Sitting of 22 June 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Standing Orders (Parliamentary Deposits) brought up [No. 423].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—India Office*.
First Reading—India Office* [Bill 166].
Committee—Joint Stock Companies (Voting Papers [Bill 62] [No Report]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) [Bill 24]; Jersey Court [Bill 48], Debate adjourned.
Report—Weights and Measures (Metric System) [Bill 24].
Considered as amended—Accidents Compensation Act Amendment* [Bill 143].
Third Reading—Superannuation (Union Officers)* [Bill 133]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [Bill 149]; Countess of Elgin and Kincardine's Annuity* [Bill 156], and passed.
Withdrawn—Bank of England Notes (Scotland) [Bill 115].

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. O'HAGAN,referring to the circumstance of the abrupt termination of the proceedings in Committee upon this Bill on the preceding day, moved that
"This House will, on Thursday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider further of the progress of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill."
It appeared from a work which was a high authority upon the proceedings of that House, that this was the proper course to pursue.
MR. LONGFIELDopposed the Motion. It did not appear from the references to the Journals in the work to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which was undoubtedly a work of the highest authority, that there had been a single case in which, after the Chairman had been moved from the Chair on a division taken, a Bill had been revived during the same Session. The passage in May's Law and Practice of Parliament, which referred to this subject, was at page 449, and was to this effect—
"Sometimes, however, the proceedings of a Committee on a Bill are brought abruptly to a close, by an order 'that the Chairman do now leave the Chair;' in which case the Chairman, being without instructions from the Committee,
96
makes no report to the House. A Bill disposed of in this manner disappears from the Order Book, and is generally regarded as defunct; but as the House cannot be bound by the decision of a Committee, and has not itself agreed to any vote by which the Bill has been postponed for the Session, it is competent for the House to appoint another day for the Committee, and to proceed with the Bill."
He admitted that this work was a most valuable compilation; but it did not appear from the Journals that there was any instance in which a Bill had, under these circumstances, been proceeded with. The first precedent cited by Mr. May was from 90 Commons' Journals, page 497, which was the case of the County Coroners Bill. That measure was brought to an abrupt conclusion, the Chairman being moved out of the Chair. There was no Report, and nothing further was done with the Bill that year. The second case cited was 90 Commons' Journals, page 562, the Public Institutions Bill; the third 105 ibid., page 345; the fourth, 111 ibid., 201, Justices of the Peace Qualification Bill; and the last, 112 ibid., 310; in all of which cases the Bills had a similar termination. He had also looked at the references to cases in which Bills had been revived, and not a single one appeared to be the case of a Bill, which being in Committee the Chairman was voted to leave the Chair. It must strike any one that when no Report at all was made that must be the result, because the House could take no notice of a Resolution which was not reported to it. In this very instance the Speaker had held that he, as the organ of the House, could take no notice of a division, because it had not been reported. The cases to which Mr. May had referred in support of his second position, "that it is competent for the House to appoint another day for the Committee, and to proceed with the Bill," were all cases on the consideration of the Report of a Committee, or after one report, and not one of them appeared to have been a case in which the Chairman was ordered to leave the Chair on a division taken. The first was 70 Commons' Journals, 384—the Paupers Removal Bill. In that case, as appeared by the Journals, the Chairman was not ordered to leave the Chair, but the Report of the Committee was considered, and they were ordered to re-assemble, and the Bill was re-committed. The same was the case in the second instance cited, that of the General Turnpike Bill, 82 Commons' Journals, 365. Under these circumstances,

97
he submitted that there was no precedent for the re-instatement or revival of this Bill. If the Speaker should decide against him on that point, he thought that proper notice ought to have been given of a Motion of this kind, so that hon. Members might not have been taken by surprise.
MR. BUTTsaid, the very precedents to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred would, if he had read them completely, have shown him that there was no doubt about the authority of the House in this matter. The last precedent was that of the 27th of March, 1827—the General Turnpike Bill. What occurred with reference to that Bill no doubt took place upon an order for taking into further consideration the Report from a Committee of the Whole House, but the House then resolved to re-commit the Bill, and the Committee to which it was re-committed was in the same position as an ordinary Committee, What followed was thus entered on the Journals:—"The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee, but after some time spent therein Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair." The meaning of that was that there was no Report. The proceedings of Committees were not then entered upon the Journals when there was no Report, but in the "Minutes and Votes" of that day the entry was as follows:—"General Turnpike Act Amendment Bill—Report for the considered Bill re-committed; considered in Committee; No Report"—which, with the exception that in this instance there was a division, was exactly the way in which what had occurred with regard to this Bill was recorded. Therefore it was clear, that on the 27th of March, 1827, when the Turnpike Bill was re-committed, the Chairman left the Chair without making a Report, and the Bill was at an end unless something took place. What else was done then? On the 9th of April an order was made in the terms which the Attorney General had adopted upon this occasion—"That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House, to consider further of a Bill to amend the Acts relating to Turnpike Roads in England." The other precedent was that of the Paupers Removal Bill in 1815. In that case precisely the same entry was made in the Journals—"After continuing some time on the Committee, the Speaker resumed the Chair;" and on the 20th of June, the House set the Bill up again by order, precisely as his right hon. Friend
98
now proposed. It was, therefore, clear that in both these cases the Chairman left the Chair without making a Report, and that the proceedings of the Committee would have terminated if the House had not exercised its inherent jurisdiction, and set it up again. In 1856 the Committee upon the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill was two or three times counted out, and each time the House revived it. As to the question of notice, it had been the practice of Members, in cases in which upon the second reading of a Bill it had been resolved that the word "now" should not stand part of the Question, to replace their Bills on the Orders without giving notice. If, however, his hon. Friends opposite intended to take the sense of the House upon the question whether this Bill should be replaced in the Orders, it would, perhaps, be better that notice should be given of this Motion. He was not at liberty to refer to what occurred in the Committee, but in some place or other he did hear the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin state that his object in moving that the Chairman should leave the Chair was not to defeat the Bill.
MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, that what he had done he had done upon the advice of the highest authority, and having resolved to take that course, he had communicated with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and with the hon. Member for Mallow.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the highest authority in the House was the Speaker, who had not yet pronounced upon this Question. It was true that it was at first his intention to move that the Chairman should report Progress; but Members who were well acquainted with the forms of the House told him that the Motion which he made deliberately, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair," was analogous to the Motion of the "Previous Question" in the Whole House, the adoption of which prevented the revival of the subject during the same Session. At any rate, whether it was possible or not, it was not usual. When a matter had been discussed and a vote taken, it was the practice of the House to have nothing more to do with it during that Session. Although the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had displayed much ingenuity, he had not produced a precedent of a case in which a hostile vote had been taken upon a division obliging the Chairman to leave the

99
Chair, and in which, upon a Motion made as a matter of course, the Bill had been resumed in the same Session. What he contended was, that there must be in some shape a Report from the Committee to enable the House to proceed. In the present case, however, the House had nothing before it, and according to the principle quoted from Mr. May's book, a course had been taken which had brought the Bill to an end. This was the less to be regretted, as the effect would be that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring in a better Bill another time. It was a matter of importance that the House should conform to its usual practice. A great Judge said it did not much matter what the practice was so long as it was practice. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair was not partial to introducing subtle distinctions in the Rules of the House, and if the question must be argued again, due notice ought to be given.
MR. GEORGEsaid, that in the case of the General Turnpike Bill it was plain, from the short notice in the Journals of the House, that there could have been no division, as in the case of the Bill in question, where the Chairman had been moved out of the Chair. No one disputed that where there had been a Report, a Bill would re-appear on the Notice Paper, but he contended that when the Chairman of the Committee had been voted out of the Chair by a hostile majority, the House had never interfered. There was, therefore, he submitted, no precedent to justify the interposition of the House in the present case.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) not having favoured me with notice that he intended to raise this Question, I have been obliged to refer to the precedents since I came into the House. The House will be aware that the Committee have no power to extinguish a Bill. A Bill is referred to a Committee that it may be considered and amended; but the Committee have no power to put an end to a Bill. That power the House retains to itself. On many occasions, some of which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Mallow, the Committee has ordered the Chairman to leave the Chair, and this having been taken as an indication that the Bill is not favourably regarded by the Committee, it has not been revived by its author in the House. But it is beyond the province of the Committee arbitrarily to take a
100
Bill out of the power of the House and to put an end to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University (Mr. Whiteside) has said, that when a vote has been taken on a measure, that vote must be regarded as decisive. But such a rule must not be taken without qualification. I would recall to his recollection that within the last few years the Question has been put to the House in regard to the second reading of a Bill, "that this Bill be now read a second time." The House decided in the negative—namely, that the Bill be not read a second time "now." The Motion had not been put in the usual form that the Bill be read a second time "that day six mouths," and it was in the power of the House, having refused to read the Bill a second time "now," to read it a second time on another day. I remember a few years ago that a Bill was brought in by the late Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond), who not being satisfied with the decision of the House that the Bill be not read a second time "now," on a subsequent occasion moved that the Bill be read a second time; and the House, having changed its view in regard to the Bill, read it a second time, and it was ultimately passed. Now in this particular case the Bill is not extinguished and put an end to by the Chairman being moved out of the Chair. If the hon. Member for Mallow had examined the precedents with more care, I think he would have found that they do not correspond with the view he has taken of them. There is no Report from the Committee in this case. There was no Report also in the case of the General Turnpike Bill, and in that case the Bill was revived. I have not the smallest doubt that, in conformity with the distinct precedents that have been cited, it is entirely in the power of the House to order the Committee to meet again, and consider the Bill further. It will not be a case of "Progress," because, when the Chairman reports Progress, by a decision of the House which was come to fifteen years ago, the Speaker leaves the Chair without question. Inasmuch, however, as there is no Report from the Chairman, when the House is moved to go into Committee on this measure, it will be competent for any Member to raise the question on going into Committee, precisely as was done in all Bills and at all times before the rule of Progress was established. I believe that what I have now stated is, without question, in conformity with the established

