improve and elevate the condition of the working classes, but he declined to vote for a measure which would only fill them with delusive hopes; and he thought that the workmen would be consulting their own interests far more if they relied upon the general principles which regulated the payment of wages for labour, and placed that reasonable confidence in the masters which, in the main, he believed they were entitled to.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, that the principle of the measure had already been sanctioned by existing Acts of Parliament. Those Acts had proved entirely ineffectual, and hence the necessity for this Bill. It was, he thought, exceedingly desirable that before evil blood arose between the masters and men, a few cool, deliberate, and sensible men should have the points in dispute submitted to them, so as to see if their differences could not be settled. He admitted that a greater spirit of conciliation existed now than formerly, but he thought the adoption of some such measure as this was absolutely necessary, especially when they considered the prospect of a short supply of cotton in the winter. He hoped, therefore, that the House would repeat its sanction of the principle by reading the Bill a second time, and he had no doubt that his hon. friend who had charge of it would be ready to consider any objections which might be urged against its details when the House went into Committee. What would be thought by the intelligent and improving population of our large towns if the House summarily rejected the principle of conciliation? The hon. Gentleman bad said that there would be a great fluctuation in the lists of voters, but he seemed to have overlooked the circumstance that the Bill required a residence of six months before a workman could become an elector of these tribunals.
  MR. MACKINNONsaid, that the Bill having last year passed that House unani-
  1616
  mously, and been read a second time in the House of Lords, it would be stultifying the House to throw it out upon the second reading. It would be like saying that the House having in 1860 voted that white was white, it was in 1861 to vote that it was black. The Bill was referred to a Committee upstairs, upon which there were five hon. Members who were large employers of labour—namely, the present Lord Mayor of London (Alderman Cubitt), the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto), the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir J. Paxton). and the hon. Member for Old-ham (Mr. Fox), and that Committee came unanimously to the following Report:—
  "From the evidence taken before them, in which both masters and operatives were examined, and also, after referring to the evidence taken before the Committee appointed in 1856, your Committee have come to the unanimous opinion, that the voluntary formation of equitable Councils of Conciliation would tend to promote a more friendly understanding between the employers and employed, to soften any irritation that might arise, and in most cases to prevent the growth of such a spirit of antagonism as too often leads to a strike. Your Committee concur in the opinion expressed in the Report of 1856, that 'From the evidence before them they cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the formation of Courts of Conciliation in the country, more especially in manufacturing, commercial, and mining districts, would be beneficial; that by these means both the masters and operatives would be enabled each from their own class or calling to appoint referees, an equal number by each party, having the power to elect a chairman.' Your Committee have considered the Bill which has been referred to them by the House, and are unanimously of opinion, that if the Bill passes into a law it will promote the welfare and good understanding between masters and operatives, and be advantageous to the country. Your Committee, in conclusion, add, that there is nothing in the Bill that gives power to any Council to regulate the rate of wages in any prospective manner whatever."
