Sitting of 30 April 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Archer Redmond, esquire, for Wexford Borough.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  CORRESPONDENCE.
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence with the Government of Canada in connection with the Appointment of the Joint High Commission and the Treaty of Washington [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SPAIN—THE CARLIST INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any account of a recent insurrectionary movement which has taken place at Bilbao; and, whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect the lives and property of British Subjects in that place?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Mr. Young, Her Majesty's Consul at Bilbao, has reported to Mr. Layard on the subject of the Carlist rising at Bilbao, which he represents to be of insignificant proportions, their operations having been confined to cutting the rails of the Triane Mineral Line, thereby causing some difficulties in loading the ships in port. Mr. Young promises to keep Mr. Layard well informed on the subject, and to suggest any measures he may think necessary for the protection of British interests. In a despatch from the Consul, received at the Foreign Office yesterday, the following remarks are made on the state of the town of Bilbao:—
  "The town of Bilbao remains tranquil, and although the large number of British vessels in port has made it desirable to recommend to the masters particular caution with respect to the behaviour of their crews, there is nothing, so far as I can judge at present, to render any special measure necessary for the preservation of order and the protection of British property. I think it right to state to your Lordship that all work connected with the mining district is stopped, and that the difficulty and great delay lately experienced in loading the iron ore is for the time insuperable; and shipowners would, therefore, do well to suspend despatching ships to this port, already blocked with vessels waiting for cargoes."

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—THE SUNDERLAND SCHOOL BOARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has received any communication from the Sunderland School Board relating to the working of the twenty-fifth Clause of the Elementary Education Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that he had been under a misapprehension with regard to this matter, and had on a former occasion made an incorrect statement in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). He had said that the Sunderland School Board were working the 25th clause in an extravagant manner. By this, however, he did not mean more than that from generous motives they had not been sufficiently careful in ascertaining the condition of the parents and their ability to pay the school fees. He made this statement in consequence of a remark of the hon. Member for Sunderland that £600 had been spent in working the clause. No doubt he misunderstood his hon. Friend, who only meant to convey the impression that £600 had been obtained as a possible fund out of which the expenses rendered necessary by the clause might be paid. He was now informed that up to a recent date no fee had been paid by the Board for any child at Sunderland, and that no contract had been made for the payment of any fee. The Sunderland School Board were, he believed, working this clause with the utmost care and attention to each particular case, and had not paid the fees for any children whose parents were able to pay them.

NAVY—CONSUMPTION OF COAL—THE ADMIRALTY ORDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. CORRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in "The Times" of yesterday, signed by Lord Clarence Paget, recently Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Squadron; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the series of Orders restricting the use of the engine referred to in that letter; and, whether it is true that the Admiralty contemplates a revision of those Orders; and, if so, whether

