Sitting of 28 April 1865

GREENOCK RAILWAY BILL.

  MOTION FOR RE-COMMITTAL.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: If the House will favour me with its attention, I will briefly explain on what grounds I move that the Greenock Railway Bill be re-committed. This case is one of first impression, originating in the new practice under the recent Standing Orders of the House on the subject of Private Bills. It is one of some peculiarity. The House is aware that the new Standing Orders require the Referees on Private Bills to make a Report on certain points. One of these points is the sufficiency of the estimates for the works proposed. The Standing Order says that the Referees shall inquire into the engineering details, the sufficiency of the works for the proposed object, and the sufficiency of the estimates for executing the same. Now, the Referees considered these questions, and made a Report to the House, which, unfortunately, was couched in ambiguous terms, which neither found the estimates sufficient nor insufficient. The Report was in these terms—"The Referees consider that the promoters' estimate is vague and unsatisfactory." The House will observe that the finding was ambiguous, and capable of being regarded by the Committee, as either sufficient or as insufficient. After hearing counsel the Committee—which was presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid)—found, in the following terms—
  "That the Report of the Referees on Private Bills has been referred to the Committee, which Report is considered by the Committee as stating the opinion of the Referee that the estimate is not sufficient for the proposed undertaking; and in consequence of said Report the Committee did
  1194
  not proceed to consider the allegations in the preamble, and determined to report that the preamble is not proved to their satisfaction."
  The parties, therefore, by this preliminary conclusion, were precluded from going into the merits of the Bill. The Bill was rejected and reported against, and unless it be re-committed it is gone. Now, the question for the House to consider is whether the finding of the Referees' Report was a finding that the estimate was insufficient; and I have some reason to believe—of course I have no right to quote the Referees—but I have some reason to believe that if the Committee had communicated with the Referees on this question, they would have been told that it was not intended to convey by that Report to the Committee that the estimate was insufficient; nor did they wish to preclude the Committee from investigating the merits of the case. This matter, therefore, is one on which we are fairly entitled to hear the opinion of the Referees in this House. As far as I understand it, this is more or less a miscarriage of justice, owing to the terms in which the opinion of the Referees was expressed, they not being in exact accordance with the language of the Standing Orders. I do not, therefore, understand why the Committee should have thought fit to prevent the farther progress of the Bill. The consequence is that the parties have not been heard. This, of course, is purely a technical question, and does not relate at all to the merits of the case. And as it is the first point that has arisen under the new state of things, I have thought it advisable to bring the matter under the notice of the House. It is simply a question whether this has been a miscarriage of justice in consequence of the Committee misunderstanding the intention of the Report of the Referees. I observe Gentlemen in the House distinguished Members of the Court of Referees, and, therefore, I hope they will take the opportunity thus afforded them of expressing their intention by this Report, and that the House will take care that through this unfortunate ambiguity injustice is not done to those who promoted this Bill. I now beg to move that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.
  MR. DUNLOP: I beg to second the Motion made by my right hon. Friend. I sincerely hope that some means will be taken to enable the parties to be heard on the merits of this scheme. I should have thought that when a doubt was felt

  1195
  by the Committee as to the intention of the Referees, reference would have been made to them to know their meaning. I think it is a case in which they might and ought to have done that; and if there he any doubt still remaining, I trust the Referees will explain what their intention was.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Greenock Railway Bill be recommitted to the former Committee."—(Mr. Edward Pleydell Bouverie.)
  MR. ADAIR: As I was one of the Referees who signed the Report, I will take the liberty of briefly explaining to the House the circumstances adverted to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie). A practice has crept in among engineers of drawing up their estimates in a very loose, vague, and unsatisfactory manner; and since the establishment of the Court of Referees, it has been determined by us that we will have these estimates more clearly set out. When we came to examine the estimates, we heard a great deal of conflicting evidence on the subject, we were not satisfied that as much care—though as much as the previous practice of Parliament had required—had been exercised on this occasion, as we should in future insist upon; and, therefore, with that view, I and my Colleagues thought it necessary to introduce in the Report the words that the estimates were "vague and unsatisfactory." We should perhaps have said that the principle on which the estimates were framed was "vague and unsatisfactory," or some words to that effect. We were satisfied that though we should not have been justified in declaring that the estimates were "insufficient" for the works contemplated, yet the principle on which they were framed was "vague and unsatisfactory." We also thought it our duty to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in an estimate of £350,000, on the promoters' own showing there was only left a margin of £5,000. It was under these circumstances that we made the Report containing the expressions which have been read. We were satisfied that the estimate was sufficient, though the principles on which it had been framed were so "vague and unsatisfactory;" and we hoped this would be received as an intimation that greater accuracy ought to be shown, and would in future be required by the Referees.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE: I
  1196
  wish to say a few words in corroboration of what as just been said by my hon. Colleague. Having shared with him in drawing up this Report, I concur with him in all he has said with regard to the circumstances under which it was drawn up. We considered whether we should not declare the estimate "insufficient," but we had some hesitation in doing that, although there were circumstances to which we thought it proper respectfully to draw the attention of the Committee, so that they might consider the whole question; but nothing was farther from our intention, in drawing up that Report, than that we should altogether debar or preclude the Committee from considering the Bill on its merits.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I have, I confess, been not a little surprised at the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. I should certainly not have expected such a Motion to emanate from a Gentleman of so much experience as my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman says there is great ambiguity in the language used by the Referees. Now, I cannot think so. There appears to me nothing at all ambiguous in the phrase they have employed. The estimate is pronounced by the Referees "vague and unsatisfactory." The Chairman of the Committee, a Gentleman of great experience in such matters, tells us that on the ground of that Report they decided on throwing out the Bill. Are we thus to understand that whenever a Bill has been thrown out because the Referees have reported against it, that the wording of their Report is to be criticized, the merits of the Bill discussed in this House, and Motions made for re-commital? If you agree to such a Motion in this case, where are you to stop? All I can say is, if the terms "vague and unsatisfactory" are not sufficient to indicate that an estimate is insufficient, the terms ought certainly to be applied to the Referees' Report. I think the proposition which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman a most mischievous one, and I shall divide the House against it.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I think what has just been stated by the hon. Member is hardly sufficient to induce the House to reject the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. P. Bouverie). The Referees state that the practice of the House had been such that when they came to consider it they thought it unsatisfactory, and

  1197
  ought to be changed. But the present estimate was framed according to the old usage. That is the first thing to be considered. Then, said the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair), "We wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the estimates had been framed." Therefore they used words not in accordance with the Standing Order, but in accordance with the fact. Well, what did the Committee do? They did not pay attention to that fact, but they seized on these words, and declared the estimate insufficient. Now that, we are told by two of the Referees, was not their notion, They merely wished to call attention to the matter in hand, saying that they considered that engineers should make their estimates in a more satisfactory manner. Shall we, then, be doing justice if we refuse to recommit this Bill? I think not. In every new system these mistakes must occur every now and then. As things go on, the machinery will work more equably; but in the outset you must expect things of this kind. Let us, when the case is pointed out, put the matter to rights; and I say, after what we have heard from the Referees, we ought to recommit this Bill, and let the Committee determine whether the estimates are or are not sufficient.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID: Having been Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, I wish to state, in very few words, what was the view we took of the Report of the Referees, and why I think, as the matter stood, we were perfectly right. I shall then, with the permission of the House, state what course I think ought now to be taken with regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend, The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates was referred to the Referees. It is admitted that if the estimates were found to be insufficient, the Committee ought not to proceed with the Bill. Well, the Report finds that the estimate is "vague and unsatisfactory." The first remark I make upon these terms is this—it cannot possibly be maintained that they are equivalent to saying that the estimate is sufficient. But we are told that the subsequent part of the Report makes it appear, nevertheless, that that was intended. So far as I understand the subsequent part of the Report, it has a contrary bearing. It is well known that in all works of this description unexpected expenses occur, and in order to the suffi-
  1198
  ciency of an estimate, it is necessary to allow a considerable sum for contingencies. But the Referees themselves point out the smallness of the sum. Only £5,000 on an estimate of £350,000 had been left for this purpose. It has been said by my right hon. Friend who made this Motion, and by my hon. Friend who seconded it, that the Committee ought to have communicated with the Referees, that they might have explained the language of their own Report. I think the Committee would have miscarried if they had made such a reference. The Committee thought the Referees had already expressed themselves in intelligible language; the Committee believed, and they acted on the belief, that the Referees meant by the language they had used that the estimates were "insufficient;" and I have not heard anything yet to induce me to think that the House ought to re-commit the Bill. But it is said the Referees only wished to guard against similar errors in future. I think if this Bill be re-committed, it will, in the strongest possible manner, encourage such errors. Such is the view which I myself take of this question. At the same time, if the House should think proper, after the explanation of the Referees, to re-commit the Bill, I am quite sure the Committee will be ready to proceed with the investigation on the merits.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I consider this question entirely a matter of procedure. The promoters of a Bill are virtually on the defensive as regards the sufficiency of the estimate, unless a Bill is opposed on the ground of the insufficiency of the estimates. The opposition to this Bill proceeds only from a rival company; all the landowners on the line are in its favour, and the important town of Greenock, where it originates, also strongly support it. I think the House will not be inclined to draw the rule with extraordinary strictness for the sake of defeating such a Bill. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair) has stated that he did not think the Referees would have been justified in absolutely certifying the sufficiency of the estimates; but neither did they endorse the opinion of the opponents of the Bill by declaring them to be insufficient. I shall support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CLAY: I consider such miscarriages of justice exceedingly likely to arise in the working of new machinery; and the House can well afford not to be too strict