  After such a Report it surely was not enough for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say, Sic volo, sic jubeo, est pro ratione voluntas, and, without stating a single argument against the principle of the Bill, to ask the House to reject it on the second reading. The hon. and learned Solicitor General showed by his speech against the Bill that he did not understand the question. He had opposed the measure on the ground that the existing Act, the 4 Geo. IV., c. 96, was sufficient; but he seemed to have forgotten, or to have been ignorant, that, owing to the objection of the operatives to the appointment of the arbitrators by the magis-

  1617
  trates, that Act was perfectly inoperative. The object of the Bill was to soften the feeling between masters and operatives, and so prevent strikes. He was recently informed by a well-informed workman that some workmen opposed the Bill because it would prevent strikes. He asked him how, and the reply was, o' If five of our men meet five masters and agree to anything they will come among us and' spread such division, that it will be impossible to have a strike." Under these circumstances he hoped that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main. Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. SPEAKER do leave the Chair,"
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that he had made various alterations in the Bill, in accordance with what he understood to be the wish of the House on the second reading. He had given the controlling power to the Land Drainage Commissioners, and he had decreased the amount to be charged upon the estate in respect to each cottage to £120, which it appeared to him would be sufficient.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the proposal that the Preamble be postponed,
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was unwilling to oppose the progress of the Bill, but he wished to call attention to the fact that there were already several private companies which were entitled by Act of Parliament to make advances for the purpose provided for by the Bill. There was also in existence an Act, 12 & 13 Vict., c. 100, which was well considered, and which enabled private individuals to make advances for the drainage of land under the sanction of the Enclosure Commissioners. He thought if that Act had been extended to labourers' cottages it would have effected all that was required.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Notice of intended application to be given),
  MR. HENLEYsaid, there were other
  1618
  persons besides encumbrancers who might be interested in estates, and he should move the insertion of words requiring that special notice should be given to every person interested in an entail or settlement.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had no objection to the notice being given, but hardly saw how it was to be accomplished when the parties might be in America, Australia, or other distant parts of the world.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think it fair that a landlord who had been unwilling to spend his money on the improvement of cottages on his estate should have the power after his death of charging his successors. It reminded him of the course pursued by persons who used to be called "generous churchwardens."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the provisions of the public Act with regard to advances were incorporated in the private measure. Persons having a charge upon an estate in the end were thereby empowered to signify their dissent within two months, and in case they did so the certificate of the Commissioners was not to issue.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not want to carry his objection to the extent of stopping improvements. He was only anxious that some proper notice should be given.
  MR. G. HARDYsaid, he thought the object in view would be best accomplished by the insertion of these words—"And notices shall be given to mortgagees and all parties interested, in such form and mode as the Commissioners shall require."
  Words added.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Application to Inclosure Commissioners by Landowner intending to build, &c., Cottage),
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought a question might arise, how far the powers given to remove existing buildings were to be construed so as to protect the owner of the reversion against the consequences of waste. The power in the clause seemed to be unlimited; but it would be a very great sweep of legal alteration if a proprietor were allowed to pull down all the buildings on his estate, to drive out the population, and to lay down all the land in grass. He thought that the words "add to, on-large, or otherwise improve," ought to be struck out of the clause.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he felt some difficulty with regard to the

  1619
  words "enlarge or otherwise improve." If the operation of the clause were not confined to building or rebuilding, it might be Extended in practice so as to include ornamental works, with the expense of which it could never have been intended that the remainder man should be saddled.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKexplained that the intention was to give the power of surrounding dwellings with the comforts and decencies of life, such as drainage, &c., without which building operations would be comparatively of little value. He would not object to the omission of the words "enlarging or otherwise improving," but he trusted they would allow him to retain the words, "add to."
  MR. SLANEYsaid, it was often desirable to add a sleeping room to a cottage which did not need alteration in any other respect.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked that additions such as those contemplated might be conducive to the health and morality of the inmates, but he did not think the charges which they would entail ought fairly to be placed upon the inheritance.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he hoped the words would be retained. The great object of the Bill was to enable landlords to improve the present class of cottages.
  MR. EVANSsaid, the question was not confined to a single cottage. It often happened that several were built at the same time, and were deficient in the same points. The enlargement or improvement of all Blight be a serious matter, where in the individual instance the cost would be trifling.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he altogether objected to the retention of the words alluded to. The object of the Bill was to facilitate further improvements in the building of cottages, both for the sake of the labourer and the landowner; but it ought not to be allowed to shift from the tenant in possession to the tenant in tail the duty of making small improvements. His experience of cottage-building—a subject in which he took much interest—led him to believe that the retention of those words would do great mischief, as they would tempt landlords to make additions to bad cottages, which ought rather to be pulled down and rebuilt. As he was not in favour of giving facilities for tinkering up bad cottages, he would suggest that the words "add to" be struck out of the clause. The same objection applied to the power' to "enlarge and improve" cottages,
  1620
  the words being of such an extensive character, as to include making drains, putting down a wooden floor, or almost any improvement which could be conceived.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had last spoken that the enlargement of a cottage might not be a permanent improvement. In the north of England the stone cottages, which were very substantially built, frequently had a storey added to them. He thought it would be better to retain the words.