2015
the Revised Orders will also be laid upon the Table?
MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir, of course my attention has been called to the letter addressed to The Times by the ex-Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Squadron, on subjects which most deeply concern everyone who is interested in the efficiency of the Navy, and in that cordiality which must exist between the Admiralty and the service if the efficiency of the Fleet is to be kept up. Of course, Sir, my attention has been called to this letter, on account, among other reasons, of its assumptions as to the causes of disasters when the results of the inquiries into those disasters have not yet reached this country and are not yet known. Of course, Sir, my attention has been called to this letter, the assumption in which, respecting eases the particulars of which are known, is against the weight of evidence. The House will remember that in the case of the Captain the signal made by the Admiral in command of the squadron was that the ships should get up steam sufficient to maintain a speed of six knots per hour, and connect their screws, whereas, as regards the Agincourt, she actually had not attained a greater rate of speed than four knots per hour when the casualty that occurred to her took place. As to the Defence, I may mention that the steam was up in that vessel at the time of the disaster. She was lying at anchor off the Island of Pantellaria, with steam up in two of her boilers, when the wind freshened, and the captain gave orders to get up steam in the other two boilers also. He inquired how long it would take to do this, and the engineer said it could be done in 20 minutes. There was a mistake, however, in delivering the message, and the time was reported to the captain as five minutes. The captain accordingly waited till that time had elapsed, and then, assuming that the four boilers had been connected, let slip his cable—a circumstance which resulted in the accident. The House will now be able to judge whether there was no steam up, and whether any regulations of the Admiralty led to the disaster. As regards the Lord Clyde, she proceeded almost at full speed to the assistance of the ship being wrecked off Pantellaria, I believe with six boilers at work. She arrived there at night, and had to wait until morning before she could render
2016
assistance. I am dealing now not with controverted matters, but I am giving the account of the captain himself. When she arrived the fires were banked up in four of her boilers, and she was capable of going with those four boilers at the speed of 10 knots an hour. With regard to the cause of the other disasters I can say nothing until the Reports of the Courts-Martial have arrived; but I think I have cleared up one important point, and shown that steam was up in the cases to which I have alluded. I think this matter is one of such extreme importance that when we have the full materials before the House—and we shall have them shortly—I shall be able, in my place in the House of Commons, to rebut the charge which has been brought against the Admiralty in this matter. Then I am asked, whether the revised Orders respecting the use of the engines will be laid on the Table of the House? Certainly, Sir, every Order shall be laid upon the Table of this House. But I would remind the House that there are regulations restricting the use of coal which date as far back as the year 1856, in addition to the modern restrictions. The first of these modern restrictions is as follows:—
"Aug. 3, 1865.
"My Lords having observed that in many instances the Captains of Her Majesty's Ships have used steam power when, in the opinion of their Lordships, the service on which they were employed did not require it; and that it had also been used in leaving and entering harbours offering no difficulties to vessels under sail, they think it necessary again to call the attention of officers to Articles 7 and 8, cap. 20, page 175, of the printed Instructions.
"My Lords further direct that Commanders-in-Chief and senior Officers shall on all occasions distinctly state in the sailing Orders they may give, to what extent steam may be used, and they are carefully to examine the logs and steam registers of the ships under their orders, calling the attention of the commanding officers to any unnecessary expenditure, and reporting the same to the Admiralty. The quantity of coal consumed in the 24 hours and remaining on board is to be inserted daily in the log accompanying the report of proceedings, and when steam is used (in addition to the notification underlined in red ink, ordered in Article 11, cap. 20, page 176), the knots and fathoms are to be written in red ink.
"My Lords desire to impress upon all officers in command the very great importance of reducing the expenditure of coal on board their ships to the lowest point consistent with the safety of the vessels and the due performance of the service on which they may be employed."
This Instruction was addressed to all Commanders-in-Chief, Captains, Commanders,

2017
and Commanding Officers of Her Majesty's ships and vessels. With regard to this Instruction, I may state in candour that the Secretary to the Admiralty was not satisfied with the strength of these Instructions, and he proposed still stronger regulations forbidding the use of steam on ordinary passages altogether. The House will, not unnaturally, ask the date of these Instructions. The Instruction was dated 1865, and it is signed "By command of their Lordships, Clarence Paget." The House will see, therefore, that the Secretary to the Board of Admiralty who proposed regulations more stringent than any of those now in force was Lord Clarence Paget. [Mr. CORRY asked the date of the revised Orders.] The revised Orders were passed by the Board of Admiralty on the 26th of April, and they shall be laid on the Table of the House, together with the other Instructions.

ARMY—DEPOT CENTRES—TROW-BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY THYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the town of Trowbridge, which has been selected as the local centre for Wiltshire and Dorsetshire, is devoid of water, and that the horses of the Artillery now quartered at Trowbridge have to go four miles for their watering place; and, whether, having regard to the military advantage and public convenience of the many Railways now meeting at Salisbury, and its communications with Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, and all parts of the coast, as well as London, he would consider of appointing Salisbury as the centre for the two counties?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that Trowbridge had been selected because it afforded sufficient accommodation; but no final decision had been come to upon the subject, and time would be afforded for the consideration of the claims of Salisbury and other places.

IRELAND—PUBLIC MEETINGS—PHŒNIX PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. BUTT: asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the assurance given as to the holding of public meetings in the Royal Parks is to be understood as applying to the Phœnix Park?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, in strictness the assurance given by the Government as to the holding of public meetings in the Royal Parks, with reference to the Bill which had lately passed that House, did not apply to Phœnix Park, because that Park was not included in the Bill, and was placed under a government different from that which had charge of the other Royal Parks, and was vested in the Irish Board of Works. While the proceedings undertaken for the occurrences of last year were pending, it was deemed better not to deal with the case of the Phœnix Park. As to the substance of the Question, he could give a distinct answer, which would be more satisfactory if it was in the form of a quotation from a declaration made by the Secretary for Ireland last year. It was to the effect that the subject of public meetings in Phœnix Park would be taken into immediate consideration, and meanwhile the Government would not interfere with any meetings, otherwise unobjectionable, held in a part of the Park not inconvenient to the public, or to persons residing in the Park. It was probable the Park would require to be made the subject of legislation; but until that was done, the declaration made by his noble Friend would be carried out.