101
practice of the House. [Mr. WHITESIDE: As to notice?] With regard to the question of notice in the case of the General Turnpike Bill, 1827, the Order for the committal of the Bill was made early in the evening, and before the commencement of public business, and, therefore, I have no doubt it was done at that time without notice. Practically the Chairman being voted out of the Chair has the same effect as the House being counted out. We have a measure on which the House has been twice counted out lately, and which has been much opposed—the Weighing of Grain Bill. But although in those cases the debate came to an abrupt conclusion, there has been no question raised that the Member in charge of the Bill had not the power of putting it down for another day.
MR. WHITESIDEinquired whether the Question before the House would be whether the Bill should be resumed?
MR. SPEAKER: It would be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the Question on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
MR. VANCEthought it would be for the convenience of the House that notice should be given for a future day, so that Members might be aware of the course to be taken.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that two questions were involved—one the question of form, which had just been decided by the Speaker; and the other, whether the House would think fit to revive the Committee, and that would come before the House when the right hon. Gentleman left the Chair. The Speaker having decided the question of form, the House could not be taken by surprise, and it would be competent to any hon. Member to move that the House go into Committtee on the Bill that day three months.
MR. SPEAKER: No doubt it will be quite competent to any Member to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on that day three months.
Motion agreed to.
Committee to consider further of the Bill To-morrow.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (VOTING PAPERS) BILL— [BILL 62.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. CRAUFURD MR. CRAUFURD moved that the Bill be committed that day three months. The law at present provided for the mode in which meetings should be called, the mode in which the poll should be taken, and the mode in which the shareholders should vote. At present a shareholder who was unable to attend a meeting was at the mercy of the shareholder to whom he might intrust his proxy; and if the hon. Gentleman desired to give the shareholder the power of giving a special as well as a general proxy, that might be a very proper tiling; and if the Bill did not go beyond that there would be no objection to it. But the Bill applied to all companies. Now under the Companies' Act of 1852 companies had the power of regulating their proceedings, and directing the mode in which votes should be taken. This Bill proposed to override the powers given under that general Act. The hon. Gentleman had seen the force of that objection, and had given notice of an Amendment to exclude all companies except those constituted under special Acts. But the Bill went beyond the power of giving a special proxy paper. The present practice was for a meeting to proceed with the poll immediately, or to adjourn it to some future day; but the second clause of the Bill would compel the adjournment in every instance for seven or fourteen days, and the practical result would be to cause delay when time might be of the utmost importance. The sound principle of legislation was to lay down general rules giving a company power to make bye-laws for the purpose of carrying out its proceedings. The second clause was not only unnecessary but mischievous, because it would hamper the free action of all companies to which it applied. He thought the object of the hon. Member would be attained by giving shareholders special proxies in addition to the proxies provided by the general act; for a fortnight's notice must be given of every meeting, the special business of which meeting was required to be set out, and ample time was thus afforded to every shareholder to send a special proxy applicable to the business to be brought forward. He submitted to the hon. Member the propriety of expunging the objectionable clauses, and thus removing the objections to the Bill. In order to enable the hon. Gentleman to state the course which he intended to pursue, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. AYRTONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Edward Craufurd,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHhoped that as the hon. Gentleman did not object to the principle of the Bill he would consent to its going into Committee. The present system of proxies enabled directors to do almost as they liked. A case occurred a few years ago, in which a Board of Directors carried a vote of £5,000 to an officer of the company by means of general proxies without the shareholders knowing anything about it until it was done. He proposed to amend the second clause by enacting that, instead of an adjournment for seven or fourteen days, that "when a poll is demanded the meeting shall he adjourned in the usual manner." He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the consideration of his objections until they got into Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Manner of Voting).
  MR. CRAUFURDproposed an Amendment to enable the holder of the proxy to vote at the original or any adjourned meeting; but withdrew it, and proposed to omit the second paragraph of the clause.
  After a desultory discussion, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PEACOCKE MR. PEACOCKE moved that the Chairman leave the chair, as it seemed difficult to understand the effect of the proposed changes.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."—(Mr. Peacocke.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 49: Majority 27.
  House resumed.
  [No Report.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL— [Bill 24.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Commttee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short Title).
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that having consulted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, certain Amendments had been agreed to which removed the objections entertained by certain hon. Gentlemen, and he believed those Amendments were of such a nature as to induce the House to inaugurate the metric system, which he hoped would soon be adopted as the universal practice of the country. It had been adopted in many other countries with the greatest possible advantage, and no desire whatever had been manifested for a return to the old systems. The schedules to the Bill had been carefully revised by the most competent authorities, and he believed they would be found quite satisfactory.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (The Use of Metric Weights and Measures allowed).
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he should move that the clause be struck out, in order to insert an amended clause in its place.
  Moved, That Clause 2 be omitted.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had no doubt that the proposed system would be an improvement upon the old one, but he did not like the idea of its being a permissive measure. He wished to know if the President of the Board of Trade approved of a permissive Bill on such a subject. If county A continued the old system, and county B adopted the new one, very great confusion would probably arise.
  MR. W. EWARTobserved, that at the present time the metric system was voluntarily used in many trades and manufactures. It was in an active state, and the object of this Bill was to promote its extension, and to render permissive that which was not now strictly legal.
  MR. HUBBARDthought the explanation of the hon. Gentleman proved that there was no necessity for the clauses which he proposed to substitute for those which had been objected to, because certain operations could now be performed by agreement against which there was no legal objection. If there were any legal restraints on private

  105
  arrangements, the clause which had been prepared might be necessary; but if that was not the case the passing of such a measure might open a door for making experiments on weights and measures throughout the country. He differed from the sanguine author of the Bill, and did not believe it would be possible to introduce the decimal system in the ordinary transactions of this country. The working people were thoroughly habituated to the existing system. A penny in value and a pound in weight were stereotyped on the minds of the labouring classes. For the purposes of science every facility was at present afforded. He wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there was at present any legal restraint on private arrangements of this description?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the restriction which at present existed was simply this—at present any one who pleased might make use of the system, but it was not recognized by any Act of Parliament, and therefore there was risk of litigation in any contracts based upon it. The present Bill simply legalized transactions which might be voluntarily entered into. With regard to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), that the labourers were accustomed to the present system, he would only observe that it was the most complicated system in the whole world, differing, as it did, in different parts of the country. Many persons who were carrying on business on a large scale had adopted the metric system, and wished to have it legalized. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) seemed to prefer a compulsory to a permissive system. He (Mr. Adderley) had no doubt that the merits of the system would very soon bring it into general operation; but he certainly was not prepared to make its adoption compulsory on everybody.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the present Act regulating weights and measures rendered it illegal to enter into any contract for the sale of goods by any other than the Imperial weights and measures; but a proviso had been introduced into the section, regulating sales by measure which legalized sales by measures other than local and customary measures, which had the effect of neutralizing that section of the Act. Then, again, the section which regulated sales by the Imperial weights contained a proviso at the end of the section, that nothing therein contained should prevent a sale by any multiple of a pound. In
  106
  consequence of this proviso a sale by the long ton, which is not an Imperial weight, had been held by a decision of the Superior Courts to be legal, inasmuch as the Act did not specify that the multiple should be "numerically expressed." Therefore, in consequence of these two provisoes, the object of the Act, which was to prevent sales by any but Imperial weights and measures, was defeated. However, clauses had been introduced into the Bill to legalize contracts that might be made by parties under the metric system. This was a Bill that might be passed with the greatest safety, and would not occasion any inconvenience, as the schedule contained a table of equivalents of metric and Imperial measures. In consequence of the proviso introduced into the section relating to the sale by measure, articles were now purchased in Covent Garden Market in measures of which nobody knew the contents. To obviate this inconvenience, he (Mr. Locke) had introduced a clause into a Bill which he brought in in 1858, to compel market gardeners and others selling in the market to affix to the vessels in which they sold fruit and vegetables, the amount by Imperial measure which they contained. The market gardeners opposed this clause, and, having met them at the Board of Trade, and argued the question before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, then President of the Board of Trade, that right hon. Gentleman, perhaps from being fond of agricultural pursuits, decided in favour of the market gardeners and fruit and vegetable salesmen; the clause was consequently withdrawn and the public left at their mercy. That inconvenience could never arise if the metric system were adopted. By the repeal of the two provisoes in the Act regulating weights and measures, the object of that Act—namely, one uniform system of weights and measures would be obtained with one exception—that is, the reputed quart and pint bottles which enjoyed such a very bad reputation. The reputed quart should be six to the gallon instead of four Imperial quarts, but that was not the case, for you never knew what a bottle contained, or how many bottles went to a dozen. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Alderman Copeland) had told him that he had received an order to make some bottles which the trade called nineteen to the dozen. Why, if they went on in that way the three-bottle man would certainly not be what he was in former