  SIR CHARLES BURRELLreferred to the improvement which was capable of being effected by putting down plugs, so as to make one well answer for four or five cottages.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the maximum amount to be spent on any cottage was fixed at £120, and it consequently became necessary to specify the minimum amount. But the cost of some of those enlargements and additions would be absurdly small, and, therefore, it would be better to exclude them from the Bill.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he also objected to the words, which might tempt landlords to incur foolish expenses. His experience of cottages was that the walls were usually proportioned to their height, and would not be capable of bearing up an additional storey.
  In reply to the CHAIRMAN,
  MR. WALTERsaid, it was not his intention to press the Amendment which he had proposed.
  The words "add to" were accordingly retained. The words "enlarge or improve" were struck out.
  MR. HENLEYcontended that the "particulars" of the intended improvements required to be furnished to the Commissioners were not sufficiently explicit, and suggested that the words "plans and specifications" should be added.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had no objection to the proposed alteration, but he by no means anticipated that the Commissioners would be satisfied with any plans and specifications which might be forwarded to them.
  Words were accordingly added.
  MR. G. HARDYproposed, in lines 26 and 27, to insert these words—"and the Commissioners may require the removal of existing buildings and dwellings, if they consider such removal necessary for purposes of the proposed improvements."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIShad considerable doubt whether it would not be better to leave out the words with respect to the removal of cottages. It was possible that cottages might be cleared away and no new ones built.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that it would be well to strike out the words at the end of the clause, which would give owners a power of applying for liberty to demolish cottages, without making them undertake to build others in their place. He did not think the Committee wanted to give a power to demolish cottages. What they wanted was to have them enlarged and improved. He did not believe there was any occasion to give power to pull down cottages, for they came down fast enough. The words "unfit for human habitation," which were proposed to be used in the clause, were very wide, and he was afraid that it would not be difficult to find a great number of houses which might come within such a description. It would be a wrong step in the way of improvement to pull down cottages and allow the occupants to find lodgings in the hedge-sides.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that his object was to enable the Commissioners to sanction the removal of cottages which were unfit for human habitation, in order that better habitations might be erected in their stead. As amended in the manner which he proposed to amend it, the latter part of the clause would stand thus—
  "And the Commissioners may require from time to time existing dwellings to be removed if they shall consider such dwellings to be unfit for human habitation, or from any other cause likely to be injurious to life, and shall not sanction the erection of any greater number of dwellings than they shall consider sufficient for the accommodation of the labourers required for the proper cultivation of the estate."
  SIR JERVOISEJERVOISE thought the words would delegate a very odious task to the Commissioners.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that persons might get a professional order to pull down cottages without building hew ones. The power of removal should not be given at all unless on the condition that the whole of the improvements were carried out.
  MR. G. HARDYsaid, he considered the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) to be a serious one, and he would suggest that it would be better for his hon. Friend who had change of the Bill to strike out the last part of the clause, and bring up a well-considered clause to Effect the object which he proposed.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Inclosure Commissioners to grant Charging Order to Landowner who has obtained Provisional Order),
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to its retrospective or rather retroactive provisions. It provided that where a landlord, not having obtained a provisional order sanctioning a proposed cottage improvement, but having built or rebuilt, added to, enlarged, or otherwise improved any cottage on the land of which he was landowner, desired that the inheritance of the lands proposed to be charged should be charged with the expense of making the improvement, he might, within two years after the completion of the cottage improvement, apply to the Commissioners for a charging order under this Act in respect thereof. Rather than that such a power should be given he would move that the clause be omitted.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not think it was desirable that there should be any retrospective legislation contained in the Bill. One security seemed to him most essential if they passed the measure, and that was that the Commissioners should have the power to see the work was properly executed during its progress. The clause did not provide that security, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he believed that the omission of the clause would go far to render the Bill inoperative. Gentlemen had a great objection to attend at public offices for the purpose of complying with preliminaries in cases where the object to be achieved was a small one. The inheritance would be sufficiently protected by the power of inspection.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he was of opinion that, if the clause passed, several other provisions of the Bill would be useless, for no one would take the trouble of going through the preliminaries which those other clauses provided.