  1199
  in enforcing the rule, which it may be well hereafter to enforce with the greatest strictness. Still, if I had presided over the Committee, I should have taken precisely the same course, and probably I should not have troubled myself to explain any ambiguity in the language employed. I should have considered it enough that the Report did not certify the sufficiency of the estimate. But unless the Reports of the Referees are decided yes or no, they will not answer the purpose for which they are required. I shall vote for the Motion.
  MR. NEATE: Unless the Referees stated positively that the estimate was insufficient the Committee were bound to go into the consideration of the Bill on its merits. This being the case I think the House ought to re-commit the Bill.
  MR. BOVILL: I think it is desirable to know how matters stand in reference to the Standing Orders of the House, especially as a very serious question is raised by the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The duty of inquiring into the sufficiency of the estimates in connection with works proposed to be undertaken by the promoters of a Private Bill is a duty thrown by this House upon the official Referees. I take it, that when the Referees have given their decision, no further reference is to be taken by the Committee to disprove the facts which have been reported by the Referees. The meaning of this is, that after the official Referees have inquired into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates, the question of the sufficiency of the estimates is not to be inquired into by the Committee to whom the Bill is referred. If, therefore, the House decides now upon referring the Bill back again to the same Select Committee by whom it has already been considered, the Committee will assuredly feel themselves bound to abide by the Standing Orders which have already regulated their proceedings, and they will at once say that they have no power whatever to enter into the question of the sufficiency of the estimates. The result will be that there will still be no Report as to the sufficiency of the estimates in regard to the works proposed to be undertaken. As I the case stands at present, the estimates have been declared "vague and unsatisfactory," and if the question is referred back again to the same Committee, I do not sec what different result can be arrived at.
  MR. THOMPSON: A question has arrisen whether the estimates are suffi-
  1200
  cient or not. The Referees say that the evidence is "vague and unsatisfactory," and I hope that the House will support the Report of the Referees. As a question connected with the conduct of private business of the House, I think that the Report of the Referees is now on its trial, and that it ought to be supported. If the matter had been decided in the first instance by the Committee to whom the Bill is referred, their decision would be regarded as conclusive, and would not have been challenged, because the House invariably supports the decisions of its Committees. The effect of this is most salutary, inasmuch as it prevents disputes after the decision of a Committee has once been given in regard to the preamble of a Bill. Unfortunately the decision of the Referees is not final, but the question has still to go before a Committee; and as a considerable interval elapses between the decision of the Referees being made public and being considered by the Committee, any person feeling aggrieved by the Report of the Referees has an opportunity of getting up a case against their decision. I think it is of great importance that the Report of the Referees should be supported.
  SIR WILLIAM MILES: I hope the House will take care what it does on this subject. The Court of Referees when first established was not received well by the public, but since it has been in action it has gradually won their favour. If, however, a stone is to be thrown by this House at their decisions, what is to become of the public out of doors? As I understand, by the rules of the House the Referees are required to take into their consideration the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates. It is true in this case that they have not reported that the estimates are insufficient, hut they have used a term quite equal to it; and in that case, I think, after the explanation that has been given, that the Committee to whom the question was referred has acted most consistently and properly. I must express a hope, that this being a new Court, we should not now, by an adverse decision, with regard to the judgment of the Referees, call into question a Court which we ourselves have created, and which I believe is gradually obtaining the confidence of the House and the public.
  MR. W. EWART: The hon. Member who has last spoken seems to imply that the Referees have pronounced a decided

  1201
  opinion, whereas the real truth of the matter is, the Referees came to no decision on the question at all. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) has quoted the Standing Order; but if the House will refer to the wording of that Standing Order, they will find that the Referees are to decide whether the estimates are sufficient or insufficient. They have not done so in this case. All they say is, that the estimates are vague and unsatisfactory, which is a very different thing. I think the House ought to proceed in strict accordance with the letter of the Standing Order, and if they do that, there can be no difficulty in allowing this Bill to be re-committed.
  MR. DODSON: I think it would be a very unfortunate custom if it should become the habit of the House lightly to re-commit Bills reported upon adversely by the Referees or rejected by Committees; but, at the same time, the House must be very careful that they do not in some exceptional cases do any act of injustice, which will fall somewhat hardly on the promoters of Private Bills. In this case I have no doubt the Referees reported accurately that the estimates were made out in a vague and unsatisfactory manner; but, at the same time, they certainly do not report that the estimates are insufficient. That Report from the Referees went before the Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of the Bill, and construing it in the strictest manner, the Committee threw out the Bill. We have now heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was Chairman of the Referees, and who signed the Report on their behalf, that it was not the intention of the Referees to convey to the Committee an opinion that the estimates were insufficient. Under these circumstances, I think the House would do well to allow the Bill to be re-committed. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) asks how the Committee are to deal with the subject of the insufficiency of the estimates after it had already been dealt with by the Referees; and he has called our attention to Standing Order No. 91, arguing from that that the Committee have no further powers to inquire into the matter; but if the learned Member would look at the next Standing Order, No. 92, he would see that any Select Committee to which a Bill is referred, may, subject to the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means, remit any question arising in this way back again to the Re-
  1202
  ferees. Under all circumstances, I think the proper course in this case will, be to allow the Bill to be re-committed, there being a power given to the Committee to refer back to the Referees their Report on any subject on which they may require information.
  MR. HENLEY: I wish that the hon. Member the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Dodson) had addressed himself to answering the question which was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), which really lies at the root of the matter. The Motion before the House is to re-commit this Bill in order that it shall be referred back to the Referees upon the question of estimates. Now, no one pretends to say that the Report of the Referees holds out the slightest impression that the estimates are sufficient. The language of the Report, equivocal as it may be, is clear upon that point. We come, then, to the question of the Standing Orders, and if this Bill is to go back to the Committee, what course are they to take?—because, as I understand the effect of the Standing Orders, it is not within the scope of the powers of the Committee to go into the question whether the estimates are sufficient. If that is really so, and they cannot go into the question of the sufficiency of the estimates, the whole subject must again come before us for our decision; and we should then have to declare, upon the vague statement of the Referees, whether the estimates are sufficient or not. The Chairman of Ways and Means says very properly that this is a special case; but I doubt whether we should not be laying down a worse precedent by sending this case back to the Committee, who would be unable by the Standing Orders to go into the question whether the estimates are sufficient or not, than by letting the Bill stand over for a year, and affording time for the estimates to be laid before us in a proper form. If the Motion goes to a division, I shall certainly vote against the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
  MR. DODSON: I think that the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) could scarcely have heard what I said, or he would not have made the observations which he has addressed to the House. All I did was to point out that Standing Order No. 92 gives power to refer back to the Referees any question arising out of their Report upon which the Committee may entertain a doubt.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Greenock Railway Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 76: Majority 34.

GLASGOW CITY, SUBURBAN AND HARBOUR RAILWAY BILL.

  RE-COMMITTAL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Glasgow City Suburban and Harbour Railway Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Wyld.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

  POOR LAW UNIONS—AUDITORS OF ACCOUNTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDBLLasked the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it be the intention of the Poor Law Board to undertake for the future the appointment of all "Auditors of Accounts" to Poor Law Unions, such appointments having been hitherto supposed to rest in the hands of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the respective Unions?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that the Poor Law Board could not undertake the future appointment of Auditors, as they had no power to do so, the appointment being vested in the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Guardians. The Committee on Poor Relief had, however, recommended that in future the appointment should be vested in the central authority, and it would be for the House of Commons to decide whether that recommendation should be adopted whenever it was submitted to them. The Poor Law Board had no wish that the appointment should be vested in them. The Committee on Poor Relief also expressed a decided opinion that the number of audit districts should be reduced as vacancies occurred, and the vacant districts incorporated with others. The power to do this was already vested in the Poor Law Board under the 7 and 8 Vict. c. 101, and whenever vacancies occurred they were proceeding, as far as practicable, to carry their recommendation into effect, with the view of ultimately arranging that every district should be sufficiently extensive to occupy the whole time of each Auditor. This course did not deprive the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen in the districts which were annexed to others of their right to vote at subsequent elections.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Swansea, Whether he proposes to proceed with the adjourned Debate on the Church Establishment (Ireland), which now stands as an Order of the Day for Tuesday next?
  MR. DILLWYN: Sir, I find the Motion stands as an Order of the Day on Tuesday, and several other important Motions will come on before it. I cannot, therefore, expect to get on that day sufficient time for the discussion of a question of such importance. I therefore intend to propose the adjournment of the Order on Tuesday to some day when we can have sufficient time for its discussion. I hope to induce the Government to assist mo.

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, To name the day on which he will proceed with the Union Chargeability Bill; and whether he will bring it on as the first Order of the Day, so as to allow a full discussion on the effect it will have in the manufacturing districts?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: Sir, I cannot at this moment fix a day when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman can be discussed. I am extremely anxious there should be no delay, and I hope next week to be able to fix a day.
  MR. FERRAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will bring it on as the first Order of the Day?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I will bring it on as early as possible.
  MR. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Returns moved for by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) will be on the table?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: The Returns are very comprehensive, and some time must elapse before they can be printed.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What will be the order of business on Monday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: First will come the Address which it is proposed to move in reference to the assassination of President Lincoln. After that I propose to proceed with the

  1205
  Bank Notes Issue Bill, which I have fixed for that day for some time. After that I believe my right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) will proceed with his Partnership Amendment Bill. On Thursday we propose to proceed with the Resolutions (connected with the Budget) which I laid on the table of the House last night.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