  107
  times, in fifty years he would not be as great a drinker as the one-bottle man was now.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYreminded the hon. Member for Buckingham that, when he, the hon. Member for Buckingham, and himself were governors together of the Bank of England, it had been found convenient to divide the pound troy decimally instead of, as formerly, into 5,760 grains. The hon. Member approved that change, but it was necessary to apply for an Act of Parliament, or the contracts made in pursuance of that alteration would have been illegal. The present Bill would give to every person in the country the same benefit as the Bank of England derived from their Act of Parliament. That, he thought, was an answer to his hon. Friend's objection.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  MR. W. EWARTthen proposed the following clause in lieu of it:—
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament to the contrary, no contract or dealing shall be deemed to be invalid or open to objection on the ground that the weights or measures expressed or referred to in such contract or dealing are weights or measures of the metric system."
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that what the Bank of England did, was not to decimalize the pound troy, but to give a decimal expression to the divisions of the ounce. If the object of the clause was nothing more than to legalize voluntary arrangements between individuals for the use of the metric system, he would not object to it. But he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whether people would be at liberty to make their entries at the Custom House in decimal expressions.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in passing the measure of last Session the House undoubtedly gave its sanction to the introduction of the metric system into this country. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries had, however, agreed not to press the compulsory Bill, and to substitute a permissive one. He gave his vote for the second reading of the new Bill, on the understanding that he was not committed to all its provisions; but the clauses which his hon. Friend had now put on the papers exactly met his views on the subject. The first of the new clauses was simply to the effect that if a
  108
  contract were expressed in the terms of the metric system, neither party should be allowed to escape from it upon the plea that it was expressed in terms not sanctioned by law. That got rid of the difficulty that by the existing law a contract in such terms as those proposed in the Bill was not deemed binding. The existing weights and measures would still form the legal standards in all cases in which the contracting parties had not of their own accord adopted the new system. On a former stage of the Bill the inquiry was very properly raised, what was a metre? That question was now answered by stating the relative relations between the metre and the English yard, and also generally between the metric weights and measures and the Imperial ones. There was thus no interference with any uniformity which now prevailed. The present lawful standards were left untouched, while facilities were given for the voluntary use of the metric system, which was rendered necessary by the great extent of our foreign trade. Of course, if a large number of persons were to insist on making their contracts in accordance with the metric system, there would be a considerable change in the existing practice; but no degree of compulsion would be used in the matter. Public feeling would be allowed to form itself freely on the subject. The Astronomer Royal had given a great deal of time and attention to the schedule, and it was submitted with his approbation. As to the question which had been asked in regard to the Customs, the use of the metric system would be entirely voluntary, and neither party to a transaction would be entitled to force the other to adopt the metric terms against his will.
  Clause agreed to.
  New Clause agreed to:—
  "3. The table in the schedule hereto annexed, shall be deemed to set forth, in terms of the legal weights and measures in force in this country, the equivalents of the weights and measures therein expressed in terms of the metric system, and such table may be lawfully used for computing, determining, and expressing, in legal weights and measures, weights and measures of the metric system."
  Schedule of Tables of Equivalents.
  MR. AYRTONurged that the calculations should be carried to the utmost possible point of scientific accuracy. Mr. Whitworth asserted that by a contrivance of his invention a measurement could be

  109
  made of the millionth part of an inch; and making allowance for a certain degree of professional enthusiasm, he believed that the 100,000th part of an inch really could be measured. In the Schedule, however, the measures of length were carried to only four places of decimals, and this was also the case with the measures of surface. On the other hand, the weights were carried as low as the ten-millionth part of a dram. He thought that greater uniformity should have been observed in this respect in compiling the table, and that an effort should have been made to obtain the greatest exactitude.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 115.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Sir, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill I wish to say a few words in explanation, because when the Bill was introduced there was no opportunity of explaining fully the object it has in view. It cannot be said that legislation is unnecessary, because in the present Session two Bills have already been introduced to the notice of this House—one by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he withdrew with a view at some future time to legislate more largely and comprehensively on the subject. The other Bill was introduced by three Members of this House, representing three of the large commercial constituencies of Scotland; and that measure was also withdrawn on the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at an early period consider the whole subject, and bring in a comprehensive measure to meet the wants of Scotland in this particular. It must be known to this House that Scotland differs from England, there being no legal tender there except gold. In England, to avoid expense, the Bank of England is authorized to issue notes which are convertible into gold when presented at their establishments. Now, for the solvency of the
  110
  Bank of England paper the whole kingdom stands pledged; and while Scotland and Ireland are pledged to this solvency, England alone has the benefit of the issue of the notes. The £14,000,000 which is guaranteed by the country is by the taxation of the whole kingdom. In fact, in times of great, pressure the country has stepped in and has relieved the Bank by suspending cash payments to meet the notes payable on demand. As I have already stated, this has been done by pledging the credit of Scotland and Ireland as well as of England for the solvency of that establishment. It was only yesterday that the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) intended to introduce the Bill of which he has given notice, to endeavour to extend to Ireland the privilege which this Bill contemplates extending to Scotland. Now, this was no narrow question, agitated by any particular individuals; but it is the general wish of the commercial classes, both of Ireland and Scotland, to derive the benefit which is afforded by the credit of the paper of the Bank of England, and in their transactions to avail themselves of the credit of that establishment to whose solvency they are pledged. Some gentlemen have doubted, whether it would be advantageous in the interest of free trade in banking, that the issue of Bank of England notes should be made a legal tender in other parts of the kingdom; but I venture to say that the monopoly in Scotland is already so stringent that the introduction of those notes to relieve the commercial classes from the monopoly of the present Scotch banks, would be found to be a great advantage to them. The reason why this measure has not been asked for has been, that the people have rested contented with the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would introduce a Bill upon the subject. At the present time, few new banks are opened in Scotland; and while commerce has largely increased, the number of banks has diminished. In 1844, I think, there were twenty-three banks in Scotland, and to them was guaranteed the power of issue upon their credit, without reference to the bullion they held, but in accordance with the amount of issue during the three years previous. Since that time, two of the banks have disappeared entirely from the scene, and others have amalgamated; so that, at this present moment, there are only fourteen banks in Scotland carrying

  111
  on the business of banks, and they have concentrated in their hand the whole of the issue of the country. It is true that in addition to the fixed issue guaranteed, which was £3,000,000, and has now been reduced to £2,500,000, they have the power to issue against the gold which they hold; but the introduction of the Bank of England paper would relieve them from considerable pressure. Annually the banks, at certain periods, have to be inspected under the sanction of the Government, and they are to show that they are in possession of the amount of bullion to cover that issue which they have over and above their fixed issue. I am informed that early in this year considerable pressure existed in London, and that to satisfy the Government Inspector in Scotland, something like £1,500,000 was withdrawn from the Bank of England to be carried to Scotland, there to be exhibited against the issue; and having performed that duty was returned to the Bank of England. It seems to me that it would have been a far wiser and more satisfactory mode of procedure if these banks, instead of running the risk of removing bullion from London at a time when there was a tightness in the money market, had had it in their power to produce Bank of England paper as a certificate of their solvency, that their credit was good, and that gold was forthcoming if required to meet their calls. I would also add that I think there would be very great commercial convenience in extending the benefits of a uniform currency, generally recognized by all portions of the United Kingdom. I trust to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is shortly about to extend this privilege to Scotland, and I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Hay.)
  MR. FINLAYsaid, that in proposing that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, he would state in a very few words the reasons which had led him to take that course. The object of the Bill was to make the notes of the Bank of England a legal tender in Scotland, with especial powers to the Bank to establish branch establishments in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Now there was no law to prevent the people of Scotland from accepting the notes of the Bank of England at pre-
  112
  sent if they choose to do so. These notes were, as far as that goes, exactly on the same footing as the Scotch notes. There was, therefore, no grievance to be redressed, nor any injustice to be removed. If this Bill passed into law, the people of Scotland would have no choice in the matter—they would be obliged to receive the notes whenever they were tendered, whether they willed it or not. Such a law would be in entire opposition to the fundamental principles upon which the issue of bank notes had always been carried on, and which he hoped would not be departed from—namely, that every creditor was entitled to demand the payment of debts due to him in the coin of the realm, and if he accepted Bank of England notes he did so for his own convenience and at his own risk and responsibility. They all knew that the Bank of England had no power to issue notes for smaller sums than £5, whereas the Scotch banks had the power to issue £1 notes. They should, therefore, have this anomaly—that the branches of the Bank of England in Glasgow and Edinburgh would be restricted to £5 notes, while their rivals next door would have the power of issuing £1 notes. Such an inconsistency could not long be allowed to exist. Further legislation would be necessary, and they would either have to allow the Bank of England in Scotland to issue £1 notes, or to prevent Scotch banks issuing notes under £5 It was not very likely that the Bank of England would issue £1 notes in Scotland, for if they did, then they would have to do it in England. If they did not do this, then they would have to adopt the other alternative and prohibit the Scotch banks from issuing £1 notes, and the excellent system of banking in Scotland would be destroyed. Besides it was not fair towards the Scotch people themselves to introduce such a Bill as this without giving them ample opportunity of considering its scope and tendency. There was another objection to the Bill. If it pass into law it would create a new and perhaps considerable demand for Bank of England notes. How was this to be met? The great complaint against the English Bank Act of 1844 was that it did not supply a sufficient number of notes in times of panic. Therefore, by creating new demands for notes, they would increase the evil, which had already led twice to the suspension of the Act. The fact was if the Bank of England note should be made a legal tender in