  Clause struck out; as were also Clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19.
  Clause 20 (Limit of Amount to be Charged),
  LORD HENLEYsaid, that there was a limitation as to the outside sum to be laid out on any one cottage. There might also be a limitation as to the smallest amount to be so expended. He would move that the sum should be "not exceeding £120, or less than £80."
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKobjected to the Amendment, and thought they might safely leave these matters of detail to the Commissioners.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the maximum of £120 would in many cases be inadequate, and suggested that it should be £150.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought £120 had better be retained just as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that such an Amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) would render the Bill inoperative, because an agricultural labourer would not be able to pay a rent equivalent to the interest on so large an outlay.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that a good cottage could be constructed for £100.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYbelieved that a roomy and even handsome cottage might be erected for £95.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Commissioners were to judge to what extent the inheritance of the lands to be charged would be durably benefited by the erection of cottages. He asked how the Commissioners would be able to judge of the pecuniary benefit conferred upon an estate by the erection of such cottages? He questioned whether any direct pecuniary benefit would accrue from their erection.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he wished to explain with reference to the introduction of the words as to an estate being pecuniarily benefited, that they had been introduced on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). If the erection of cottages did not directly benefit an estate it did so indirectly, by improving the condition of the people, morally and physically. It was well known that the cottages built by the late Duke of Bedford at Tavistock had such a result. That was the first experiment made in the country on the subject, and since then the question of labourers' cottages had gradually forced itself on the attention of the community.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the point had been already settled in Clause 10, where an applicant for building was to state to the Commissioners what the estimated increase of the value of the lands was to be. If it was not stated that the lands would be improved, the Commissioners would not grant the application,
  1624
  and, therefore, there was no necessity for the words proposed in Clause 20.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the restriction quite necessary, or otherwise there might be a great charge put upon an estate without any benefit whatever. Clause 10 only laid down what information the applicant was to give to the Commissioners, but that did not render the restriction in Clause 20 unnecessary.
  LORD LOVAINEdid not see by what standard the pecuniary benefit could be judged.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he would move the omission of the latter part of the clause after the words £120.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEthought it very necessary to make it incumbent that benefit arising from the building of the cottages should be shown.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the clause involved the chief difficulty in the Bill. The principle of the Drainage Act and other Acts of a similar nature was that the pecuniary benefit should be derived by the estate; and that meant benefit to the reversioner as well as the tenant for life. Every one knew that the building of labourers' cottages did not improve the rent of an estate, although it might be indirectly beneficial to an estate, by supplying more labour or improving its quality; but it was necessary to have some tangible standard which a court of equity would recognize; and it was impossible to resort to any better one than the standard of increase to the rental. He, therefore, thought that the words at the end of the clause should remain.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the Bill for the first time enabled a tenant in fee simple to make a charge on the land which would have priority over other encumbrances. If the power were given without the guard of pecuniary benefit, the Bill would be inoperative.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, if it were the wish of the Committee he would retain the words at the end of the clause, though he thought they would be detrimental to the usefulness of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

JERSEY COURT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for second reading read.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. On