INDIA—SANSKRIT COLLEGE AT CALCUTTA.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been directed to a letter which appeared in "The Times" of April 15, from Mr. Cowell, Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge, referring to the abolition of the Professorship of Hindu Law in the Sanskrit College at Calcutta; and further, whether, under the circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State approves of the course which has been adopted; and, if not, whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
MR. GRANT DUFFreplied that the attention of the Secretary of State had been called to the letter in question, and he proposed to ask for an explanation from the Government of India on the subject, for no official information had been received.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
CORRESPONDENCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GLADSTONE: Last evening, Sir, a Question was put to me in reference to the arrival from America of the Despatch in answer to Lord Granville's Note of the 20th of March, and I stated that it had not then arrived. I may mention now that the Despatch reached General Schenck last night some time after I made the statement to which I have referred. This information has been given to Lord Granville by the United States Minister, who has not, however, stated the length of time that will be occupied in copying the document, which is, I understand, of some length. Therefore, I cannot say absolutely when General Schenck will place the Despatches in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

IRELAND—CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. PLUNKETrose to call attention to the inequality now existing between the salaries of members of the Civil Service of the Crown serving in Ireland and those filling corresponding offices in England, and to move—
  "That, having regard to the great increase that has in late years occurred in the cost of living in Ireland, the scale of salaries applied to offices of the Civil Service there should be re-considered, with a view to placing the servants employed in such offices on an equality as to remuneration with those performing corresponding duties in England."
  The hon. and learned Member said, though the Irish grievance to which he had to call attention was one connected with the national finances, it was in no sense a begging grievance, for they asked from the Government no gift or loan of money, but simply that the Civil servants of the Crown stationed in Ireland should be placed upon an equality with the Civil servants of the Crown stationed in England, to perform duties exactly corresponding in quality, quantity, and responsibility. Of late years this grievance had become intolerable, because while the cost of living in Dublin 20 years since was much cheaper than it was at that time in London, latterly the cost of living in Dublin had so rapidly increased that there was now
  2020
  no inequality in that respect between the two places. But there was an average difference of 30 per cent between the salaries paid to the Civil servants in Dublin and the amount received by those holding corresponding positions in London. He trusted, therefore, that the House would admit that though the present grievance was smaller than some of the others which had been brought before Parliament, it was still a grievance which called for redress. Another very peculiar circumstance connected with this question was that it had nothing whatever to do with party politics, and, stranger still, that it was the first proposal which had been brought forward in that House since the Union upon which Irish Members of every creed and party, and Irish newspapers of every shade of opinion, were absolutely agreed. The London Civilian—a recognized organ, as he believed, of the English Civil Service—acknowledged that the evils under which the officers in Ireland suffered were real and not imaginary; that their pay was small, their promotion notoriously slow, and that the good things fell, in too many instances, to the favoured officials in Dublin. The grievance of which he especially complained arose from the fact that the cost of living in Ireland had increased so rapidly during the last 20 years as to close in upon the Irish Civil servants in a way that made their narrow salaries intolerably small. In 1868 the Civil servants of the Crown situated in Dublin decided to take common action in the matter, and appointed a committee, including the most respected and distinguished officers of their several departments, who proceeded to draw up a statement of their grievances. That statement, which had been published in the form of a pamphlet, contained, in the first place, a series of carefully prepared tables of figures, showing in what respect the salaries of the Irish Civil servants were inferior to those of the English Civil servants, and the second part was prepared with the view of exhibiting the extraordinary increase in the cost of living in Ireland. In the spring of 1869 that statement was forwarded to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. C. Fortescue) and to the Prime Minister. In the autumn of that year a deputation from the Civil servants waited upon the Chief Secretary, who