  113
  Scotland, that House must be prepared to go into the whole currency question, and he submitted that this was not the time for bringing under the consideration of the House a measure of such vital importance and interest.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Finlay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. K. HODGSONthought that the question as regarded the circulation of the notes of the Bank of England in Scotland could only be treated as a great public question. He did not see how it would be possible to carry out this Bill, making the Bank of England notes a legal tender in Scotland without providing some place in Scotland where Bank of England notes could be exchanged, as they were done at the Bank of England and its branches. Now, that would be attended with considerable expense. The system of banking in Scotland and the system of banking in England were so widely different that it would be scarcely possible for the Bank of England to carry on banking business in Scotland in order to compensate them for the expense that this new issuing department would cause. Although it might be right that measures dealing with the circulation in Scotland and Ireland should be introduced, still he thought that this must form part of a great measure, which must deal with the whole banking system in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and that it would be quite impossible to consider the case of Scotland alone. He thought a great deal of weight ought to be attached to the objection that the Bank of England had no lower notes than £5, and that if it were to establish branch banks doing business in Edinburgh or Glasgow they would have to carry on their business in gold and in £5 notes, and that if they were to use £1 notes they could only do so through the issues of the other banks. That would be a great anomaly; and, under all the circumstances, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend would do well not to press the Bill on this occasion. It was part of a great measure; by itself it could not be worked to any great advantage, and he thought his hon. and gallant Friend would best consult the objects he had in view by withdrawing his Bill.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEdid not think that any great danger would be likely to arise from making Bank of England notes a legal tender in Scotland; nor did he believe that the anomaly which it would introduce would be greater than that which now existed—that £1 notes were allowed on one side of the Tweed and were not allowed on the other. But he thought there would be some difficulty in the way of introducing such a measure as that now proposed. When his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) brought forward his former Bill, he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) gave him his support, considering that the present system of banking in Scotland laboured under a defect which was not foreseen when the Bank Act of 1845 was passed, which it was for the Legislature to consider, and the duty of the Government to deal with. He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that they should use every effort to break down the monopoly which now existed, and to restore the system to something like the condition in which it existed before these unwise restrictions were placed upon it. The objections which had been taken were not so much to the currency as to the question of banking. The principle of the late Sir Robert Peel was to place restrictions upon the currency, but to leave banking perfectly free. In dealing with the question, however, Parliament acted on different principles with regard to Scotland and England. The effect of Sir Robert Peel's measures had been to lead to a large extension of the banking system in England, especially in London, but it had acted in an opposite direction in regard to Scotland. He could not say that any great evils had arisen from the restrictions now existing; but he could not regard the subject without alarm when he saw that the present banking system was like a Tontine proprietorship, and that on the failure or absorption of one of the banks the currency was taken up by another, which extended its branches to the different parts of the country. There was no doubt that, in the public opinion of the country, there practically existed an impediment in the way of the establishment of new banks. This system could not be safe or sound, and it was one which the Government should attempt to remedy. But the question was—Would the Bill before the House act in that direction? He was for free trade in banking; but he felt some alarm lest, if they allowed the Bank of

  115
  England the privilege of establishing branch banks in Scotland, and if they were thus to get a share in the monopoly, they should turn round and act as an obstruction in the way of the change which was desired. The hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. K. Hodgson) had stated that, in consequence of the different banking systems which prevailed in Scotland and England, the issue of bank-notes in Scotland would not be a profitable business. That showed the extreme difficulty that would arise from the banks seeking to trade simply upon an extension of issues of Bank of England notes. They might, by depositing gold in the Bank of England, have a command of them; but all that they would gain by that would not be sufficient encouragement for them to do so. But if the Bank of England, by the establishment of branch banks in Edinburg and Glasgow, entered on banking business in Scotland, they might become interested in the maintenance of the existing monopoly. It was desirable that the subject should be considered more largely than could be done by discussing the Bills introduced that Session, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them what were his views, and that he would, if not this Session at least in the next, bring in some legislation on the subject. If he did not do so, he (Sir Edward Colebrooke), for one, would not consent to allow the question to rest, and should certainly press for inquiry into the operation of the system as it had hitherto existed.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he was sorry to have to oppose his hon. and gallant Friend, but the fact was that a great number of his constituents were excessively suspicious of the English sovereign, and they certainly would strongly object to have Bank of England notes forced upon them, instead of their own £1. He submitted that the people of Scotland should be allowed, as far as possible, to manage their own affairs; and he hoped that on the present occasion the Scotch Members would not be overridden by the tyranny of an English majority. Scotland was prepared to stand by its £1 notes, and there was no reason in the world why it should be obliged to accept English paper.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he would be one of the last men to oppose any real improvement in the banking system of Scotland, but he protested against this constant meddling on the part of private Members
  116
  who have no specific knowledge of the improvements required. If the Government would bring forward a measure to improve the Scotch banking system he should gladly give it his earnest and cordial support; but he objected to so important a question being constantly brought before the House for no other apparent object than to benefit certain Joint Stock Companies who wanted to establish themselves in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay) has stated that the Government give their security to the Bank of England for their notes. But he (Mr. Dalglish) was not aware that the Bank of England notes had any such security. The Bank of England had no guarantee for the excess of their circulation but the bullion in their cellars; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished the Scotch banks to hold Bank of England notes as the security for their excess. Now, although the people of Scotland were always very glad to get Bank of England notes, yet they would prefer gold as a security for the excess of their circulation, and he was sure their opinion was entirely adverse to the present Bill.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been good enough to show him this Bill, and to ask him if he saw any objection to it as connected with the Bank of England, and having stated that he saw no objection to Bank of England notes being made a legal tender in Scotland, he wished to state the reasons why he should vote for the Amendment. This Bill appeared to him to involve a new principle of legislation in banking, and he did not think that they were prepared to go into so wide a question at the present time. It was necessary to consider well before they arrived at the conclusion that Bank of England notes should be made a legal tender in Scotland. His hon. and gallant Friend complained, as he understood him, of a want of paper circulation in Scotland; but he begged to remind him that the banks in Scotland could issue their own notes provided they had gold to meet them in their banks. The Banks of Scotland could issue any quantity in exchange for gold. Why did they not do so? Because the expense was so great that it did not pay them to do so. It was an expensive operation to the Bank of England to issue notes; and the Scotch banks found that it was not profitable to do so. He thought, therefore, that it was too bad to ask the