  1625
  moving for leave to bring in the Bill he had stated the objects of the Bill, and the necessity for amending the constitution, practice, and procedure of the Court of the island of Jersey. It would not, therefore, be necessary to detain the House at any great length. For a long period of time great complaints had been made about the delays in the law in Jersey, and three Secretaries of State had granted commissions to inquire into the state of the law and the mode in which it was administered. It was conceded on all hands that nothing could be worse than the administration of the law by the Royal Court of Jersey. That Court was composed of a bailiff who was appointed by the Crown, and paid partly by salary and partly by fees; and of twelve jurats, who were representatives of the several parishes in the island, and elected for life. These jurats not only acted as judges, but sat in the states and made laws for the island. In point of fact, they usurped the whole duties of the Royal Court, because the bailiff never delivered judgment except when the jurats were equally divided, and then he gave a casting vote. The attendance of the jurats was not compulsory, and they attended as they pleased. The consequence was that as all civil cases were Adjourned, and as the Court at each adjournment must be constituted as at the first hearing, endless and vexatious delay took place before a case was finally decided. In 1846, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the criminal, as well as the civil laws. The Commissioners reported that the jurats seldom received any legal education, and that the Court, as now constituted, was unfit to administer the law. But the incapacity of the tribunal did not constitute the greatest objection to it. The Commissioners said party feeling found its way into the Court, and that the jurats sometimes had a personal interest in the cases which came before them; and that the result was that the tribunal did not possess the confidence of the inhabitants of Jersey. It was proposed by that Commission that there should be three paid Judges, and that the jurats should cease to exercise their functions in the court. That was in 1846, but nothing having been done to carry out that recommendation, another Commission was appointed by Her Majesty on the address of the House in 1859, to inquire into the municipal laws of the island. That inquiry was conducted by three very able gentlemen, who went into the whole of the laws
  1626
  of the island, and in a very ample and able Report impeached the administration of the laws, and showed, from the evidence even of the jurats themselves, that whatever may have been in ancient times the fitness of the tribunal for its purposes under a wholly different state of society, the island had outgrown its system of judicature, which must be either abolished or reformed. The modes of procedure were simple, but the intolerable delays and vexations were the natural result of having a Judge who was powerless, the actual arbiters numerous, and without legal knowledge, and punctuality precarious. Under these circumstances he, at the commencement of the Session, inquired if the Government intended to bring in a measure on the subject, and finding that they did not he had introduced the present Bill, which was confined to the amendment of the constitution of the Courts and their procedure; and the abolition of arrest on mesne process. It would leave the jurats as they were at present, members of the States, elected in the same way as hitherto. It would not interfere with their election or with their legislative power; but they would cease to administer the law in the Royal Court, and in their stead would he appointed three Judges as proposed by the Commission of 1853. The only difference was that the Commissioners proposed that the Judges should be elected, while his Bill proposed that they should be nominated by the Crown, as the bailiff was under the present system. One cause of the existing evils was the fact that the jurats, being elected, were mixed up with parties and obliged to take part in political matters, which sometimes related to the proceedings going on in the Court. The Bill would also abolish imprisonment for debt, except upon affidavit. Under the present system of arrest on mesne process, a creditor could obtain, on payment of 1s., a writ for the apprehension of the debtor. These documents were signed by the score. To illustrate the existing state of the law he might mention a single case. In 1857 an English gentleman, Mr. Dodd, was apprehended in Jersey, on mesne process for an alleged debt arising out of certain transactions relating to a trust fund in England, and in consequence of the English law relating to trusts not being understood in Jersey, the case was adjourned from time to time, referred to the greffier, decided in favour of the defendant by a Court consisting of a bailiff and two jurats, and then referred to the full Court on an appeal.