OUT-DOOR OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances referred to in the Petition of the Mayor, Merchants, Shipowners, and Commercial Traders of Liverpool with reference to the Out-door Officers of Customs. That petition was presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) on the 20th of March, and it stated that much discontent and dissatisfaction prevailed among those officers, caused by inadequate salaries, a defective system of classification, and a probability almost amounting to certainty that those gentlemen would not be able to obtain that promotion which they reasonably expected when entering the public service. Petitions on the same subject had been presented from the Lord Mayor, Merchants, and Shipowners of London; the Lord Mayor and Merchants of Durham; the Lord Provost and Merchants of Edinburgh and Leith; and the Mayor, Merchants, and Shipowners of Hull. He intended to move, also, that these petitions be referred to the Committee. The complaint of the petitioners was that in the year 1860 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced certain changes, which had had the effect of increasing the weight of those officers' duties, and of diminishing their chance of promotion without increasing their pay. In his financial statement of the previous evening the right hon. Gentleman told the House that of the surplus of £4,000,000, about £752,000 had arisen from the augmentation of the Customs. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, the Excise.] The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said the Customs. The change which had taken place had caused great discontent and dissatisfaction amongst 3,000
  1206
  officers, whose intelligence and zeal were equal to that of any other class. There could be no doubt that the duties of the out-door officers had increased; for, in the fifth Report of the Commissioners of Customs it was stated—in reference to a state of things which had arisen after the changes made in 1860—that the duty of the officers became more arduous every year. So pressing were the demands for despatch, and so great the importance of delay, that the Commissioners had been obliged to sanction the loading of steamers in many instances during the whole night, and the discharge of import cargoes as long as daylight lasted; while the privilege of loading and discharging from six a.m. to six p.m., formerly confined to a comparatively small number of articles, had now, by the revision of the tariff, become all but universal. In another portion of their Report the Commissioners observed—
  "From the experience of the past year we feel compelled to speak even more strongly than we did in our last Report in support of every measure calculated to alleviate the severity of a blow hitherto unparalleled in the history of this, or, we believe, of any other public department."
  In their Report for the year before last the Commissioners remarked that the pressure on the whole out-door department had been exceedingly severe; and they observed that the cost of collecting the Customs had been gradually decreasing, notwithstanding the steadily advancing trade of the country. He held in his hand the statement of one of those Out-door Customs Officers in the port of London, from which he found that the class to which he belonged had a chance of rising by promotion to £130 a year, that it could not now rise beyond £90, and that there wore other serious changes which had worked most detrimentally to their interests. The Minute of 1860 at once blighted the hopes of thousands of those officers. In the petition of the out-door officers of Hull to the Treasury he found it stated—
  "That the amalgamation changed all that was favourable in this state of things, by fixing the maximum at £65 and 1s. a day, instead of £76 and 1s. a day; by making £5 the uniform amount of promotion, instead of £10 and £5 alternately as before; by so enlarging the classes, especially those worse paid, as to make promotion a shadowy and doubtful thing; by reducing all actual salaries £6, though still received as personal allowance, so that when promotion does come it brings no relief, for £5 of the £6 personal allowance is applied in lieu thereof, and so no increase of income follows by lopping off unconditionally all remuneration for acting in a superior capacity, and by reducing all overtime pay to the uniform rate of 6d. per hour, although it was paid by the merchant, and never reluctantly in the out-door officer's case."

  1207
  If the House should consent to grant the Committee he would undertake to prove every allegation set forth in the petition. As to the competitive examinations established in the service, those officers complained, and most justly. Those examinations were very right and proper upon entrance to the service; but men who had been long in the service were most unfairly required to compete in these examinations with young lads of seventeen or eighteen who had just come from school. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) concurred with him (Mr. Hennessy) in the opinion that this system was bad and indefensible. There should be a simpler standard for old officers, and a slight increment of pay, according to length of service The Government refused to accede to the prayer of the memorial from Hull, but they were afterwards induced to re-consider the matter and the Minute of April, 1864, was then issued. Yet that Minute, as the Liverpool petitioners stated, dealt only with the minor points of the question and left all the important grievances totally unredressed. Instead of the Is. per day daily pay, it substituted £16 per annum, the difference between the two not being very much. He made it to amount to 4s. a year; but in addition to that they were allowed to get what they had not before—namely, they were no longer subject to a stoppage of 1s. a day during their sixteen days' leave of absence. These two sums, with another addition of 10 s., gave an increase of salary under the Minute to these officers of 30 s., per annum. The remission of £4 for the stamp on Commissions could only benefit those who were entering, not those who had already entered the service. But he must not forget to mention another extraordinary boon granted to these officers. Some of them had to provide a uniform at their own expense, but the Government decided to give them a topcoat gratuitously. How did the treatment of these officers bear comparison with that extended to their employés by private establishments, and that adopted towards other branches of the public service? The large merchants and. traders who had signed these petitions knew what they paid to their own servants, and yet they said that these out-door Customs officers justly complained. Moreover, the merchants daily came into contact with these officers, which the Government did not. They were also the largest taxpayers, and therefore interested in keeping down the ex-
  1208
  penditure; but they were induced to move in this matter by the belief that the Government did not treat their servants as they would be treated in private establishments; and that as these men were placed in very trustworthy and responsible positions they ought to be put beyond temptation by fair salaries and reasonable prospects of promotion. Nor was that all. The merchants actually employed, and to some extent paid, these officers themselves. In the out-door offices of the port of London, there were 280 officers in the fifth class, and they received £20,000 per annum as their salaries. These men were the best paid of all; and he found that when the out-door officers were occasionally employed by the merchants, the merchants had to pay for their attendance, and the money was received by the Department. The amount paid in one year in that way was £5,176, or 25 per cent of the aggregate salaries of the fifth class of these officers in London. The petitioners asked that they themselves might have the power of increasing that which they paid to these officers. He would not weary the House with details, but he thought he had said enough to show that the subject was one calling for inquiry; and he hoped the Government would be prepared to do something to remove the discontent which prevailed in the service. It was not creditable to them, when their revenue was in such a flourishing state, to treat the men who collected it harshly and parsimoniously. Any merchant who found his business thriving in such a manner would be ashamed to pay his clerks not a single penny more than he did the previous year. But whatever might be the increase of the public revenue, whatever the prosperity of the country, or the increase of rents and in the price of provisions, these officers' salaries were stationary, and their prospect of promotion diminished. He begged leave to move the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEseconded the Motion. He said that many of his constituents were interested in this question. After the statement made last night, it would be but fair that the Government should take the subject into their favourable consideration. He did not mean to say that it was a right principle that salaries should fluctuate with the prosperity or adversity of the country, but after a series of years of prosperity such as they had heard of last night they ought not to allow the contrast between the flourishing state of

  1209
  the revenue and the condition of the officers of this department to remain so marked as it was at present. The state of the outdoor officers of the Customs remained nominally unchanged, but practically had very greatly deteriorated. These officers were men of character, and intrusted with large amounts of property; and they ought to be in a position, not of dissatisfaction, but of content, and be fairly paid for their labour. It ought not to be forgotten that the introduction of improvements and the rapid advance of economical science and business arrangement since the times when these men came into the service had greatly increased the work, while house rent, provisions, and all other necessaries of life were much dearer; and that the rate of wages, compared with what it was ten years ago, was more than doubled. He thought a very fair case had been made out for inquiry.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances referred to in the Petition of the Mayor, Merchants, Shipowners, and Commercial Traders of Liverpool, which was presented on the 20th day of March last, with reference to the Out-door Officers of Customs,"—(Mr. Hennessy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BAINESsaid, he had a petition intrusted to him, which he had been unable to present from merchants connected with the inland bonding port of Leeds, confirming the statements made in the petition referred to by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) and praying for inquiry into the salaries and for more liberal treatment of these officers. The petition stated most distinctly that their salaries were not adequate to the decent and comfortable maintenance of themselves and families; indeed, they were so small as to present grievous temptations to departure from honesty in the discharge of their duties. He supported the Motion.
  MR. HENRY BERKELEYsaid, that speaking for the merchants of Bristol he considered these public officers a very hard-worked class. They were ill-paid, yet put in places of great trust, and were often, therefore, placed in circumstances of great temptation. A case had been made out fairly calling for the attention of the Government, and he thought if the Motion
  1210
  were pressed to a division the Government might be induced to give some pledge that the condition of this deserving body of men would be improved.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that he had a petition from Shoreham, which he had been unable to present, in which it was stated that it was impossible merchants and traders could feel entire confidence that such responsible duties could be honestly discharged while great temptations were placed in the way of officers who were most inadequately remunerated for their services. They all knew that in other countries the dishonesty of Government employés was often traceable to the inadequacy of their pay; they imagined that at home that temptation was wanting, and that those employed by the Government were not obliged to plead the smallness of their salaries as an excuse for dereliction of their duties. The grievances alleged in this case, therefore, called for inquiry.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that he had taken great interest in this question, and been in long and frequent communication with the Treasury in regard to it. He should be wanting in his duty if he did not give his testimony to the very minute, careful, and conscientious attention which had been given to the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury. So conscientious had been the inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should advise a man who had a good case to take it to that right hon. Gentleman and if he had a bad one to take it to somebody else. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) had omitted in his speech to mention a great boon which had been given to this branch of the service—namely, that of throwing open the whole of the Treasury patronage of the higher grades to the Customs themselves. He, however, was free to admit that that boon had not reached the men who were most aggrieved by the amalgamation of 1860—namely, those who had reached, or nearly reached, the top of their classes, who found themselves subject to a new classification, and instead of their reasonable expectation of immediate promotion, found their prospects of it so far removed, as almost to destroy hope of attaining it. The reason of the boon he had mentioned being useless to these men was this—the practice of the Customs was to give promotion either by selection or by competitive examination. Selection practically meant favouritism; and the class of old officers who were most