  117
  Bank of England to undertake what the Scotch banks found an unprofitable business. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) must feel from the discussion that has taken place that it is not agreeable to the House to proceed further with this Bill. I confess I am of opinion that there are various reasons why we are not in a position to do so. In the first place, a Bill of this sort cannot be proceeded with without concert with the Bank of England. It is an extraordinary proposal to give powers to the Bank of England without knowing that the Bank of England is prepared to exercise those powers; and to entail upon the Bank of England responsibilities of considerable importance without having obtained its assent beforehand. It is impossible to consider the question of making Bank of England notes a legal tender in Scotland apart from the question of the establishment of branches of the Bank of England in Scotland. We cannot consider that question without entering into an inquiry on the subject touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyleshire, as to the manner in which the Bank of England is to conduct not only its issuing business, but its banking business in Scotland. This is a consideration which I do not think falls within the view of the hon. and gallant Member. No doubt he contemplates the establishment of branches by the Bank of England, but he knows nothing of the willingness of the Bank of England to establish these branches. He is providing for matters in which he must have the assent of the Bank of England, without knowing that he will have the co-operation of that important body. The hon. and gallant Member seems to think that Scotland and Ireland, in common with England, guarantee the circulation of the Bank of England to the extent of, at all events, £14,000,000. That is an erroneous supposition altogether. There is no guarantee for the circulation of the Bank of England, or any part of it, by the State. The state of the case is this: that the Bank of England has lent the State £11,000,000, which stands in the form of a debt to that institution; and it has besides £3,000,000 invested in the public securities The State is, therefore, a creditor to the Bank to the extent of £14,000,000; but surely the fact that the
  118
  Bank has lent to the Government that sum does not afford any claim to Scotland or Ireland to make a demand upon the Bank of England. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Argyleshire that a measure of this kind would be viewed with the greatest suspicion in Scotland. Hitherto it has been the policy—and I think, under the circumstances, the wise policy—of the State to keep entirely apart the treatment of the subject of circulation in the three kingdoms. I believe with my hon. Friend that to force the Bank of England notes on Scotland would be greatly resented—partly by the existing Scotch banks, and to a very great extent by the people of Scotland. There is a great deal of national sentiment still remaining in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Andrew Agnew) expressed a hope that in this matter Scotch Members will not be overridden by an English majority. I am quite certain that the Scotch Members, although they may not be very numerous, yet backed by the opinion of the people of Scotland, are perfectly well able to take care of themselves; and the last thing which we will see is the representatives of Scotland overridden by a tyrannical English majority in the matter of their small note circulation. Now, apart from this there is, in my opinion, this objection to the measure. It is a measure which belongs to a state of things entirely different and very remote from the state of things which now exists. You cannot possibly combine a system of legislation with respect to the circulation of the three countries in the present state in which the circulation exists. It is needless to enter into the question whether, abstractedly, that would not be desirable. I think it would be most desirable to have a uniform system throughout the three kingdoms; but, looking at the state of affairs which exists in Ireland with regard to the currency, and also to the system which prevails in Scotland, I must say that I consider the realization of any scheme at present for a uniformity of currency in the three countries as altogether impracticable, or at any rate remote. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet seems to me to presume that we have already arrived at a point in our currency legislation little short of absolute uniformity. If there is to be a note which is to circulate in Scotland and Ireland, it ought to be a note proceeding from some authority which

  119
  stands in direct relation to the people of Scotland. But the Bank of England is an institution which is absolutely and entirely English; it has no relation to the people of Ireland or of Scotland, and I do not know how we could consistently establish a system of uniformity of tender unless that legal tender rested on the authority and guarantee of the common Legislature. In my opinion we are still remote from that state of things in which a national issue could be the rule of currency in this country. I do not at all recede from the opinions which I ventured to state on a former occasion in reference to the law relating to banking in Scotland—namely, that some amendment is required. But I admit that there is a speciality in the case of Scotland arising from the usages of the people, and the conditions upon which banking is carried on there. I should not, therefore, think it wise or safe to presume to give any authoritative pledge as to the time or the mode in which it would be right to attempt legislation on the subject. All I will say is, that I consider it the duty of the Government of the country to look for a suitable opportunity for such legislation; but, on the other hand, I think it is the bounden duty of the Government not to attempt legislation of a comprehensive character on a subject so difficult and so important, except at such a period and under such circumstances as would afford a reasonable hope that the proposals they made were likely to meet with the assent of Parliament. There is much to bear in mind with regard to the relations of the three countries, and the time of bringing such a matter under the notice of the House, which must be thoroughly digested and matured before any decision is arrived at. I think the House is not called upon to arrive at such an abstract decision as that which is involved in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet. At the same time, it would be utterly futile at the present period of the Session to pretend to deal with questions affecting the national currency, or the uniformity of a paper currency throughout the three kingdoms. Those are questions which, at this moment, the House would be wholly incapable of entertaining with the slightest prospect of advantage. Let us be content to proceed in a question of this kind step by step, and not to deal with it as one of abstract principles, but rather with a due regard to the practical wants of the three countries. Further
  120
  improvements may doubtless be made in the law which regulates the state of banking and currency, but they should be introduced cautiously and circumspectly, and not by a measure premature in its character, and which, if adopted by this House, would be productive of great inconvenience.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the circumstances which fully justified the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield in introducing this subject to the notice of the House—namely, that, notwithstanding the very great progress in Scotland in wealth, there had been no new banks established; while in England they had multiplied to an extent hitherto unknown and unprecedented. In point of fact, in Scotland there had been an absolute diminution in the number of those institutions. Was it right that the banking facilities afforded in Scotland should be confined to the number of existing banks, which had among themselves an absolute monopoly? It was as a free trader opposed to monopoly that he joined in asking for Scotland the same avenues for the use of capital which existed in England. The hon. and gallant Member did not ask to share with the existing institutions the power of issue they now possess—that would be properly refused by the Government—but he asked simply for the power of existence. He tells you that he could not open a bank in Scotland without having some means of currency. He must use either gold or notes. If he issues gold, according to the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) the people of Scotland hate sovereigns to such an extent that they will not take them. Then how was the hon. and gallant Member to work his bank? He must issue notes. And whose notes is he to issue? They must be the notes of the existing banks—of his own rivals, in fact; and every time he undertakes a commercial transaction he must advertise his rivals in trade. The hon. and gallant Member simply asked that a new banking establishment should be released from the liability of advertising its rivals, and should be enabled to supply notes of the Bank of England. He asked no more than that he should be provided with Bank of England notes. At present, Bank of England notes in Scotland were not a legal tender; but Parliament can make them so. The objection which his hon. Friend the present Governor of the Bank of England (Mr. Hodgson) entertained to that course was that by such an issue the

  121
  Bank of England would have to incur considerable expense. It was perfectly true that they would have to incur considerable expense, for which they would get no equivalent if they issued against bullion; but by allowing the Bank to issue for Scotland against securities a remuneration would be provided to the Bank, while the net profit of the issue would be received by the State. The object of the present Bill was simply to constitute Bank of England notes a legal tender; but surely the moderation of the demand ought not to be a reason for rejecting it. If a bank in Scotland is satisfied to take Bank of England notes, the demand is so moderate that, taken by itself, one would be puzzled to find a reason for refusing it. Having now said so much in justification of his hon. and gallant Friend's measure, he would not advise him to press his Motion to a division against an unwilling Government. No such measure could be satisfactorily introduced without the cordial assent of the Government, and it would be impossible to carry such an operation out without the assistance of Government. There was a great contrast between the existing state of things in England and in Scotland with regard to banking, but it was not so much with regard to the system of banking as to the currency. The whole subject was well deserving of the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted the day was not far distant when there would be one uniform Imperial currency.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENobserved, that having taken a great interest in the subject, he had given notice of a Motion for the introduction of a Bill to render bank notes a legal tender in Ireland, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite proposed to do in regard to Scotland. He was disappointed at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), because he seemed to hold out no hopes that the principle on which this Bill was based would be accepted in another Session. Still he thought that this discussion would not be without some good, as it would tend to facilitate the introduction of some general scheme of banking whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer should turn his attention to the subject. He did not think that the real question before the House was a question of currency at all. It did not in the slightest degree affect the issue of £1 notes. It would be just as well to say
  122
  that making sovereigns a legal tender in England or Ireland would affect the question of making £1 notes a legal tender. There ought to be some note which should be a legal tender in Scotland; and as a £5 Bank of England note was a legal tender in England, he did not see why that should not be adopted in Scotland, so that there may be as great uniformity as possible between the three countries. Great stress was laid upon the objection that the establishment of such a system in Scotland would necessitate the institution of branch banks in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other places. He could not see the force of that argument. For instance, years ago London was much further from Cornwall than it is now from Edinburgh, and yet there had been no difficulty in rendering the tender of a £5 note legal in Cornwall, notwithstanding there was no branch bank there. If Bank of England notes were not made a legal tender in Scotland, he was afraid that the banking business in that country would become an absolute monopoly. At this moment there were only twelve banks in Scotland, while in England there were more than 100 joint-stock banks, and above 300 private banks. He believed that during the present year the Scotch banks had issued notes to the extent of £1,172,000 in excess, and therefore they had none to give to any new banks that might be started; whereas, if Bank of England notes were a legal tender, they could readily get them from the Bank of England. It was not proposed that the Bank of England should be compelled to give notes; the Bill was simply permissive. At present the Bank of England note could not be used in Scotland without paying a percentage; and that would be done away with if they were made a legal tender. Upon account of the convenience, he thought the Government ought to render its assistance towards putting down the monopoly which at present existed.
  MR. BLACK: Sir, we are certainly greatly indebted for the sympathy and compassion which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hubbard) has displayed towards poor Scotland. He states that we are suffering under such a monopoly that, even supposing he were to bring gold into the country, it would be impossible for him to obtain as many notes in exchange for it as would be required. Now, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he will only bring proper security, or