  1627
  All the time the alleged debtor was in prison, and had no means of recovering his liberty, unless he had chosen to pay a sum of £300, which he really did not owe. While he was awaiting the result of the appeal, the creditor, who, according to the law of Jersey, had to pay 5s. a week for the maintenance of the defendant in prison, failed to keep up the payment, whereupon (he defendant recovered his liberty in November, 1859, having been incarcerated since January, 1857. The appeal then came on, when the Royal Court decided that he ought never to have been arrested, and that the Jersey Courts had no jurisdiction in his case. Cases of that description could not occur if the proposal of abolishing mesne process without an affidavit was adopted. He might also refer to a case in which a gentleman, seeking to eject from certain property a person who had illegally taken possession of it, was told that he must join with himself in the action all those who had common rights over any portion of the property, and they numbered 800, and were most of them unknown to him; that was impossible, and he was obliged to abandon the cause. He might be met by an opposition emanating from the jurats themselves, setting forth that it would be a grievance if the Imperial Parliament should interfere with the affairs of the island. This representation was not entitled to much weight, because those who signed it had not then seen the measure. His Bill did not propose to tax the island, as the salaries of the Judges would be paid out of the Fee Fund and other sources. He should not have brought forward this Bill if he had not felt convinced that the States had determined not to apply any remedy, Indeed, from the very nature of the case, the reform could not be expected to proceed from the States, because the jurats took the most active and influential part In the proceedings of the States. As to the right of Parliament to legislate for the island, there could be no doubt legislation for Jersey had been going on from all time, and a great number of statutes applicable to the Channel Islands had been passed by Parliament. The question was whether there was not a necessity for the interference of the Legislature in the present ease? In his opinion the reform was urgently called for, for the sake not only of the people of Jersey, but of Englishmen who went to reside there, and were injuriously affected by the maladministration of the law and as there was no hope that
  1628
  the local legislature Would do it, Parliament was bound to take it up. But if Her Majesty's Government had any desire to take the matter in their own hands, and thought that it ought not to be carried out by a private Member, he should with great pleasure give way to them. He was not anxious to force the matter, if he could be assured that the matter would be carried out by those who had a better opportunity of doing it successfully.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he regretted that it was not in his power to vote for the second reading. He did not object to the hon. and learned Member having an opportunity of explaining the manner in which the Bill proposed to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, but it did not seem desirable that Parliament should interfere by its legislation in the internal affairs of Jersey, and by an Act of Parliament make a constitutional change in that island except in case of necessity. As the Report of the Commissioners was only brought under the notice of the States of Jersey early in the present year, it did not appear that such a delay bad occurred as would justify Parliament in resorting to that extreme measure, No reasonable doubt could exist as to the power of Parliament to legislate for the Channel Islands. The inhabitants of those islands were the subjects of Her Majesty, and he conceived that the universal constitutional rule was that to all subjects of the British Crown, wherever they were in a community as subjects of the British Crown, the supreme power of Parliament extended. That constitutional 'doctrine, however, appeared not to be admitted universally by the inhabitants of Jersey, by whom it was very generally held that laws affecting the constitution of the island could only be made by the States and the Crown, and that Jersey stood to the Crown of England land in the same constitutional relation as Scotland before the Union and as Hanover the while belonging to Kings of England, He did not subscribe to that doctrine, for he entertained no doubt of the abstract power of Parliament to legislate for the Channel Islands, but, at the same time, he admitted that it was not the practice of Parliament to introduce by its own legislation constitutional changes in those islands. The practice was when Parliament pasted ge-

  1629
  eral statutes affecting the United Kingdom of England, which in their terms included Jersey, that those statutes were directed by Order in Council to be registered in the Royal Court, and then obtained the force of law. Under these circumstances he confessed that he thought it would not be discreet to read the present Bill a second time. The inhabitants of Jersey were a loyal and well-affected community. Their geographical position and their language would rather connect them with France that with the United Kingdom; but, nevertheless, they were firmly attached to their ancient institutions; and though hon. Gentlemen, if they tried those institutions by an ideal standard or by an analogy with English law, might be disposed to condemn them, yet the people of the island, having inherited them from their forefathers, and not finding anything in their working to which they materially objected, viewed them in a different light. In the absence, then, of any strong dissatisfaction among the inhabitants of Jersey he did not think it prudent for Parliament to interfere, and he should, therefore, move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ROLTsaid, he questioned whether the British Parliament was authorized to legislate for Jersey. He was by no means sure that the people of Jersey were subjects of the Crown of Great Britain as the Sovereign of Great Britain. His recollection of their history was that they formed part of the Dukedom of Normandy. A large portion of that dukedom revolted from the duke, leaving him nothing but the sovereignty of a few places of which these islands formed part. If that was so, then Jersey was only subject to the Kings of Great Britain in their capacity as the Dukes of Normandy. Might Was often represented to be right, and he did not say that at some time it would not, perhaps, be necessary to act on that doctrine, but it was a very serious matter, and the question arose whether, in legislating in the way proposed, they were not asserting the right of conquerors, although Jersey was not a conquered country? As the Government suggested that the second reading of the Bill should not be proceeded