  1211
  aggrieved would probably make themselves no favourites by dwelling upon their grievances. But whatever chance of promotion they might have by selection, they had still less by competition, a system which should only apply to entrance into the service. It was not to be expected that these old men—although thoroughly good officers, because they possessed experience, and therefore had those very qualities of which a preliminary examination was only the imperfect test—would be up to the mark in general education easily reached by young men fresh from the instructions of their preceptors. He had pressed on the Treasury that a part of the Customs patronage should be given to seniority, coupled with competence and good conduct, but that that system should merely continue until such time as the claims of the sufferers by the amalgamation had been satisfied. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted his views on this question; but whether they were in accordance with the opinions of the Customs authorities he was not aware; they had, however, been in no way carried out. After looking carefully into the promotions which had been since made, he found that very few of them had been given to the officers who had most suffered by the amalgamation which had taken place. He believed if his suggestion had been adopted, they would not have heard of the Motion of his hon. Friend, and the agitation would have ceased—at any rate, for a considerable time. He added the last words because he believed the day must come when the Government would have to entertain the very much larger question of increasing the salaries of all their public servants in the lower grades. He should, perhaps, not be wrong in saying in all grades except the highest, the social station and influence of which might be considered as part of the remuneration for the service rendered. He would not say that this question of an increase of salary should not be entertained by the Government, but it was the duty of the guardians of the public purse to resist as long as it was just and fair to do so an augmentation so considerable of the fixed burdens of the country, of which however he had no fear, when the national wealth was increasing by at least one hundred millions annually. He should not, therefore, be surprised if the Government resisted the Motion of his hon. Friend. Those who like him-
  1212
  self supported it should do so with their eyes open, and recollect that this was only the first step to a very much larger inquiry regarding other officers who might be shown to be no less sufferers, and required no less consideration than those whose claims were now brought before the House.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he had been prevented from presenting a petition from Liverpool in favour of the Motion. He should deeply regret if Her Majesty's Government should resist the appointment of this Committee. He would not say that these officers were either underpaid or overpaid, but it was well known that there was a feeling of dissatisfaction among them, and if the appointment of this Committee would remove that feeling Her Majesty's Government would do well to appoint it. He regretted that his hon. Friend had not extended his Motion, because it was not in the out-door department alone in which dissatisfaction existed, but also to a great extent in the indoor department, and if a Committee were appointed to inquire into the one class, that inquiry should be followed by another into the other class.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would not, at any rate, be the fault of his hon. Friend who had just sat down and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) if the House were not enabled to understand the real nature and effect of the Motion before them. In the case of public officers who were enabled to allege that in their reasonable expectations, grounded upon the rules of public service existing when they entered that service, they had been disappointed through the Acts of the Government there was, he admitted, a grievance, and it was a matter in which it was the duty of the Government to render an account of their proceedings to the House, and it would be perfectly within the rules of prudence to risk an inquiry by a Committee. That was a view of the question comparatively narrow, and it was upon this view that his hon. Friend, judging by his arguments, was about to support the Motion. On this part of the question he should say a word by-and-by. The Motion before the House was of importance, not because the representatives of several of the ports of the country had risen in their places to speak in favour of it, touching as it did directly and indirectly the especial interests of their constituencies, adverse to that of the coun-

  1213
  try at large. [Mr. HENNESSY: No, no!] It was not because several Gentlemen representing that class of constituents had given their opinions in favour of this Motion that the hon. Member was entitled to say that he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not resist this Motion. He thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Hull for declaring the true effect of this Motion. It was not a question relating merely to a particular case of officers who thought they had been aggrieved by the change of 1860. The question at issue had been fairly and honestly disclosed and ingeniously exhibited to the public view by the hon. Member for Hull and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and it was, whether that House, composed of representatives of the public, was prepared to hear one by one all classes of persons employed in the public service, who should come forward as general solicitors for an increase of pay and emoluments, and that at the very period when the multitude of competent candidates for admission was far beyond what could be employed in any department. He hoped it would not be thought that he was presuming to dictate to the House if he ventured to point out that to enter upon that course would be a proceeding full of danger. If there was a duty that belonged to the executive Government, it was that it should be held responsible for the regulation and the pay of the public servants; and he was convinced that the House of Commons would at all limes be reluctant, as it ever had been, to take that particular duty out of the hands of the executive Government. He knew nothing that would tend so much to the disorganization of the public service, or anything which in its results would do more to lower the character of that great Assembly, than such a step. He ventured to say that the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion did not go to the root of the matter, but adopted the vague and general allegation of the petition which he read, and stated that the Treasury had simply dealt with certain minor grievances and had loft the major ones alone; and the hon. Gentleman ingeniously illustrated that proposition by a reference to the topcoats. The major grievances were two—one of which was not at all comprehended by the hon. Gentleman, and the other he conveniently passed over, taking no notice of it whatever. The case was this. There were several minor concessions made by the Treasury Minute of 1864. It was
  1214
  perfectly true that though there had been a difference of opinion about it between the period of 1860 and 1864, the Commissioners of Customs reported that with regard to certain classes of officers they had suffered with respect to their chances of promotion. He admitted that that was a very fair subject for consideration, and he thought, with regard to the promotion of public servants, that where there was an absence of misconduct, and where there was no incompetency, the Government could not justly estimate the position of the public servants if they neglected their prospects of promotion. Consequently an injury to prospects of promotion was an injury to position, which might be fairly described as a grievance. The two principal grievances complained of were the existence of day pay, and the injury done to the prospects of promotion. With regard to the day pay, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) had been answered upon that point by the hon. Member for Hull. It was shown that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the significance of the arrangement which was made, and by which a fixed allowance had been given to this class of officers after the expiration of a limited time in lieu of the day pay they formerly enjoyed. With regard to the prospects of promotion, how did that matter stand? The Government had endeavoured to open to this class of officers generally, not only equal, but superior prospects of promotion to what they possessed prior to 1860. The out-door officers could now be promoted to the class of examining officers. As his hon. Friend was aware, this had made a great improvement in the position of those officers. He had not the least hesitation in saying that they had not limited themselves to meeting a grievance, but had endeavoured to put these officers in the best position they possibly could compatibly with the interests of the public service. Here he might remark that the hon. Gentleman had given expression to an opinion which as a general rule he was perfectly willing to endorse. The hon. Member stated that he was a great advocate for competitive examination, but that such examination ought to be limited to the first entrance into the public service. The opinion was one which he himself entertained, but he was bound to say there was a distinction between manual or mechanical labour, and intellectual labour, and it would not therefore be safe to put an out-door officer, whose duties were

  1215
  purely manual and mechanical, to attain the rank of an examining officer whose duties were strictly intellectual without first of all passing the ordeal of an examination, because in such a change he might fairly be regarded in the same light as an officer hut newly entering the public service. The case was one not of ordinary promotion, but of transfer from one Department of the public service to another of altogether a different and much higher character. His hon. Friend said that he had been in favour of retaining the principle of seniority in that kind of promotion. On the one side there were the advocates for the retention of that principle; while, on the other, were those officers who were responsible for the discipline of the Department, who were of opinion that the principle of seniority was totally inapplicable to promotion in cases of this kind. The Treasury had, he believed, only done rightly in following the opinion entertained by the responsible heads of the Department. Under those circumstances, a very short experience would show whether the older officers would or would not be able to qualify themselves to take the benefit of the promotion. On this subject, however, they had had no Report, and he was bound to say that, though they did hope that those officers might he able fully to avail themselves of their chances of promotion, they could not consent to introduce into the administration of the service an inferior principle at the hazard of damage to the efficiency of the service, and in the teeth of the opinions of gentlemen in whose judgment they placed deserved confidence, and who were responsible for the due regulation of their Department. His hon. Friend said the hardship had arisen because those persons had not a fair share of promotion, but this minute having been passed in April last the question had not yet been before the Treasury. The Treasury had not yet received a report from the Customs on the subject, but if it were proved that those gentlemen had not had their fair share of promotion, and were consequently sufferers from the alteration of I860, he was quite willing to acknowledge that they were bound to make them compensation. The subject was at that very moment under consideration with reference to another class—the indoor officers. He must, however, say that because our revenue was now collected at a smaller expense than formerly it could not for that reason be inferred that our officers were worse paid.
  1216
  They were in reality better paid, and the decrease in the cost of collecting the revenue arose from our having simplified our forms and abandoned certain Customs duties which, though entailing a considerable cost for collection, made but little return to the Treasury. He was also willing to admit that if the likelihood of promotion were diminished the Government were bound to make some satisfaction. They ought not, however, to be asked to make that satisfaction by introducing into the public service ineffective persons when the satisfaction could be made by appropriating a certain grant of money adapted to the circumstances of the cases as they might arise. He was bound to say that there was also another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which had not previously been brought under his notice, and which called for some attention on the part of the Government. The hon. Gentleman had quoted an extract from the Report of the Commissioners of the Customs, stating that in certain cases the hours of the officers connected with the water-side and landing departments had been lengthened without those officers receiving any increase of pay. He would not say that he could not regard that as a grievance, because the contract which the men were bound by was for the service of the man and did not specify any particular number of hours. Looking at the state of things and the condition of the labour-market, he believed that as far as that statement was correct it was deserving of attention on the part of the Government. He was, however, assured on the best authority that it was only in rare and exceptional cases that any complaint of this nature could be made; but he would undertake that examination should be instituted into the matter. Those were the only points raised in the discussion which, in his opinion, could be at all described as grievances. He would, however, call the attention of the House to the fact that the Committee asked for by the hon. Member was really a Committee for the purpose of considering a wholesale augmentation of the emoluments of one large branch of the public service, and those who supported the Motion had frankly informed the House that if they granted it with respect to that department they must also grant it in connection with every department of the public service. It could not by any possibility stop at this point. It would pass from the out-door officers to the in-door officers, from

  1217
  the Customs to the Excise, from the Excise to the Post Office; nor did he know in what manner its operation after its commencement could be stopped. He believed, if they gave encouragement to the principle, they would find themselves entangled in the re-consideration of the emoluments of all departments of the public service, whether civil, naval, or military. He was sure that no House of Commons—whether dying or just born—whether about to meet its constituents or fresh from meeting them—would entangle itself in a principle so false with consequences so mischievous. The cases deserving inquiry should be investigated in a fair and equitable spirit, but as the proposition of the hon. Member meant something much wider and of a different character, he hoped the House would reject it.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he wished to state that he also had been prevented by the forms of the House from presenting that evening a petition from the merchants and traders of Tralee in favour of the Motion.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he wished to point out the great inequalities which existed in the remuneration of officers at the outports. At Whitehaven, where everything was getting very dear, the officers received lower remuneration than was granted in an adjoining town. Whether these had arisen from past arrangements or not, they ought not to be allowed to remain. It was impossible for merchants and shipowners who came in contact with these officers not to sympathize with them. If the Government should not listen to their complaints it was the duty of Members to urge attention to them.
  MR. GOSCHENappealed to the hon. Member for the King's County whether he did not think that he had got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer all that he wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to look into the complaint, and to remedy any grievances which he might find to exist. It must be remembered that two things were involved—an increase of pay and compensation for loss of promotion. It would be hard if, by the non-success of this Motion as to increase of pay—with regard to which it would probably fail—that the officers of Customs should be deprived of compensation for loss of promotion. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the grievance, and had promised to consider it. Under those circumstances, it would be the wiser
  1218
  course for the hon. Member for the King's County to withdraw the Motion, and to reserve to himself free action for the future in case he should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not properly redeem his pledge.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he had such confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would have preferred that this Motion should not have been brought forward; but, it having been brought forward, he felt it due to an excellent class of men to express his concurrence in the statements that had been made of the hardships of their case. This was also the opinion of influential inhabitants at Greenock.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 69: Majority 11.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SPIRIT DUTIES IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the augmented Spirit Duties in Ireland. He had said he had been a great admirer of the financial abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would gladly assent to the appointment of this Committee, as it would enable him to give his reasons for pursuing an exactly contrary financial policy in Ireland to that which he had pursued in England. The whole merit of his policy in England had been to diminish and repeal every duty which in any way restricted the consumption of the people, which restrained production, or diminished employment. In Ireland he had adopted an exactly contrary policy. He had augmented a tax which had had the effect of restricting the consumption and enjoyment of the people, and thrown many people out of employment. Ample evidence to that effect had been elicited before the Committee on Irish Taxation. One witness stated that the consumption of spirits had declined from 8,000,000 gallons in 1852 to 5,000,000 gallons in 1862; another, that the number of distillers had declined from 75 to 19; another, that the increased tax on Irish spirit had acted prejudicially upon agriculture generally, that the farmer and the