  123
  bring the gold, he will find it a very easy matter on our part to print as many notes as he may desire. The hon. Member has also stated that there has been a great progress in the population and wealth of Scotland, and that it has not been met by the currency, which ought to have gone hand in hand with it. Now, what has been one great cause of the prosperity of Scotland? In my opinion it has been these very banks, and the machinery upon which those banks have carried on their business. They have done more than anything else I know of to promote the prosperity of Scotland. And the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) tells us that at present there is an entire monopoly in the banking system of Scotland, and that there are only in existence some thirteen banks. Now, if he would allow me to correct him, there are upwards of 600 banks in Scotland. I do not know that there is any country in the world so well supplied with banks. In every village where there are not more perhaps than 1,000 inhabitants, you will find one or two banks. I gave the House some time ago a calculation of the number of banks which we possess in Scotland in proportion to the population, and in proportion to the value of property, and I believe we have nine or ten times as many banks for the population as there are either in England or Ireland. In such a town as Inverary, for example, where there are not more than 1,000 inhabitants, there are two banks, and the competition between those banks is quite as keen as between any of the banks on the joint-stock principle in England. In point of fact, I do not believe that any country in the world is so well supplied with banks as Scotland is at the present moment. What is it that is sought to be enacted by this Bill? It proposes that the Bank of England notes shall be made a legal tender. But the hon. and gallant Baronet has not told us whether the people of Scotland desire to have these Bank of England notes imposed upon them at all. In my opinion they are perfectly satisfied with the notes they now have; and I believe if Scotland were polled all over it would be found that they would far sooner take the notes of the banks of Scotland than those of the Bank of England. And even the Bank of England has no desire for a change. Surely, then, if neither the people of Scotland nor the Bank of England desire a change, why
  124
  should this Bill be introduced? If the object of the Bill is to make Bank of England notes a legal tender all over Scotland, why should not the same privileges be given to the Glasgow and Edinburgh banks? Why should they not have the power of opening branches in England in order to assist their issue? Why, at any rate, should the privilege of opening branches of English banks be confined to Glasgow and Edinburgh? Why should they not be allowed to open branches anywhere? I believe the question to be so important that it is entirely futile to suppose that we could legislate upon it this Session, and I therefore join in the appeal which has been made to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Bill.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the question raised by the Bill was not an abstract but a practical one. The simple proposition was that Bank of England notes should be made a legal tender in a country where it might fairly be said there was no forced circulation except bullion. There was an opposition to the Bill on the part of twelve Scotch banks which objected to having their monopoly broken in upon; but the general mercantile community of Scotland desired to have some such measure as that passed; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman pressed his Motion to a division he should certainly vote with him. It was said that it would be a hardship to make people in Scotland accept these notes, and that it would be impossible for the £5 Bank of England notes to circulate side by side with the £1 notes of Scotland; but how, he asked, could the one description of notes displace the other?
  MR. GOSCHENthought, that simple as might be the proposal to establish Bank of England notes as a legal tender in Scotland, the House ought to be very careful before adopting it. The object of the Bill was to compel the people of Scotland to take a description of notes which it was said they did not want; and it appeared that those who took them would be obliged to incur the expense of sending them up to London to be exchanged for gold.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, that one of the reasons why the people of Scotland did not care to have Bank of England notes forced upon them was that they held their own notes to be as good, if not better. When the Western Bank of Scotland failed, its notes were as good on the day of the failure as they were the day before. The people of Scotland do not care to have

  125
  Bank of England notes forced upon them. Whenever a person presents a Bank of England note to be cashed at a small village, he is asked to write his name across the back of it. The probable reason is that the people of Scotland, however good the Bank of England notes may be in England, are rather alarmed at having such a document placed in their hands in Scotland. I should like to know whether any gentleman was ever asked to write his name over a £5 note issued in Scotland.
  MR. BAXTERthought the hon. and gallant Member opposite would do well to rest satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, which had been very much in favour of the principle of his Bill. The speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) would give the impression that the Scotch system of banking was perfect, and could not possibly be altered for the better; but every one who was well acquainted with the subject was perfectly aware that the law relating to it was extremely defective, and must sooner or later be amended. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out the prospect that probably next Session there would be a revision of the whole system, and had guarded himself against expressing an opinion hostile to the principle of the present Bill, it was not advisable to press the matter any further on that occasion.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he had not heard a word in that discussion to show that there would be any impropriety in extending to Scotland and Ireland the privilege which England had enjoyed for the last thirty years.
  SIR JOHN HAYbelieved that it would be unwise, after the appeals which had been made to him, and considering the period of the Session, if he were now to go to a division. At the same time he thought that the discussion which had taken place, and the interest displayed in the subject, fully justified him in introducing the question to the notice of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that in his opinion it was desirable that any change should be made step by step. He sincerely trusted that the discussion which had now taken place would be one step towards the change, which the majority of the people of Scotland desired to see. He hoped that early next Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring in a Bill to give to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom those privileges in connection with banking of
  126
  which they are now deprived. He would now, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Bill.
  Amendment, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

JERSEY COURT BILL— [BILL 48.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. LOCKE: Sir, before you leave the chair, I wish to make one or two observations with regard to this Bill. It will be in the recollection of some Members of the House that the second reading took place a considerable time since, and the Bill has been postponed from time to time until at length we have arrived at the stage when the House is asked to go into Committee upon it. The reason why I am anxious to make some observations on the matter is this, that the state of opinion in the Island of Jersey has undergone a very great change since I first introduced the Bill to the notice of the House. The Bill, as I stated on a former occasion, is similar to the one which was introduced into this House in the year 1861. Indeed that Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Serjeant Pigott, was precisely the same as the Bill which is now before the House for its consideration in Committee. It was founded upon the Report of the Commission which sat in 1859 and 1860, and which was composed of Sir John Awdry, the right hon. the Earl of Devon and Richard Jebb, Esq. They were the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the civil laws of Jersey, and their Report, with appendix, was presented to both Houses of Parliament in the year 1860. Now, in the year 1861, Mr. Serjeant Pigott introduced his Bill into this House. The Government of that day, Sir George Cornewall Lewis being at the head of the Home Department, entirely approved of the provisions of the Bill; and, in point of fact, the Bill, as I have stated, was entirely founded upon the Report of the Commission. But Sir George Cornewall Lewis at that time stated that it was inexpedient for Mr. Serjeant Pigott to go on with the Bill, as the States of Jersey had not had a sufficient opportunity of considering the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he was anxious that they should be submitted to their consideration with a view that they might

  127
  themselves legislate upon the subject. Therefore it was that Mr. Serjeant Pigott withdrew the Bill in the year 1861, which I have had the honour of re-introducing in the present Session. Now, it is needless for me to go into the complaints that have from time to time been made by persons resident in the Island of Jersey of the mal-administration of the laws of that Island in consequence of the Royal Court of Jersey not performing the duties of a Court in the way in which we, at this time of day, expect that a Court should perform them. It is quite sufficient to refer to the Report in which the Royal Commissioners stated numerous objections to this Court; in point of fact, they condemned it altogether, and made suggestions which have been embodied in this Bill. I will just call the attention of the House to some of the statements in the Report of the Royal Commissioners. They say that whatever may have been in earlier times the merits of this very ancient tribunal, the constitution of which they had discussed, it was their deliberate conviction that the Island, with its great wealth and population, its large foreign commerce, and all the important and complicated interests which have arisen in it, has at the present day so completely outgrown its judicature, that any reforms which shall leave the duties of the Superior Court in the hands of a numerous body without professional education, whose attendance is precarious, and for whose nomination no one is responsible to public opinion, will be absolutely nugatory. They, likewise, state that it appeared to them that it was essential that the Royal Court should in future consist of a small number of Judges of competent legal attainments and experience, with salaries sufficient to give the public a right to demand their punctual attendance, and nominated, during good behaviour, by some authority responsible for the propriety of the selection. They proposed, therefore, that the number should be three—namely, the Bailiff and two puisne Judges, to be nominated by the Crown, and to hold office during good behaviour. The Commissioners added that they should receive salaries of £1,200, £1,000, and £1,000 respectively; all Court fees of every description being paid, as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made, into a common fee fund. They further stated that they saw no advantage in continuing the Crown Officers as essential members of the Court, and
  128
  recommended that one Judge should sit alone for duties which would be in the main similar to those to which the nombre inférieur is now competent, so far as such duties might be retained, whilst there would be less frequent but stated and calculable sittings of the Full Court. These are the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and that is all, in point of fact, that this Bill pretends to effect. It having been shown most clearly by the Commissioners of 1859, that without a reform of the Royal Court of Jersey no good could be expected from any other reforms that might be made, it was, therefore, thought right that this object should, if possible, be attained—that they should go at once to the root of the evil which exists there—namely, to reform that Court, and give a tribunal to the Island which would be effective. It has been asserted by some that the inhabitants of Jersey are a peculiar race of people, that they conquered this country, and have a right to go on precisely as they please. They entirely forget that a very large proportion of the inhabitants of that Island are at the present moment English people, and that whatever, as the Commissioners say, might have been the merits of their very ancient tribunal in former times, they are now discontented with the system under which twelve Jurats are elected by simple ratepayers, the only qualification for the office being that they shall possess a sum of £30 a year, and shall not be butcher or baker, or belong to some other one or two trades. That being the only qualification for the Judges of the land, English persons and the great bulk of the Jersey people are entirely discontented with the system, because they say, very truly, that it is perfectly monstrous that these men without the necessary knowledge of law—and nobody knows whether they ever had any—should have the power of pronouncing decisions in that Court, simply because the Bailiff was a lawyer. But that functionary does not direct the Court. He does not say what is the law, and leaves it to the jury to decide upon the fact. These Jurats are the Judges both of law and fact, and when a question of law has to be decided, they put it to the vote, and the Bailiff has no more power or authority than any one of the Jurats of the Court. Now, this has been found to act in the most inconvenient manner. One great objection is, that when evidence is taken in a case, it is necessary to have the