  1630
  with, he would not enter into the question further, but whenever the matter was again brought forward he hoped some attempt) would be made to show in what way the subjects of the Dukes of Normandy became subjects of the Sovereign of Great Britain. He hoped it would not be inferred that he thought the laws of Jersey to be in a perfect condition, but the constitutional authority ought to alter them, and if it failed to do so, then, if it was thought right that Jersey should be annexed to Great Britain, such a step ought to be taken openly, and after the greatest consideration.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was startled at the position assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman that Parliament had no authority or right whatever to deal with the Channel Islands, or to legislate for them. At the revolution of 1688 the Channel Islands followed the. Act of Settlement, and that was as great an interference as could be exercised under any Act of Parliament. He rather thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman pitched the claims of the inhabitants of the Channel Islands higher than they were disposed to do themselves. The right of Parliament, however, ought to be exercised with the greatest caution and discretion, and the best way of securing a change being effected by the ordinary legislative authority of the Channel Islands was to hold out the prospect of the interference of Parliament, if a strong case of necessity for such interference were established.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Rolt) only stated that there was great doubt as to the authority of Parliament to deal with the Channel Islands, but did not give, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, any positive opinion that Parliament had no such power. In any opinion of that sort he, certainly, for one could not have agreed for he believed that it would be found that Parliament had aright to interfere, though probably in a different mode from that now proposed, and by address to the Crown to call for the exercise of the prerogative by means of Orders in Council. There were two classes of people in the Channel Islands—the representatives of the old inhabitants and Englishmen who had gone to reside there, and who took a different view of the customs and institutions of the islands from that entertained by the older

  1631
  inhabitants. That was an additional reason for proceeding with great caution. He thought it desirable not to go on with the present Bill. The best way was to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown, and in the meantime the inhabitants of Jersey would have the opportunity of considering the admirable Report of the Commissioners.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, the right of this House to legislate for the Channel Islands had been so often admitted that an objection to it then was matter of surprise. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department asserted the right when this Bill was first introduced, and he had that day re-asserted the same opinion. The right hon. Member for Wilts, when he held the same office, two years ago, after full deliberation, and with the advice and approbation of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, expressed in this House, had satisfied himself that the House had the right to legislate in the matter, and he advised a Royal Commission to be issued to inquire into the laws of Jersey in civil matters, with a view to reform, them. In 1846 the right hon. the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then Home Secretary, had advised to be issued a Royal Commission of Inquiry in matters of criminal law in Jersey. Three Governments of different political parties and principles, supported by both sides of the House, had asserted the right to legislate for Jersey. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1846 had sent a letter to Guernsey, expressing an intention to legislate for the Islands. [Sir GEORGE GREY: I did not give an opinion as to the right of Parliament to legislate.] He regretted he did not bring a copy of the letter with him, but he had not been aware of any distinction. No doubt he (Mr. Hadfield) was wrong. Why issue, at great expense to this country, two Commissions of Inquiry if there had been a doubt as to the right to redress existing grievances when ascertained? By this Bill it was intended to reform the Royal Court, and little more. It was impossible to begin the work of reform more mildly. It would assist in future improvement by establishing a sound process of administering justice; and it would constitute a fulcrum on which to proceed with safety in future measures. It imposed no new tax on the people, and that would delight every Jersey-man who loved our laws but disliked our taxes. It made
  1632
  no new laws, except to regulate and control the present law of arrest, which rendered it unsafe for an English trader to visit Jersey. So late as last week an advocate (M. Gibaut) said, in open court—
  "If this system of arrest were continued it would be dangerous for English creditors to come over to Jersey and visit their debtors, if they could be put in jail on ex-parte statements."
  He asserted that that
  "Case was another illustration of a debtor arresting his creditor, because the former wished the latter to give up his goods without receiving cash."
  "No doubt it was a very ingenious way of getting goods and staving off the payment."