  1219
  labourer alike had suffered. Colonel Knox Gore stated that the effect of the increased duty was to limit the extent of cultivation; and the late Mr. Senior had declared that two-thirds of the Irish distilling trade had been ruined by recent legislation. The morals of the people had not improved, and illicit distillation had increased. And it should be borne in mind that all this took place at a time when Ireland was suffering from the effects of a series of bad harvests—a time when the circumstances of the country called for a reduction, not for an increase of taxation. Crowds of people were thrown out of employment, the labour market had been overcharged, and wages proportionately reduced. The right hon. Gentleman could not therefore be surprised that a bitter feeling was evolved by the increase of direct and indirect taxation in Ireland—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * (73);
Local Government Supplemental * (72); Land Drainage Supplemental * (74). Second Reading—Courts of Justice Building(23); Courts of Justice Concentration (Site)*(56).

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

  (No. 23.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, In rising to move the second reading of this Bill I cannot help expressing my conviction that your Lordships have rarely been asked to give your assent to a measure of legal reform of greater importance. Nothing is more striking than the disregard which this country has so long manifested for the manner in which its Courts of Justice are constructed, and accommodation afforded for the proper administration of justice. If the character of the country were to be determined by the external appearance and condition of these Courts, undoubtedly the conclusion would be that there was very little regard and very little anxiety as to the mode in which justice was administered among us; for if the construction and locality of our Law Courts and Offices had been wantonly designed on purpose to impede and render difficult the administration of justice, it is impossible to imagine a state of things more calculated to promote that view. Undoubtedly, every kind of facility should be given for the administration of justice; but if you require the Judges, the practitioners of the law, the juries, and the parties resorting to Courts of Justice to come into places which are not one tenth equal to their accommodation, and in which the atmosphere is so vitiated that the body becomes enfeebled, and the mind of necessity partakes of the enfeeblement, it is utterly impossible in that state of things that justice can be properly administered. You now require a number of Courts for the purposes of law, and a further number of Courts for equity. The Courts of Law are located in the immediate neighbourhood of Westminster Hall; but they consist of buildings wretchedly insufficient for the purpose. Whenever the Court of Queen's Bench requires to have a Judge sitting at Nisi Prius, there is no better accommodation than that which is afforded by a small and insignificant room, which is called the Bail Court, but which was very correctly described by a certain Member of the House of Commons, who unfortunately practises in that Court, as nothing better than "a dog-hole." The other Courts of Nisi Prius are equally inconvenient and equally difficult of access to
  1172
  suitors or practitioners. As to the Courts of Equity, those coustructed for the puisne Vice Chancellors are places in which it is utterly impossible for either Judges or practitioners to remain for any considerable period of time without being affected by the impure atmosphere, and finding their ability to give full attention to the causes very greatly impaired. The other Courts, which are sometimes referred to as more wholesome than those I have mentioned, may be tolerably convenient as Courts, but they are utterly devoid of the requisite accommodation. The Lord Chancellor has only one room, which he is obliged to share with his three secretaries, and the other Courts are equally deficient in the proper accommodation. It is not, however, merely the material construction of these Courts that is so objectionable, it is their locality also which so much interferes with the requirements for the proper administration of justice. The Courts of Law are at Westminster; but the chambers of the Judges are in Serjeants' Inn, at the bottom of Chancery Lane; and it constantly happens that the Judge sits half the day in Court in Westminster Hall and is obliged to rise much earlier than would otherwise be necessary in order to go to chambers. In like manner, the offices of the Courts of Law are scattered about in different localities; and the same thing is true of the offices connected with the Courts of Equity—they are equally scattered and equally inconvenient of access; and altogether it is impossible that business can be conducted without great peril of breaking appointments and great danger of counsel not being present when they are wanted—involving also great loss of time and consequent increase of expense to the suitors. This subject is thoroughly well known, and I think there is not likely to be any difference of opinion among your Lordships on this point—it must be self evident to every one who has considered the subject, that if all the Courts of Justice could be brought together under one roof, if the necessary offices and chambers were provided for the Judges and the clerks, consultation rooms and libraries for barristers, and waiting rooms for witnesses and jurors, the administration of justice would be greatly benefited, great delay would be avoided, and great economy and convenience would be afforded to suitors and all other persons. The object of the Bill now before your Lordships is to accomplish that most

  1173
  desirable object—an object which, as is usual in this country, has been admitted to be desirable and right for a long period of time—extending, I believe, in this case, over forty years. The subject was first agitated, I think, in the year 1822, but nothing effectual has been proposed until now. For the greater portion of that interval the particular locality which this Bill points out has been fixed upon as the most convenient site for the proposed concentration. It is not, however, until now that any sincere and earnest effort has been made by the Legislature towards effecting this desirable improvement, and towards performing that which is one of its primary duties—namely, the erection of Courts of Justice corresponding to and commensurate with its dignity, and proper for the discharge of the duties of the Judges and the functions of those concerned in the administration of justice. The same reasons which lead the mind to the necessity of concentrating the Courts also point to the locality in which they should be concentrated. The site now proposed is not only in the centre of the metropolis, but constitutes what I may call the umbilicus of the legal locality. It extends over about 7½ acres, bounded on the East by Bell Yard, which runs parallel to Chancery Lane, on the North by Carey Street, on the West by Clement's Lane, and on the South by the Strand. The whole of this locality is covered with houses of the meanest and the most wretched description. The place, in short, seems as if it had been left on purpose to answer the use for which it is now proposed to be employed; and while you are converting the site to this great public purpose and are conferring this great public benefit you are incidentally rendering another benefit, not equal in amount, but still of great value, by weeding out of the centre of London a nest of fever and a receptable of all sorts of abominations. This locality is one, above all others, which is most accessible to lawyers, with the least amount of interruption to their business, their offices being all connected with it, and therefore with the greatest amount of benefit to their clients in consequence of the saving of time and expense. All these things require hardly more than to be stated for the mind to see at once that which is the great end of the measure and the ground which justifies it—namely, the advantage
  1174
  in respect of the administration of justice. Now, having said thus much with regard to the locality and the concentration of the Courts, I will proceed to the provisions of the Bill. My Lords, this Bill, directed as it is to the attainment of a great public object, professes to accomplish that object without taking one shilling of the public money. The financial part of the measure requires some explanation, and I beg your Lordships' attention while I carry the House through some details, in order that you may be the better able to understand this portion of the scheme. The sources from which the money required for the acquisition of the land and the building of the Courts of Justice are intended to be derived are three. First of all, there is a sum of £200,000, which is to be advanced by the Government as the price of the buildings and ground, the site of the present Courts of Law, which the Government will have received and will have at their disposal when these Courts have been erected. Now, my Lords, I take it—and a very slight examination of the subject would bring any one of information to the same conclusion—that the property which the Government will receive in return for this £200,000 greatly exceeds that sum in point of value. First of all, the whole of the site to the West of Westminster Hall now occupied by the Courts of Justice will be entirely released and given up to the Government. I think it was in the year 1850 that the late Sir Charles Barry valued that piece of land, if it were sold for building purposes, at upwards of £86,000; and there are a large number of buildings in other places which are now used for purposes connected with the Courts of Justice which I have no doubt will become available for a sum of money considerably exceeding the rest of the £200,000. The next source of the money to be expended is afforded by the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery; and here, my Lords, I must beg your Lordships' attention for a few moments to some details which are requisite to understand the nature of that fund, and the manner in which it admits of being appropriated to this purpose. Your Lordships are all aware that the Court of Chancery may be described not only as a Court of Justice, but in reality as a great bank, in which considerable sums belonging to the suitors are deposited. These sums are not required on many occasions to be invested