  129
  same Jurats every time the Court meets, in order that the business may proceed; but in addition to their being Jurats, they likewise are members of the States, and they have, in point of fact, thrust upon them such numerous duties, that it is utterly impossible that they can attend to their judicial functions. The consequence is, that they are neglected, and great injustice is thereby done to the people in the Island of Jersey. Now, as I stated, the inhabitants of Jersey are a very peculiar people, and they arrogate to themselves a position higher, I believe, than that of anybody in this country. They say that they conquered us, but they entirely forget that Henry the First conquered them again. I do not however think it is worth while to go into these ancient matters. The question is, what is necessary to be done at the present time of day? What is necessary for the comfort and the security of the life and property of the inhabitants of the Island of Jersey? And, moreover, what is necessary for the interests of those who are trading with them, and having communication with them every day? In former times there was a very small population in the Island of Jersey. At the present time there are no less than 60,000 inhabitants, or nearly so, and a great portion of these are English. It appears by the last census what are the precise numbers of each description of individuals in that Island. In addition to that, they own 50,000 tons of shipping. There are most important questions coming under the notice of the Royal Court from day to day; and how have these questions to be decided? They have to be decided by these twelve men, called Jurats, who do not necessarily know anything about the law, and, I believe, the only appeal there is is to the Privy Council, and that, I think, cannot be in regard to any matter under £200. Therefore, the condition in which the people of Jersey find themselves is certainly not one that anybody else would envy. They do not themselves now envy it. They have always had a strong desire to legislate for themselves. They certainly have had a strong jealousy of any legislation with respect to the Island being undertaken by the Imperial Parliament, and the desire of those who were anxious for reform was, that whatever could be done in that direction should be done by the Queen in Council; and very early in this year a petition was forwarded to the Queen in Council,
  130
  signed by many of the most respectable persons in Jersey, and holding high positions, praying for a reform of the laws of Jersey, and asking for the very reform which is contained in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department presented that address. The Return which was moved for by an hon. Member of this House of the correspondence which passed between the States of Jersey and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, has been presented to the House, and I would recommend those Returns to the attention of hon. Members. I will only say that they show on the part of the Home Secretary the strongest desire that the States of Jersey should legislate for themselves, and he points out to them what is necessary. On the other hand, I think, it appears from that correspondence, that the States of Jersey set themselves entirely against any reform whatever. But beyond that, I have been supplied from time to time with the Jersey papers containing accounts of the debates which have taken place in the States with reference to the Bill now before the House, and with the exception of some five or six of the representatives, who have shown themselves anxious for, and made a motion in the States with regard to, that reform which is contained in the Bill, the States have shown that they set themselves entirely against it, and that they are determined not to have any reform whatever. It was only lately that a proposal was made in the States to separate the judicial and legislative powers vested in the Jurats, and it was negatived by an immense majority. In point of fact, they would not take it into consideration; and, therefore, hon. Members will see that it is impossible to expect that the States of Jersey will make any attempt at all for the reformation of the Royal Court and of the laws of the Island. At all events, that is the opinion to which a vast portion of the inhabitants of Jersey have at last come. As I stated, they are extremely reluctant that Great Britain should legislate for them, and they sent up a petition to the Queen in Council, asking her to do that which is embodied in the Bill, and many signed that petition who are now ready to sign this, and some of them have done it. There was a strong feeling against the interference of this House, but that feeling has since then been changed. I presented yesterday to this

  131
  House two petitions from inhabitants of Jersey, to which were attached no less than 3,900 signatures. That was a greater number than was obtained by the States even for the petitions presented against the Bill, and notwithstanding that intimidation of every kind has been used by the persons in authority in Jersey to prevent the people from petitioning this House in favour of the Bill. But in spite of all that, no less than 3,900 signatures have been appended to the petition which I presented yesterday, stating what their grievances were under the present system, and asking this House to pass this Bill to relieve them from the state in which the Royal Court of Jersey has placed them. I think that is a most remarkable circumstance—that the Jersey people, feeling as they do a disinclination to come to this House, because they say they have always been separated from the Imperial Parliament, yet so strongly do they feel the state in which they are placed by reason of the mal-administration of the laws of Jersey through the Royal Court, that they have cast aside scruples on this subject, and have, to the large number of 3,900, petitioned the House to pass this Bill. I think, therefore, that this Bill comes before the House supported by the people of Jersey. They ask for reform; and I feel satisfied of this, that no technical objections which may be taken—none of that old and antiquated feeling—those notions which might have been entertained in former days—will be allowed to weigh with this House, and induce it to reject this Bill. Such being the state of things, just let us consider what ground there can be for refusing to pass the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Rolt) has put a notice on the paper that he intends to move that the States of Jersey be heard by their counsel, and to adduce evidence at the Bar of the House in opposition to the Bill. I suppose he will contend that Parliament cannot legislate for the Island of Jersey. Perhaps he will hardly say that, but that it is unconstitutional for Parliament to do so. Parliament has however, over and over again, legislated for the Island of Jersey. Parliament in the year 1805, upon the Smugglers Act, legislated for the Island of Jersey, and precisely the same objection which my hon. Friend says he is going to make on the present occasion was made then. It was, however, overruled both in the
  132
  House of Commons and in the House of Lords, the Bill passed, and I believe it is the law of the land at the present moment. I know my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity and power, but he cannot erase that Act of Parliament from the statute-book; nor can he get rid of the report in Hansard in the year 1805, when the same objection was made and entirely overruled. Well now, upon what grounds will the House refuse to legislate for the Island of Jersey? These persons forming the Court choose to adopt a certain course and say, "Oh, we may do as we like with our own." But has not every Englishman, Irishman, and Scotchman a right to go to Jersey? Do they not go in large numbers to Jersey? Is not a great proportion of the population of Jersey either English, Irish, or Scotch; and do they not tend very much to the wealth and advantage of that Island? Well, are they to submit to be governed by those barbarous laws? Are they to submit to have a tribunal like that in Jersey which, as I understand, makes a distinction between Jerseymen and other people, which exercises an influence which no Judge in any other land has a right to exercise? They have no right to be armed as legislators of the States and likewise as Judges. They perform all these duties together in this small Island, where everybody is at their beck and call, and instead of their duties being separated, they are all mixed up together, so that it is utterly impossible to make them attend to any of them properly. At all events, they have no time to perform their duties as Judges. But now it is a somewhat remarkable fact that many of these very men, these Jurats, who, before they were Jurats, thought rightly and thought properly, on becoming Jurats seem to have taken leave of their senses. I may also mention one hon. Gentleman, named Mr. Francis Godfray, who has been sent by the States to this country to stir up hon. Members in this House, and to induce them to oppose this Bill; what did he do? When he was examined before the Royal Commissioners, a gentleman writes me a letter to tell me what occurred. The gentleman who writes this letter says that although he cannot sign a petition to the House of Commons in favour of the Bill, for he does not like the interference of the British Parliament in the affairs of the Island of Jersey, still he cannot allow Mr. Godfray, who has come over to Eng-