  Was this a proper way of treating Her Majesty's subjects in any part of Her Majesty's dominions or dependencies? The statements of grievances arising from this state of things were so numerous that he had despaired of being able to condense the recital of them so as to present them in an acceptable form to the House. Generally, they were admitted, and, therefore, the time had arrived to take some action. After the lapse of fifteen years, he contended, there had been deliberation enough. One or other of two courses was now before the House—either to read the Bill a second time, and thus assert the right of Parliament to legislate, or to let the Government undertake the business for the future, for the benefit of everybody. He insisted the Bill, when passed, would, under any circumstances, be useful, and he was assured it was approved by many of the inhabitants of Jersey as the foundation for future improvement. He cordially supported it, and was confident the late inquiries and reports would entitle the right hon. Members who had been the promoters of them to the thanks of the people of Jersey. He would divide with the learned Serjeant if he went to a division, and hoped he would do so, unless the Government would take in hand the future conduct of the needful legal reforms in the island.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTobserved, that if there should be a division he should vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He did not share in the opinion that Parliament was not competent to deal legislatively with Jersey, but such an opinion being held by hon. Gentlemen holding a high legal position, and whose judgment, therefore, was entitled to respect, formed a reason why Parliament should proceed in the matter

  1633
  with great reserve. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had done good by bringing the matter under consideration. The Bill represented very fairly the opinion of the Commissioners as expressed in their very able Report, and the inhabitants of Jersey would understand that a great number of the Members of that House conceived that the laws and constitution of their island required entire remodelling. Unless they effected the necessary reforms themselves, he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman or the Government would in a future year introduce some measure for reforming the laws of Jersey, and making them more in accordance with personal liberty and fair justice between man and man.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTT, in reply, said, the doctrines started by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire had very much surprised him. There could be no doubt that Parliament had a right to interfere in improving the proceedings of the states of the island, and if he could believe the question at issue was in training for ultimate settlement he should not object to the postponement which had been suggested. He trusted, however, that if no reform took place between that and the next Session in the direction to which the Bill pointed he should be afforded an opportunity of again bringing the subject before the House.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

VOTES FOR DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BUTTsaid, he would move the Second Reading of the Bill. It was in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee and the views of the law officers. It provided that a vote given in good faith for a candidate, who had been guilty of bribery, should not be held to have been thrown away, so that under its operation a candidate who had not really obtained a majority of votes in his favour could not be held to be entitled to a seat in that House.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the right bon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would give his opinion upon the Bill before it passed through another stage. The questions which it proposed to settle were nu-
1634
merous, and had very much perplexed election Committees, and the consequence was that conflicting decisions had been arrived at. If voters were to be disqualified there would be a great inducement to petition against the return of Members. He hoped there would be a distinct declaration as to how the law now stood. If read a second time the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and it ought to be considered in reference to the question of bribery.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed that those most conversant with election law would admit that the rule generally acted upon was that the disqualification to be fatal must be a disqualification founded upon the fact that the public had knowledge that the candidate had been guilty of bribery. As, however, there appeared to be some uncertainty in the law with respect to the validity of these votes, he thought it would be well if the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill. He was, however, of opinion, that its operation should be limited to cases in which the voter could be proved to have willingly and knowingly given his vote in favour of a disqualified candidate.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he thought if they meant to put down bribery they should make the exercise of it as dangerous as possible. The law ought to be clearly and distinctly declared, as at present the decisions in the books of election Committees were strongly opposed to one another.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was opposed to the present course of proceeding. If they desired to put down bribery, the man who bribed should lose his seat, and the man who did not should have it. That measure was piecemeal legislation, anticipating the other Bill which was before the House, and it ought to be dealt with at once and postponed for a fortnight. He should move an Amendment to that effect.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill introduced by him did not contain any clause on the subject, which he thought it was desirable to have settled. He thought the principle of the Bill was right, and, therefore, he was in favour of reading the Bill a second time. All the objections could be satisfactorily disposed of in Committee.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he objected to the Bill. The 3rd Clause would exempt candidates from all fear of the result of committing bribery; and fur-

1635
ther time ought to be given to consider such a measure.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.