  2021
  received them very courteously, and undertook that no effort of his should be wanting to obtain for their case the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing, however, came of that promise, and in 1870 he (Mr. Plunket) asked a Question on the subject in the House. In accordance with a hint to that effect, conveyed in the answer to his Question, memorials were forwarded to the Treasury showing, by carefully compiled figures, the grounds of complaint. What had become of those memorials he did not know. To the majority of them no answer had been returned; to others answers had been returned flatly refusing to entertain the claims of the memorialists; while in some one or two instances, perhaps, something had been done. After asking last year another Question on the same subject, to which he received a somewhat general answer, he placed a Notice of Motion on the Paper similar in its character to that which he now proposed. It was to come on on one of those hot evenings in the summer when the House had been suffering imprisonment, with hard labour, night and day, for a long time, and if the House was counted out—as it was counted out—the misfortune was one which better men had shared, and which had attended more important subjects. He would not, therefore, now refer to that as a grievance. The first portion of the statement to which he had alluded instituted a comparison between the duties of the Civil servants in the two countries. He did not propose wearying the House with figures; but he might take the case of the Probate Court as an example of what was complained of. The Probate Courts both in England and Ireland were reconstructed in 1857, and under the Acts of Parliament by which this re-construction was established exactly similar duties and responsibilities were allotted to the Civil servants in each. It was quite true that in the English offices there was about seven times as much work to be done, but then there were also about seven times as many employés; and he might here add that the Irish officers made no claim to increased remuneration where it could be shown that their English brethren incurred heavier work or graver responsibility. The salaries, however, were, on the average, 35 per cent higher in the London Court than in that of
  2022
  Dublin, and the result of the comparison on this point generally might be said to show that the average remuneration to the officers of the English Civil Service was 32 per cent higher than that of those who in Ireland performed corresponding duties. As an instance of the inequality of which those he represented complained, he might refer to the case of the office of the Paymaster of the Civil Service. In 1864 the Dublin office of that name was abolished, and of 14 employés 8 were transferred to the Board of Works, another Irish office, where they received salaries regulated by the Irish scale. The other six employés were transferred to the Paymaster General's Office, which, though existing in Dublin, was regarded as a branch of the English Civil Service. In their new office they performed the same duties as before, but received the higher pay given to the Civil servants in England. Surely some explanation was needed of that extraordinary state of things. There was a reason for the difference in salaries when the price of food and clothing, and other necessaries, was much lower in Ireland than in England; but the difference in prices had ceased. The Reports of the Poor Law Commissioners showed this. The Commissioners stated that the average weekly cost per head in the workhouse had risen from 1s. in September, 1851, to 1s. 9d. in April, 1854, and to 1s. 11 d. in 1858. The price of food rose from 2s. in 1864 to 2s. 5½d. in 1867, and 2s. 6¾d. in 1868; and the Commissioners, after commenting upon this, were so impressed with the rise in prices, that they recommended an increase in the pay of their clerks. Lest it should be said that the cost of maintaining paupers could not be compared with the cost of maintaining gentlemen in the Civil Service, he submitted that the claim for an increase of salary could be supported by a comparison of the prices in London and Dublin of articles which might be regarded as necessaries to members of the Civil Service. The cost of such articles had increased in London 28 per cent between 1851 and 1869, and in Dublin 61 per cent. Mutton had increased 15 per cent in London and 59 in Dublin, and coal, which had not materially advanced in London, had risen 44 per cent in Dublin. The average increase in the price of