  1175
  and they therefore accumulate in the hands of the Accountant General until they arrive at a very considerable amount. My Lords, in ancient times, and as lately as the year 1725, these unemployed balances were permitted to be applied by the Masters to their own personal benefit. The same practice, your Lordships are aware, formerly existed in the case of the Paymaster of the Forces, who was allowed to retain large balances, and the profits of the office arose in a great measure from the interest derived from that money. But in the year 1725 it was found that some of the Masters in the Court of Chancery were defaulters with regard to this money, and shortly afterwards, for the purpose of reimbursing the moneys which had been improperly applied, provision was made by means of a tax which was laid upon all suitors in the Courts, including the suitors in the Common Law Courts. Subsequently, about the 20th year of George II., the propriety of making use of some of those balances occurred to the Legislature; and accordingly an Act of Parliament was passed by which the Accountant General, acting under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, was empowered to invest in the public funds such sums as were not required for the ordinary purposes of the Courts. These investments grew to a large amount, and from them a considerable income was derived. The Court of Chancery, therefore, did, with regard to the moneys it received from the suitors, precisely what an ordinary banker does with respect to the money of his customers. He receives the money of those customers, retains the amount which may be necessary for the purposes of the bank, and invests the difference, the profit resulting from that investment being the banker's property. In like manner, the income resulting from these Chancery investments has been dealt with by Parliament again and again as money which belonged to the public, and which the public had a right to employ in any manner it pleased, and to regard as standing in the same relation to itself as the profits of the banker stand to him. The profits, therefore, resulting from these investments have been applied under the authority of Parliament to a great variety of purposes. Sometimes parts have been applied to buildings belonging to the Court of Chancery, at other times in part payment of the salaries of officials, and at other times to other purposes connected with the law—
  1176
  all these applications evincing this great principle—that Parliament regarded it as a public fund, to be devoted from time to time to such objects as might be deemed necessary for the public welfare. The funds representing the investment of the suitors' money from time to time amount now to a sum of £2,931,047. That is not the fund with which this Bill proposes to deal in any manner whatever—it belongs to the suitors whose money has produced this amount. But, my Lords, the profit, which I will denominate the banker's profit fund, has grown out of the dividends resulting from these investments, and belongs to no one but the State, at whose risk the investments have been made. If the stock produced by this money was not sufficient for the repayment of the suitors to the full amount, the State would be bound to make good the difference. Now, there is very little apprehension that the money which upon an average has been invested taking Consols at 87, will not be forthcoming when required. Unless there should be a general failure in the institutions of the country, it would be utterly impossible that there should be any deficiency in the amount of those investments. Now what I have called "the banker's profit fund "—that is to say the amount of stock which has resulted from the reinvestment of the dividends on the original investments—amounts to £1,291,629. That is the sum which I have described as public money, which has been repeatedly dealt with by the State as such, and belongs to no individual whatever. The object of the Bill is to take out of the fund £1,000,000 of stock, which at 90 will raise £900,000. The sum which it is desirable to raise is £1,500,000, and this is divisible into two parts. The first moiety of £750,000 is to be applied as purchase-money of the buildings and lands upon which the Courts of Justice and offices are proposed to be erected. There is every reason to believe that this estimate is beyond the amount that will be required. This particular site was valued originally in 1849 by Sir Charles Barry and a surveyor of great local information at £670,000. It was afterwards valued by another surveyor at £678,000; and finally, for the purposes of the Commission issued by my noble Friend below me, it was re-valued, and the Commissioners saw no reason to distrust the accuracy of the former valuations. The property was subsequently valued by Mr. Hunt, a surveyor employed

  1177
  by the Government, and also by Mr. Pennethorne, Architect of the Board of Works, and they put the extreme value at £700,000, so that in allowing £750,000 there is little reason to suppose that sum will be exceeded. There is a margin of £50,000; and if the management of this building is conducted with care and prudence, and if its construction should have the competent and fitting superintendence which it is the object of this Bill to secure, and which it is the desire of the Government it should receive, there is no reason to expect any great excess of expenditure above the estimate. That leaves £400,000 still to be raised, in order to make up the sum of £1,500,000, and this sum of £400,000 it is proposed to supply by a small tax on suitors in the Courts of Law, and on those who prove wills and take out letters of administration in the Probate Court. A very trifling sum of 1s. 6d. payable on every writ issued in an action, and of 2s. 6d. on every grant of probate or administration, will be quite sufficient to produce more than the sum of £16,000 a year. The sum of £400,000 will be advanced by the Government, charging the Courts of Justic 3¼ per cent, and then the sum of £16,000 a year having been raised for fifty years, the principal and interest of the capital sum will be redeemed. The amount of additional charge is so small that it will not be felt by the suitors of the Courts of Law, and, therefore, this great public work will not cost the public a shilling. It will be accomplished by the appropriation of money that it is perfectly right and just to take, and which in its appropriation will render the suitors a greater amount of advantage than they could obtain in any other way. I must trespass for a few moments on your Lordships' patience while I advert to the grounds on which my noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) will probably rest his opposition to this measure. In 1834 a great change was made by an Act of Parliament in substituting fixed salaries for the fees that had been previously received by the officers of the Courts of Justice. All the fees were then directed to be carried to the Fee Fund, out of which the fixed salaries were paid. My noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) brought in a very useful Act of Parliament in 1852, by which the whole of the income arising from the fund I have described, including the income from the sum of
  1178
  £1,290,000, was to be carried to the account of the Suitors' Fee Fund, and to be from time to time applied under the direction of the Lord Chancellor in the reduction of the court fees. It is natural that my noble and learned Friend should continue to be attached to his own measure, and he has come to the conclusion that the best application of the sum of £1,291,629, or any part of it, would be in making a further reduction in the fees of court instead of applying it to the erection of the concentrated Courts of Law with all the necessary conveniences. But the fees of court payable by suitors form only an insignificant proportion—not more than 8 per cent—of the whole amount of costs—in a bill of costs, that is to say, of £100, the fees of court will amount to £8 only. If every portion of the income derived from the money now proposed to be taken were applied to the reduction of the fees of court it would not reduce them more than from 8 to 4 per cent; that is to say, out of every £100 paid by the suitor he would have to pay, as fees of court, £4 instead of £8. Now, in what way will the suitor get greater benefit by this Bill than by reducing the fees of court? Why, he will get it by expedition, by a diminution of delay, by the saving of time as well as by the economy of expenditure which will be the consequence of this concentration of the Courts of Law. The best witnesses on this point are the solicitors, and they state to a man that the benefit which the suitors will derive from this measure will be infinitely beyond that which they would derive from the diminution of court fees. On this point there is no conflict of testimony. My noble and learned Friend stands in a situation which does not dismay him, but he stands alone, for he can bring forward the testimony of no single witness to support his view. No man of weight in his profession would support my noble and learned Friend in the opinion to which he naturally clings, or assert that the benefit of reducing the court fees would be greater than that conferred by this measure. All this is manifested in a remarkable way not only by the testimony collected from other sources, but by the testimony obtained by the Commission issued by the late Government in 1852. A large number of solicitors of the greatest respectability and experience, and whose opinion is entitled to the greatest weight, were examined, and all concurred in think-

  1179
  ing that this measure, if passed, will be a measure not for a single moment to be contrasted, in regard to the benefit of the suitor, with the benefits resulting from the reduction of the fees of court. The accomplishment of this object has been much facilitated by the device which has been hit upon of separating those portions of the fund that were regarded as applicable to the building of these courts from the portions charged with the payment of compensation. Some years ago compensations were granted in considerable numbers to officers of the Court of Chancery, on occasion of certain alterations made in that court, and were charged upon the income derived partly from the Suitors' Fund and partly from the Fee Fund. Out of the Fee Fund there has arisen another fund, consisting of the investment of the surplus, and now amounting to £201,208. The amount of existing compensations has been accurately ascertained, and we find that on the 1st of January of the present year these amounted to £49,369 per annum; and the experience of the last nine years shows that these compensations fall in at the rate of about £3,500 yearly. From calculations made by actuaries we find that the whole of these annuities might be redemed or capitalized for the sum of £437,900. Tour Lordships will remember that the residue of the bankers' profit fund, after deducting the £1,000,000, will amount to nearly £300,000; and, adding to this the £201,000, the surplus of the Fee Fund, a sum will be obtained which will be equal, and more than equal, to redeem the whole of these annuities. Whether, therefore, we buy Government annuities of equal amount, or whether the Government becomes its own insurer and takes its chance of the annuities running out, as it is expected they will do in eighteen years, the calculation is that the funds I have mentioned will leave a surplus of £150,000. If they are capitalized, then the surplus income that will be derived from the surplus funds that I have mentioned, after raising £433,000 will yield a clear income of between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. In every point of view, therefore, the financial scheme seems open to no possible objection—to no danger of miscarriage. There can be no purpose more akin to the origin of the fund itself, more just, or more germane to the character of the moneys that we purpose shall be thus allocated, than the raising of a large Temple or Palace of Justice
  1180
  commensurate with the dignity of the country, in which conveniences shall exist conducing greatly to the useful administration of justice. And I cannot conceal from your Lordships, that I am sanguine enough to believe that in accomplishing this great object there will probably be another benefit, infinitely greater than any which I have stated. You are all aware that in this country, from an unfortunate circumstance connected with its early history, it became necessary to establish different legal institutions, in the shape of Courts of Equity, from those which previously existed; and hence it was that a large portion of national justice that ought to have fallen under the administration of the Courts of Law became separated, and relegated altogether to the jurisdiction of Equity. Unfortunately, therefore, you have this great anomaly, that many of the most important relations of life will not be recognized by Courts of Law. The ordinary relations of trustee and beneficiary, those subsisting between partners, and again between executors and legatees, are either ignored altogether by the Courts of Law, or else they provide no adequate remedy in cases where these several relations are involved. The result is that you have two great departments of justice, one proceeding on principles sometimes antagonistic to those of the other—one of them recognizing certain things as just and right of which the other knows, and for which it cares nothing. This is a great evil in the administration of justice, and it is very desirable that there should be a simple and uniform mode of procedure adopted by all the Courts. Unluckily this division has been to a great extent perpetuated by the manner in which the Courts of Equity have been separated in point of locality from the Courts of Law. But if they were brought together—if there were a free communication of ideas and opinions between the practitioners in one set of Courts and the practitioners in the other, and if the habits and modes of procedure of both were rendered familiar and matters of daily contemplation to the profession, this great division, which it has been the desire of modern legislation to break down, would soon disappear, and we should be enabled to say that our Courts of Justice recognized the same principles and the same method of procedure, and that the same questions would be treated in all the Courts with one uniform set of principles and maxims of justice. I expect,