  133
  land for the purpose of inducing people to oppose this Bill, to do this without telling what occurred when he was examined before the Commissioners. And about this there is no question. The letter which this gentleman has addressed to me is dated the 6th of May in the present year, and he says he is opposed to any interference of the British Parliament, but still when a public man, such as Mr. Godfray is, becomes inconsistent, he considers it to be his duty to expose that person, especially when such a man is a member of the States, and one of the deputies appointed to the British Parliament to induce them not to pass this Bill. The Commissioners sat in 1846, and the proceedings were published in 1847. It was an inquiry into the state of the criminal law of the Channel Islands, and in pages 211 to 214 of the Report it will be found that when Mr. Godfray was examined, he then said he was in favour of reforming the constitution of the present Royal Court. In reply to one question he said, "I am decidedly of opinion that the Court is badly constituted," and having explained to the Commissioners the evils of the present, system, Mr. Godfray says—
  "I proposed a change in the institutions of the Island. I proposed, with the concurrence of the majority of the States, to do away with the twelve Jurats, and replace them by two Judges, elected by the people, but that these two Judges must be qualified, as having been lawyers of long practice. That was the principal feature of the change."
  Now this was the change Mr. Godfray then proposed, and that is substantially what is now proposed to be done by this Bill. The only difference is that he says the two Judges were to be elected by the people and were to be of long standing and practice. He proposed that the twelve Jurats were to be done away with, and so does this Bill. The fact is this Bill and Mr. Francis Godfray's former opinions entirely coincide. I have here in my hand a host of opinions which were expressed by Jersey lawyers at that time against the system, and setting out what changes ought to be made, but I will not trouble the House with them. I think when I have mentioned Mr. Godfray, who is sent over by the States as their deputy and agent for the purpose of preventing this Bill passing, I do not think I could instance a better person than he is. Mr. Godfray has come over here to do what I have stated, and he is a member of the States, and expresses their opinions. I have stated the
  134
  Report which the Commissioners came to, and the recommendations which they make. They were extremely simple, and they recommended that this should form the basis of the alteration of the Court of Jersey, and I have not heard anybody state that they have an objection to this Bill, with the exception of the hon. Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis). He has certainly put a Motion on the paper, and objects to the form of the Bill and the enactments in it, while the objection which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire makes is, that the House ought not to legislate upon the subject. But it is admitted that the House has the power, if it pleases, to legislate; and, as to the Bill itself, that it is a right measure, and that it is an improved and proper one, and that these Jurats shall not be allowed to exist any longer. I have only heard one single exception to the Bill itself, and that is, as I have already stated, the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Harwich has given notice. His proposal is to strike out Clause 15. Now, if you strike that clause out, you will find you will not have any money to pay the Judges, and he thinks that without money to pay the Judges, in all probability there will be none. And that is a sailor-like way of looking at the thing, and no doubt a very sensible one; but still at the same time, when we get into Committee on the Bill, I think I shall be able to meet that difficulty, and to accommodate the hon. Member for Harwich. But let us go into Committee on the Bill. Do not let us be led away. I trust the House will not be led away by any sophistry, causing them to suppose that they have no power to legislate. It is admitted on all hands we have the right and power, and have exercised that power before on numerous occasions. As well might it be said that the writ of Habeas Corpus does not extend to the Channel Islands, because they once did think that they could seize British subjects, and do as they pleased with them. But the Courts of Law settled that matter, and I trust this House will settle this matter, and will not allow the States of Jersey, who are ruling over English subjects as well as their own, to say they will uphold a Court like this. Two Commissions, of 1846 and of 1859, both treated it entirely as a nuisance which ought to be abated; and I trust the House, whatever my learned Friend urges on this matter, will be true to itself, and extend to Jersey

  135
  those privileges which we enjoy, namely, a proper code of laws and a proper court of justice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Locke.)
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I stated yesterday in answer to a Question put to me, that I would to-day intimate the course which the Government thought ought to be taken in regard to this Bill. The House will recollect that upon the second reading I expressed my entire concurrence in the object which this Bill sought to attain—the reformation of the Royal Court of Jersey. I stated that the Report of the Royal Commission had shown that there are great defects in the administration of justice in Jersey, arising out of the constitution and forms of procedure in that Court, and that the Commissioners had pointed out those reforms which they thought essential to the due administration of justice in Jersey. But I said at the same time that so long as there was any hope that these reforms would be carried into effect by the States of Jersey themselves, it was inexpedient that Parliament should interfere. A Bill was brought in by the present Mr. Baron Pigott; but it was objected to on the ground that the Report of the Royal Commission had been so short a time before the States that it was desirable to give them ample time to consider the reforms which it pointed out. On that occasion the right of Parliament to interfere was most distinctly affirmed. There can be no doubt that Parliament can interfere in case these reforms cannot be carried into effect in any other manner. The correspondence which has been laid on the table since the Bill was introduced, will show how the matter at present stands. The States in their last communication have declined to entertain the questions referred to them by the Lieutenant Governor. They have done so on the ground that to proceed to take into consideration the suggestions of the Commission and the recommendations of the Lieutenant Governor while this Bill was pending, would imply that they are acting under the coercion which might be supposed to be placed upon them by this measure. In answer to that, I informed them that if it was really intended to take up this question, and that if this Bill was the only obstacle to an entering into the consideration of
  136
  these reforms—that, if this Bill was withdrawn and legislation by Parliament postponed, they really resolved to carry out themselves the suggestions made to them by the Commission—I should be sorry by further supporting this measure to put any obstacles in the way of their considering these questions. I have had no answer to that communication. But, at the same time, I think it desirable to proceed in this matter with due care and deliberation, and that we should still even avoid the semblance of depriving the States of Jersey of dealing with their own institutions, and of carrying the reforms suggested into effect, if they should see fit to do so. Under these circumstances, and in the spirit of my letter to the Lieutenant Governor, I express my hope—and I trust the House will agree with me in the expediency of that course—that my hon. Friend will not proceed with the Bill in the present Session. As I have already stated, I think Parliament has a perfect right to interfere; and if, during the interval, those reforms which are essential to the administration of justice in Jersey are not carried into effect, I do not think the Government can offer any obstacle during a future Session to the progress of a Bill of this kind. I do not mean to say that the Government approves of the Bill in all its details, but of a Bill the object of which is the reformation of the Royal Court of Jersey. I believe that there is a growing feeling in the Island itself not only in favour of these reforms, but in favour of the intervention of Parliament to give them effect—owing to the indisposition of the States to undertake them. I cannot help thinking that with the pressure put upon the States by the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and by the growing opinion in Jersey in favour of these reforms, they will hardly place themselves in opposition to public opinion, and refuse to act upon the suggestions which have been addressed to them. In their last communication I understand them to say they are not opposed to these recommendations, and are not disposed to object to the views which are entertained by the Government. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the Bill, and that it will not be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Paull) to make his Motion. I trust that the result will be that this alleged obstacle to the consideration of these reforms being removed, the States

  137
  will fairly undertake the consideration of the recommendations of the Commissioners and the Lieutenant Governor, and that before another Session some Act will have been passed which will carry into effect the reforms so much desired.
  MR. ROEBUCKhoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw the Bill, but on the distinct understanding that it was the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State that that House had full right and power to interfere in the affairs of Jersey, and that if something was not done by the States before the beginning of next Session he would, should he be in office, be prepared to lay on the table a Bill for reforming the Royal Court.
  MR. PAULL: I have undertaken to make the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Gloucester shire (Mr. Rolt) who is unable to be present, and the reason why he intended to submit that Motion was that the States of Jersey are entirely misrepresented in this matter. The statement which was made by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Locke) as to the appointment of the Commission, and the proceedings which took place under that Commission, is perfectly correct. The States are quite willing to consider these recommendations, but they are not willing that the Royal Court, which has existed for so many hundred years, should be abolished entirely in the way which it is now proposed to do. They protest against a question of this kind being taken up by any private Member of Parliament. They find that, although the Royal Commission was issued at the recommendation of the Government, and that these Commissioners have visited the Islands, and have received information from those most competent to judge, the question has not been taken up by Government as might reasonably have been expected, and as I think the House will say they ought to have done. If pressure is indirectly to be brought on the Island of Jersey—if the Government are content to leave a measure which they are disposed to support in the hands of a private Member—if, under these circumstances, the authorities of the Island, who ought to be represented in this House by the Government, are left to be bandied about the lobby, to take up their position in some hotel and to issue circulars to endeavour to secure the attention of Members of Parliament
  138
  to their views, I say that nothing can be more unfitting and impolitic than that an Island which is not a conquered country, but is one of the most ancient and loyal dependencies of the British Crown, should be treated in this manner. For ages, peace, loyalty, and harmony have existed there, more, perhaps, than in any other portion of the British dominions. They have long enjoyed a distinct judicature and a distinct legislature. In every case in which Bills of Parliament have been passed for England and extending to Jersey, that legislation has not taken effect immediately in these Islands. The Acts have been referred to the Legislature of Jersey, and have been, in some instances with Amendments, registered, and have thereby become the law of the Island. The long address which has been delivered by my hon. and learned Friend precludes me from going into this case as I would wish to do. But I may say that the people of Jersey do not desire this Bill to be withdrawn. They join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and they rely on making their case good before the House. They say that they are still ready to make reforms and to receive the recommendations of the Imperial Government; but they are not disposed to submit to allow their internal and domestic institutions to be dealt with in the way that this Bill proposes to deal with them. You are proposing by this Bill to appoint paid Judges and to dispose of taxation, which you are not empowered to deal with. I think the House will be of opinion that when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) talks of great care and deliberation, there has been a great want of care and deliberation on the part of the Home Office. It is greatly owing to him that matters have been brought to their present position, and that the Gentlemen representing these Islands have been obliged to attend here from day to day. They only knew of the second reading of this Bill in time to be here the day before it came on; and consequently they were not able to organize an opposition. They received no such assistance and protection as they might have expected from the Home Office; and have had to go from one Member to another. They have retained an eminent counsel to appear before the House, and they are perfectly prepared to join issue with the hon. Gentleman. I myself have no interest in the matter, nor do I know all the merits of the case; but feeling that

  139
  Parliament has no right to deal in this offhand manner with institutions that have existed so long, I myself should be disposed to protest against the withdrawal of the Bill, and to insist that the States should be heard by their Counsel at the Bar of this House, and should have an opportunity of refuting the allegations which have been made against them so recklessly by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know that at this period of the Session it will be extremely difficult to find a day on which the House could hear the counsel of the States at the Bar, and certainly that is the only ground on which I could agree to the withdrawal of the Bill.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate till to-morrow.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  INDIA OFFICE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COWPER, Bill to vest the Site of the India Office in Her Majesty, for the service of the' Government of India, ordered* to be brought in by Mr. COWPER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented*, and read 1o. [Bill 166.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.