  2023
  commodities in London was 12 per cent, and in Dublin 60. Some might say that all this was owing to the decrease in the value of money, with which the Treasury had nothing to do. That reply was all very well in the case of men in trade or of men receiving their money from investments; but members of the Civil Service had no means of increasing their salaries, and gentlemen who entered the service expecting their salaries would rise to £200, £300, or £400 a-year, perhaps with families growing up around them, found that £300 a-year which they expected was practically worth only £200 a-year. And what brought their position home to them most forcibly was the fact that many of them had to employ others on the part of the Government, and when acting in this capacity they found that every year the price of the labour they employed for the Government rose, and that while they paid more year by year to those whom they employed their own pay alone remained unincreased. In other cases such a state of things culminated in a strike; but everyone knew what a delicate thing it was for members of the Civil Service to make even a complaint. He earnestly asked the consideration of the House for this question. It might be said the men were at liberty to compete for positions on this side of the Channel, and that the Treasury was not to blame if it got its work done at the market price. But that was not a good reply; it was not enough to say to the young Irishman—"Here is certain work for you to do; in Dublin the price for doing that work is so much, in London it is so much more, and if you want the higher price you must cross the Channel." The result of such a course would be the employment of inferior men. He hoped he had proved that the case he had put forward was one of considerable hardship. The Government had been appealed to in the matter for three years past without any satisfactory result; he therefore came to Parliament, being sure hon. Members would not allow industrious officials, whose work was praised in every official Report, to remain under such an unjust disadvantage. What he had always asked for, and what he now demanded, was inquiry. He wished to have the present scale of these salaries considered with a view of substituting a fair and just scale.
  2024
  If it should turn out that those whom he represented had no just claim, then the sense of injustice would be removed. He believed that this proposal would be supported by every Irishman who would speak on the question. They did not want a Treasury inquiry; they wanted an impartial and independent inquiry. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGseconded the Motion. He rejoiced that hon. Members could approach the question without party feeling and without sectarian prejudice. After the very clear and able statement of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, it was unnecessary for him to say much to show the injustice which had been done for a long series of years to a deserving class of public servants. The question before the House was, whether the same treatment should be extended to Irishmen as was applied to Englishmen. When a deputation of Irish Civil servants waited upon the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to complain of the unfair way in which they were dealt with, the right hon. Gentleman told them in effect that, whether from apprehension of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from any other cause he knew not, he received them as a matter of courtesy, and that it was his duty to listen attentively to them; but that he could say little, because he had nothing to do with the finances of the country. That was, he thought, a very extraordinary statement to come from the Minister who was responsible for Irish affairs on such a matter. He wished to advert to what had been done in this matter in connection with the First Lord of the Treasury. In reply to a Question that was put to the right hon. Gentleman on July 7, 1870, he said he could not deal with this question as a whole, and he intimated that it was a matter into which the Treasury would inquire. On March 30, 1871, the right hon. Gentleman was again interrogated, and he said that certain memorials had been presented to the Treasury, and that the Treasury would have to decide each case upon its own merits. That was the answer that was given to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. On a former occasion he (Mr. Downing) had