  1181
  undoubtedly, that this will be the remote consequence of the measure that I desire now to propose. Its immediate consequences are those which I have endeavoured imperfectly to describe, but which are abundantly manifested by the eager desire of all persons interested in the administration of justice not to allow this Parliament to pass away without the accomplishment of this one public object. It has been opposed at various times; but I am glad to say that within the last few weeks that opposition has almost entirely disappeared; so much so that I am happy to state to your Lordships that even the Society of Lincoln's Inn, who were its great opponents, have joined in presenting a petition to the House of Commons, earnestly praying that the measure may pass; and I have reason to believe that this view will also be embodied in a petition to be presented to your Lordships. There are many other subjects connected with this matter that I should be glad to refer to had I any reason to believe that any serious opposition is intended to the Bill; but I do trust my hon. and learned Friends will join with all those whose names we have heard to-day in support of this measure; because I am convinced that of all the proposals I have seen since I have had the honour of belonging to the profession this undoubtedly is one of the most desirable, full of the greatest promise, calculated to effect the greatest amount of benefit, and with regard to which no sincere and true Reformer would, I think, desire to see his name recorded in opposition.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had taken former opportunities of stating that he had no objection whatever to the concentration of the Law Courts. Once the site was fixed upon, and the proper funds found for the accomplishment of the object, the proposal itself would receive no opposition at his hands. His noble and learned Friend, indeed, in his zeal for the measure, had, he thought, over-estimated some of the inconveniences and dangers connected with the existing system. Until he heard his noble and learned Friend enumerate them—the want of accommodation, the unwholesome atmosphere, and other inconveniences connected with our courts—he had but a very faint conception of the miseries among which so many years of his life had been passed. His noble
  1182
  and learned Friend had not attained the same age as himself, but yet he was not a bad specimen of how a man might face the terrible atmosphere in which, according to his own account, he had so long been doomed to live. His noble and learned Friend had also favoured them with a dissertation on a subject which he had not expected to find introduced on that occasion—the fusion, or as he (Lord St. Leonards) should call it, the confusion—of law and equity, and seemed to think that both departments of the law would soon be conducted on the same principles if the courts could only be brought to meet in the same locality. When, however, the Court of King's Bench and the Court of the Lord Chancellor occupied a position in Westminster Hall in the closest contiguity to one another, not the slightest advance was made towards the amalgamation of the two distinct legal systems which they administered, and no human being ever thought of such an amalgamation. He therefore believed that his noble and learned Friend must take a different course if he desired to bring about that object. Lord Campbell, when he held the Great Seal, he might add, had introduced a Bill to effect that object, but the Select Committee to which it was referred came to the unanimous decision that all the clauses relating to the fusion of law and equity should be struck out; while the Lord Chancellor, who presided over the deliberations of the Committee, had never attempted to disturb that decision, although he had announced it to be his intention to take the sense of the House with respect to it. But be that as it might, the fact was that the Bill under discussion would not result in the concentration of all the courts on one spot. The Central Criminal Court, the Bankruptcy Court, and the various Nisi Prius Courts would not, for instance, be included in the scheme. It was, indeed, proposed that it should embrace the Divorce and Lunacy Courts; but he very much doubted whether it would tend to the public advantage that the former court should be made more easy of access to the number of young men having very little to do, who were in the habit of lounging from one court to another. For his own part, he thought it would be productive of very great advantage if the cases which came before the Divorce Court could as far as possible be heard in private; while nothing, he thought, could be more painful than that

  1183
  the friends and relations of those unhappy persons whose cases came before the Lunacy Commissioners should be obliged to attend in a court situated in the midst of several others, and therefore more liable to be the centre of a large crowd. Such a tribunal ought, in his opinion, to be as quiet as it could be made, and ought to be excluded from such an atmosphere as that by which it would be surrounded if removed to the new site. It must, moreover, be borne in mind, in dealing with the question, that their Lordships' House would not be prepared to abandon its jurisdiction, that the Privy Council would not part with theirs, and that those great tribunals, therefore, would find no place in the proposed plan. The Charity Commissioners and the Inclosure Commissioners were still to be left in expensive residencies in St. James's Square, and the Land Transfer Court in Lincoln's Inn; Fields. But the truth was that there was no intelligible plan whatsoever, and that being so, he for one was entirely opposed, at all events, to the removal of the Courts of Equity. He said nothing of the removal of the Courts of Law, except that he thought that the funds which it was proposed to take ought not to be appropriated to such a purpose. As regarded the Courts of Equity, they were six—namely, the Lord Chancellor's, the Lords Justices, the Master of the Rolls, the Court of the senior Vice Chancellor, and the two courts of the junior Vice Chancellors. Now having himself presided in one of them, he could bear testimony to the fact that it was well ventilated and convenient. The Master of the Rolls, he might add, had stated in his evidence that there was not the slightest objection to the court in which he sat, while it had the advantage of being close to the Record Office, over which he was trustee, and in the immediate vicinity of which it was desirable he should be located. The Rolls Court, nevertheless, it was proposed to remove, for no other reason that he could see than the love of change, advantage being taken of the fact that two of the Vice Chancellors' Courts were not all that could be desired in order to get up an agitation on the subject. Those courts, however, might very easily be improved, and they would have been before now—for the Society of Lincoln's Inn were prepared to remedy the deficiency—but for the scheme under discussion, which had been a long time in contemplation. But let him suppose the
  1184
  Courts of Common Law only were concentrated on the proposed site, was it not evident that they would be in as close proximity to the Equity Courts as could be wished? It was only a few steps across from the present Equity Courts to the site of the Courts yet to be erected. He said, therefore, that it was not necessary to remove the Courts of Equity to the proposed site, and that they were to be taken there only as an excuse to enable the Government to help itself to the funds which belonged to the suitors, and which ought not to be touched for such a purpose. His noble and learned Friend had told their Lordships that the Carey Street site would embrace about seven acres and a half of ground; but he had not told them that there were now upon that space about 400 dwelling-houses, warehouses, and buildings; that the dwellinghouses were inhabited by more than 4,000 persons, and that of these upwards of 3,000 and some hundreds belonged to the labouring classes. He had, indeed, truly told them that many of the occupants of these houses were of filthy habits, and that fever was always to be found upon this spot. What, then, were they going to do? Where were they going to remove this misery? Whither where they going to carry the fever? Wherever they moved these people they would be moving fever patients. The question had been put in every possible form, and no man had been able to indicate a single locality in which they would be received. Would they remove them in a state of fever? They would never find them free from it, and what was to become of them? There had been no greater misfortune in this city than these displacements of vast masses of human beings, who were left to find a settlement for themselves. The consequence of such measures was that they were driven into districts already overburdened with population, and thus the evils of overcrowding became greater every day. Would there be less fever or more cleanly habits in the places to which the people who were to be displaced under this Bill would be driven than now existed among them? They could not sleep under the canopy of Heaven—they must have some dwellings—where were they to be found? There was no attempt made in this great Government measure to find a single habitation for any one person whom it would drive out of his house. Where was the

  1185
  care which the Government ought to take of the people whom it was about to disturb? Where was the regard to the health and happiness of the humble classes for whom so much sympathy was expressed? The Government were about, unnecessarily, to disturb the Courts in Lincoln's Inn, in order to clear a site which was covered by houses occupied by a population whom they were driving out of house and home, and who had no place to flee to. And they might avoid much of this mischief by leaving the Courts of Equity in Lincoln's Inn, where they had been for a century and a half, and which were well suited for the purposes to which they had been dedicated. Where was the money to come from? It was a wise thing to take care before you began to build a house that you had money to pay for it; but he could nowhere find any reliable evidence as to what would be the cost of this building. The evidence which had been given upon that subject was perfectly farcical. It was singular that the Government did not at first think it necessary to provide for accesses to this mass of congregated Courts. The words "including approaches" were added to the Bill in the House of Commons, and since then accesses had been talked about, but without describing what they were to be. What where the accesses which the Government intended to provide? Some years ago he was a Member of a Committee of the House of Commons which sat upon a Bill, the object of which was the concentration of the Courts in Lincoln's Inn Fields; and the late Sir Charles Barry, then Mr. Barry, admitted, in answer to questions which he put to him, that it would be necessary in order to provide approaches to open out the two Turnstiles and clear away Clare Market, and he could not deny that these openings might not cost a million of money, but, alarmed at the admission, he on the following day produced an elaborate plan, according to which the cost of these alterations was to be provided for by the erection of buildings upon the land which would not be required for the accesses. What was necessary to be done then would be necessary now. The two Turnstiles must be pulled down—Lincoln's Inn would object to any interference with one of them—Clare Market must be got rid of, and all these streets must be widened at the expense of the suitors in the Court of Chancery. Could
  1186
  anything be worse than the street which now ran from Covent Garden to Lincoln's Inn Fields? It was a dirty wretched lane, in which two carriages could not pass, and if these Courts were to be erected upon the site proposed it must be widened and improved. Not one tittle of evidence had been laid before the House to prove that any of the proposed plans could be carried out for the sum mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. He now came to the most important part of the question—namely, the right they had to take the Suitor's Fund, and to apply it to building Common Law as well as Equity Courts. On this point the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had followed the example of the Commissioners, and had professed to regard the Fund as belonging to the public, and liable to be dealt with accordingly. If it were true that the Fund was public property, how was it that successive Governments had not helped themselves to the million sterling, which would often have been very acceptable? How was it that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had been tempted to seize upon it? The reason was that they had not dared to touch it—they had not dared to touch it because the foundation of this country's prosperity was its integrity and its honesty of purpose. If this measure were carried, they would break in upon the rights of property to a greater extent than had ever been attempted during the course of the last century, and they would find it a most unexampled and a most dangerous proceeding. If the argument of the noble and learned Lord were well founded, why should they not also seize upon the two millions in the hands of the Charity Commissioners? Why should not those two millions be taken and the interest upon them paid by the public? Why not seize the money, enter the transaction in a "Great Book," and leave the rightful owners to the mercy of future Governments? He regarded such transactions as putting an unholy hand upon the property of others, and as contrary to the constitution of the country, and setting an example akin to that of France in its most violent revolutionary periods. The recital of the Bill said the Fund was standing to an account for the benefit and the better security of the suitors in the Court of Chancery, and that it had been accumulated from the profits of investment at the risk of the Government. Well, a pickpocket

  1187
  certainly ran some risk in helping himself to other people's property, but it had never been suggested before that the risk he ran gave him the right of ownership in the property he stole. The noble and learned Lord had drawn an analogy between the case now under discussion and that of a banker and his customer. But no such analogy existed. The only customers were the suitors whose property was dealt with. If it suited a person's purpose to deposit money with a banker, the parties immediately stood in the relation of creditor and debtor—there was nothing of the nature of a trust in the transaction, and the banker took the money on the clear understanding that he was to use it for his own benefit. He would ask their Lordships also to observe how the present proposition infringed upon the general principles of equity. If a man placed money in the hands of a trustee without any authority to invest it, but the trustee did, notwithstanding, invest it—in the Three per Cents, for instance—he would be compelled to transfer the stock to the owner of the money, and also to pay the costs of suit. Such a trustee would not be entitled to any profit of such investment, whilst he would be liable for all loss. In like manner the Court of Chancery had no right to a single shilling of profit out of the funds now in question, which it held in trust for the benefit of the suitors. Nor, had the public any right to them, for every shilling belonged to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. It is said that no individual suitor has a right to any portion of the Fund; but the suitors, as a class, are entitled to it. He held in his hand a statement of all the Acts of Parliament relating to these Funds, and they all showed that every investment of these moneys had always been carried to the credit of an account for the ease, or the benefit, and security of the suitors in the Court of Chancery. He believed that if these funds were now taken possession of for other purposes the time would come when the precedent thus set would be lamented. By the Act of 1852 the Lord Chancellor was authorized from time to time to vary, reduce, and abolish any fees, and to substitute others in place of them; and the salaries of such of the Equity Judges as were payable by Act of Parliament out of the Suitors' Fund were charged on the Consolidated Fund, instead of being paid out of the money of the
  1188
  suitors. What could be more absurd than the course now proposed, when in 1852 the Suitors' Fund was relieved from a charge of £9,000 a year, to which it was actually liable, because it was said that a public liability should not be placed upon this fund, but ought to be entirely borne by the State. After that proceeding it was ridiculous for the Government now to treat the fund as a public fund and to help themselves to a million of pounds out of it. He disapproved altogether the proposal to take the Suitors' Fee Fund for building these Courts. The Bills before the House indirectly, but actually, repealed existing Acts of Parliament with regard to this Fund; and by law and by every consideration of equity and right the Fund stood pledged to the suitors for the reduction of the fees with which they were chargeable.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this was a subject on which it was well known that his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) entertained a strong and, as he hoped the House would think, an extreme opinion. He would not attempt to offer any reply to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, except in connection with another part of the subject, to which he wished for a few moments to direct attention. He thought that his noble and learned Friend had failed to draw a proper distinction between two wholly separate parts of the subject—between objections taken to the system under which this Fund had arisen, and objections to taking possession of the Fund now it existed and was at the disposal of Parliament. As to the question whether this Fund was or was not at the disposal of Parliament it was necessary to inquire how it had arisen—now it had arisen in this way. It had been the custom of the Court of Chancery for a century and a half to place before its suitors this option, "If you bring money into court, you may either order its investment by us, in which case you do so at the risk of your capital; or, if you decline that risk, you may leave the capital in our hands, and we will then pay no interest whatever, but will fund the capital on behalf of the Court." Under these circumstances, three separate funds arose, and it was unfortunate that the expression, "The Suitors' Fee Fund," had been technically applied to that very one of the three which in no respect belonged to suitors and never could belong to them. The Suitors' Fund properly so called in-

  1189
  cluded money which the suitors wished to have invested by the Court, and of which not only the capital but the interest belonged to the suitors. The second was money the investment of which they did not direct, and of which the capital belonged to the suitors, the interest being appropriated by the Court. Lastly, there was the accumulated interest which had arisen from this capital, and which the parties knew all along would be appropriated by the Court of Chancery or by Parliament. For 120 years the suitors had notice that what was called the Suitors' Fund would not be considered theirs at all except as a guarantee fund against any loss of their own capital; and for this a new Parliamentary guarantee was now proposed. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had not pretended to argue that the money of that Fund belonged to any individual suitor, but maintained that it was the property of the suitors as a class. But how could suitors in the Court of Chancery be denned as a class? Part of the money had been derived from Tom Jones in 1765, and the noble and learned Lord argued that it belonged to John Robinson in 1865. Why, that fund for 120 years had, by authority of Parliament, been applied to the payment of the officers of the Court of Chancery, to the building of courts, and was at that moment charged with some £12,000 a year for the administration of the estates of lunatics—a charge which undoubtedly ought to come out of the estates of the lunatics subject to the Lunacy Commission. In every sense, therefore, it was a fund disposable by Parlialiament. And now he came to the question whether that money ought ever to have been taken from the suitors under the system which had prevailed since the early part of the last century. Upon that subject he sympathized largely in the feeling which his noble and learned Friend had expressed that night, and also in a speech upon a former occasion. In 1861, under the Chancellorship of the late Lord Campbell, a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into that question was appointed; he (the Duke of Argyll) happened to be Chairman, and, with the exception of one Member, they came to the conclusion that it was not a just system towards the suitors that those who did not choose to invest their money should lose the whole of the interest upon it, and that the whole of that interest should be devoted to the purposes of the Court of Chancery. It
  1190
  was the opinion of the members of the Commission that the Court of Chancery ought not to pay its expenses out of fees which were levied on the suitors, and that if it was the object of Parliament that the Court of Chancery should support itself to a great extent by fees levied upon suitors, it should be done upon a system which should levy the tax equally and justly upon all the suitors coming into the court; but that was not done at present. A large portion of the funds of the Court of Chancery was brought into it by persons who had no beneficial interest whatever in the money. They got rid of their responsibility and were perfectly indifferent as to the accumulation of interest. Under those circumstances it constantly happened that rather than risk the investment of the capital, they left the money in the hands of the Court, and those to whom it belonged lost the whole of the interest during all the years the litigation might be carried on. He did not think that was just. It should be remembered that there were many suitors in the Court of Chancery who brought into it no money whatever. Therefore, so far as the expenses of the Court were paid out of the funds of those who brought money into it, they were defrayed by them alone. He thought that system unjust, and that the funds ought never to have been allowed to accumulate as they had done. He had no doubt whatever that now they belonged practically to no one individual nor to any body, but were at the disposal of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the question divided itself into two heads—first, whether the concentration of the Courts was desirable in itself; and secondly, whether the funds which it was proposed to devote to that object could justly be so applied. With regard to the expediency of concentrating the Courts, as an abstract proposition, no one could have any doubt upon the subject. To have the Courts, if not under one roof, at all events as easily accessible from one another as possible would be of great advantage. Rut having said so much he should be acting dishonestly if he were not to add that his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had in his opinion greatly exaggerated the advantages which were likely to result from that concentration. His noble and learned Friend had talked of diminishing the expenses of litigation. But he (Lord Cranworth) did not think

  1191
  that any perceptible diminution of expense would follow the change. He ventured to predict that not one of their Lordships would live long enough to see a single 6s. 8d. reduced to 3s. 4d. in consequence of the concentration of the Law Courts. No doubt it would be convenient to practitioners, Judges, and witnesses attending the Courts to have them in one place and this was a very desirable object. It was commonly said that it would be convenient to suitors. He doubted that. A man was unfortunate who had one suit in his life, and, if that were so, suitors would not personally derive great advantage from the change. But the important part of the question was as to the funds. Upon that subject he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and entirely differed from his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) who had just left the House. He went to the utmost possible length upon that point. The moment a litigant was by order of the Court compelled to pay his money into court he was compelled to do so by the State, by the authority of which the Court acted, and having so paid his money the State was bound to have the money forthcoming for him when he should require it. The State was banker; the Accountant General, the Court of Chancery, and all its functionaries were merely persons employed to manage the money. If, then, the State took the money upon its own responsibility it was entitled to take it for any particular purpose, and, as a large sum was wanted for Courts of Justice, it seemed a very good way of applying the money. But there was another portion of the scheme which he deeply deplored, and that was the tax upon affidavits and other law proceedings not in the Court of Chancery, but in the other Courts. His noble Friend the Duke of Argyll had taunted him with adhering to Bentham's policy. But he was free to acknowledge that he deeply regretted that the theory of that eminent man on the subject of Law Taxes should be thrown overboard. The first duty of the State was to provide machinery by which a man might be enabled to recover a right which was withheld from him; and the moment a tax was imposed upon him, before he could obtain his right, that was done by which Jeremy Bentham pointed out in a way that was unanswerable—the first principles on which Government was founded were violated.
  1192
  If, as in some continental countries, they were to tax the losing party on the ground that he had withheld his rights from an innocent man, that might admit of more justification; but the tax which it was now proposed to impose extending as it did to litigants generally he deeply deplored. He approved the site chosen for the Courts, and could not think there was any danger of noise reaching those buildings from the public thoroughfares outside, when so large a space as 7½ acres was to be purchased under a Bill now in their Lordships' House.
  LORD BEDESDALEsaid, that one objection against the site was that it would certainly cost £750,000, and there was no probability that this would be the limit of the expense. Another objection he had to the scheme was that it could not be carried out without doing that which ought not to be done without absolute necessity. The residences of a great number of persons who were employed in the heart of the City, would be pulled down to form the site for those Courts, without provision being made for lodging those people elsewhere. It was clear that a very great expense must be incurred in making suitable approaches to the proposed Courts, and as to the buildings themselves their Lordships had no means of estimating the sum which they would cost. It appeared to him that there was no good reason for removing the Courts from Westminster, where they could be enlarged and made sufficiently convenient for every purpose. By means of the telegraph and of the underground railway along the northern embankment of the Tames, the communication from Lincoln's Inn and the Temple to Westminster would be so rapid that the argument founded on the fact of the new site being so close to the residences of the lawers had not the force which the promoters of this scheme were disposed to claim for it. He was afraid that in an unguarded way Parliament was entering on a speculation which would turn out to be a much less satisfactory and a much more expensive one than was at present generally supposed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  Then,

  COURTS OF JUSTICE CONCENTRATION (SITE) BILL—(No. 56.)
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a; objected to; and, on Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.