  2025
  been counted out at three minutes past 9 o'clock when bringing forward a question relating to the removal of Irish paupers. On that occasion he saw two of Her Majesty's Ministers go behind the Speaker's Chair to prevent a House from being made. That was the way in which Irish matters were treated. He would give a few instances to illustrate the injustice done to the Irish Civil servants as compared with their English brethren. In one branch of the Inland Revenue Department in London there were 18 second-class clerks, who entered at a minimum salary of £300, which was increased at the rate of £15 each year until it reached £380. In Ireland, on the other hand, in the corresponding department, there were only three senior clerks, who commenced at £250 per annum, and their salaries were increased only by £10 each year. The difference in the cost of living could not justify that difference in the scale of pay; because, whatever might have been the case in former periods, the cost of living at present was not less in Ireland than in England. He would go to the Department of Public Works for another example of that inequality. In Ireland the first-class clerk received £500 a-year; whereas in England £600 was paid for the discharge of the self-same duties. A first-class clerk in the General Registry Office in Ireland received only £300 per annum, while a person holding a similar office in England received £420 per annum, or 40 per cent more. In the Solicitor's Department of the Inland Revenue of Ireland a first-class clerk received only £400; whereas in England the salary attached to that office was £550. Could such a difference be defended? It could not, except on this ground—that Irishmen were inferior to Englishmen, which he denied. About 12 months ago the Irish newspapers had pointed out what they believed to be a gross job and an insult to the Irish people in relation to the offices of controller and of assistant-controller in Dublin—namely, the appointment of a Scotchman to the former and of an Englishman to the latter, although there were at the time two Irish gentlemen in the office well qualified by knowledge and seniority for the appointments. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would give some explanation of this fact. He
  2026
  had no expectation of assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, because it was owing to that right hon. Gentleman's fixed determination to give no money to Ireland that the Bill he had prepared with the view of a public loan of £5,000 annually to the fishermen of Ireland to enable them to obtain boats was not passed, although it had received the approval of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) and would, have given satisfaction to the people of that country, and that the Bill for the division of the county of Cork had dropped through because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not provide the £200 a-year necessary to carry it into effect. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had never heard of such a Bill.] He (Mr. Downing) supposed that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the circumstance. He had no objection to any inquiry into the subject of the Motion being left in the hands of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary; but he protested against anything like a departmental inquiry being had, because it would turn out, as every other such inquiry had done, a mere official sham. There had been a departmental inquiry two years ago into the Valuation Office in Ireland, and lately another had been held on the Irish Board of Works, which had resulted in a number of deserving clerks being turned out of their office, and nothing whatever had been heard of the inquiry which had been held some time since into Irish Lunatic Asylums. This was the first time Irish Members had agreed among themselves for a great number of years, and he hoped their appeal would be attended with effect. He begged, in conclusion, to second the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, having regard to the great increase that has in late years occurred in the cost of living in Ireland, the scale of salaries applied to offices of the Civil Service there should be reconsidered, with a view to placing the servants employed in such offices on an equality as to remuneration with those performing corresponding duties in England."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his principal difficulty arose, not from any want of goodwill on the part of the Government, or of inclination to do what was just and fair to Ireland, but from his inability to understand what was demanded by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), because he really did not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted Government to do. Did the Motion imply that because a person held an office in Ireland, and if there was an office of a similar character in England, they were to be paid at the same rate? Take the case of the Registrar General, for instance. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the Registrar General in Ireland and the Registrar General in England were to be paid the same salary? He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to say what his Motion did mean.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, that the construction put upon his Motion by the right hon. Gentleman did not convey his meaning. He had distinctly stated that full allowance should be made for differences in the duties and labours of officials in the two countries.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped, then, that the Motion would not be pressed in its present shape, for he could place no other construction upon it than that the Lord Chancellor, Chief Justice, Puisne Judges, and County Court Judges in the two countries should receive the same salaries. It was therefore necessary to amend the Motion in some way. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that corresponding offices were to be remunerated at the same rate, the difficulty still remained of knowing what he really did mean. He would do the best he could, however, to answer the Motion so far as he understood it. He utterly disclaimed, on behalf of the Government, the notion that they entertained the idea that a man was to be paid less, because he was an Irishman, than he would be paid if he had been an Englishman. It was perfectly preposterous to imagine anything of the kind, and no Government could put forward such a doctrine for a moment. Whatever were the grounds upon which the difference in the salaries paid in England and Ireland was to be justified, they must be grounds that would
  2028
  apply vice versâ, just as much to Englishmen as to Irishmen. Therefore, he hoped that invidious notion would be banished from the minds of hon. Gentlemen. The House had to look at this question as practical men of business. The Government had not a large sum of money for equal distribution among a number of claimants, like an estate among the next of kin, nor did they act in a judicial manner in fixing salaries. They required a certain amount of assistance and intelligence, and like other employers they obtained it, not on any abstract standard, but according to the various circumstances of the case. If there were differences between Ireland and England, it was not because Ireland was Ireland and England England, but because the Government had hitherto and still believed there were different circumstances which made reasonable a difference in remuneration. If the differences could not be justified on this ground, they could not be justified on any other. As far as he had been able to ascertain, the cost of food and clothing was much the same in Dublin as in large English towns. Rent, however, was very much lower. ["No, no!"] Such was the information elicited by his inquiries, that rent was much lower in Dublin than in London. There were, moreover, no house or assessed taxes in Ireland. He did not say that these differences amounted to much, but merely mentioned them as points which must be taken into consideration in acting impartially. To put the question as one between England and Ireland was unduly narrowing it, for it arose between England and Scotland, and as between different parts of England. The salaries varied, not because the Government paid more respect to large towns than to small ones, or more to the town than to the country, but because the facility of obtaining the comforts and necessaries of life differed. These differences, however, were small compared with a consideration which the hon. and learned Gentleman had apparently lost sight of. The main cause of the difference in salaries in England and Ireland was that the duties in England were much heavier, the departments much more numerous, the number of persons to be dealt with much larger, and all the figures, in short, on a much larger scale. The Registrar General for England, for

  2029
  example, had to register the births, deaths, and marriages, and to answer questions respecting them, of 22,000,000 persons, while in Ireland the Registrar General had only to deal with between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000. It would manifestly be unfair for the two salaries to be equal. Again, no two postmasters received the same salary, for though their duties were of much the same kind, the number of letters and of clerks and the amount of business was infinitely different. These were the principles on which the salaries of the Civil Service must be regulated, and it was owing to the application of these principles that the difference in the salaries was mainly due. Another cause of the difference lay in the amount of work to be done. He might be contradicted in saying that there was more work in the English offices than in the Irish. The Irish offices, though not overpaid, were very much overmanned, and thus, though Irish salaries might not be high, Ireland still received a considerable portion of the public money from that cause. Another reason lay in the nature of the work which was to be done. A very large establishment meant an immense number of departments, and every department became more complex and difficult to administer, the greater the number of other departments with which it came into contact. There was likewise a difference between old and new offices. The latter were generally less paid, because offices which had existed some time, and had been found to transact their business satisfactorily, frequently had additional duties allotted to them from time to time by Parliament, it being customary to increase the remuneration on those occasions. When, on the other hand, the duties were foreseen and assigned from the first, the remuneration remained often unaltered. These circumstances must not be lost sight of in comparing one set of Civil servants with the other. There was force, too, in the argument met by anticipation by the hon. and learned Gentleman—that there was no Irish Civil Service or English Civil Service. Whatever was formerly the ease, offices were now as open to Irishmen as to Englishmen, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked, Irishmen, thanks to the ability with which nature had peculiarly endowed them,
  2030
  had obtained a number of offices in England. He understood that offices in the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and three out of the five Secretary ships of State, were open to competition, the exceptions being the Home and Foreign Offices. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) had just informed him that 9–10ths of the Home Office was open to competition. The War Office and the Admiralty were also open, so that nearly all the great Departments of the State were as accessible to Irishmen as to Englishmen. It was wrong, therefore, to make this a national grievance, for successful candidates had their choice in order of merit. If an Irishman had the first choice he would naturally take an office in England if it was better paid, and an Englishman choosing after him would go to Ireland to an office with a smaller salary. There was thus no unfairness as between the two countries. It was alleged that those salaries were fixed at a time when living was much cheaper in Ireland than at present, and this he admitted. It was further alleged that Civil servants did not receive that adequate remuneration which it was the desire of the Government that every public servant should receive, and this, he presumed, was the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to raise. He had spoken of the unfair scale of salaries; but there was really no invidious distinction between the two countries. He left the House to judge of the validity of the objection to himself that he was unwilling to lend the money of the Government on personal security. He was willing to accept the proposal which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if it were clearly understood that the inquiry was not to be how to make services in the two countries that were essentially different equal to each other in payment, but only to ascertain how to give a fair remuneration to Civil servants in Ireland as in England. If that was clearly understood, he had not the least objection to go into the inquiry. He warned the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that this would involve another inquiry. If they entered upon an inquiry whether they should impose upon the people of the country higher salaries for the Civil servants, then that inquiry should embrace the further question whether the Civil Service was not over-manned. If the hon.

  2031
  and learned Gentleman would accept this offer—it being clearly understood that it should be entered upon with the intention of giving simply fair remuneration to Civil servants in Ireland, and not with the view of attempting to set up an equality where there was really no equality at all, where the offices were entirely different—then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to the inquiry being instituted. He would also consent that the persons who were to conduct the inquiry should be named not by any person who had been guilty of the inconsistency of refusing to lend public money upon personal security, but that they should be named by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who he was sure had never been guilty of anything of the kind. He hoped this concession would save them from the necessity of dividing on this Motion, which he should regret to do, because it would seem as if the hon. and learned Gentleman were pressing a claim which the Government considered utterly unreasonable, and because it would seem to amount to a declaration on the part of the House that there really was a disposition on the part of the Government of this country to treat Irishmen in a way different from that in which they treated Englishmen. We had no "favoured nation," and no favoured nation class, and in the matter of the saving and the spending of public money, not the slightest difference between English and Irish was recognized.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, he had not been convinced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, differing from the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), he sought for equality in the higher branches of the Civil Service as well as in the lower. There ought to be no difference between a Puisne Judge in Ireland and one in England; the cost of maintaining a position in Ireland was, if anything, greater than it was in London. He held the same view as to the two Registrars General, for the difference between the population of England and that of Ireland was represented by the staff of the Registrar General for England, which was ten times as large and cost five times as much as that of the Registrar General for Ireland. To say that their pay should differ in proportion to the population of the two countries
  2032
  would be like saying that the captain of a man-of-war should have one-tenth of the salary of a captain whose ship had ten times as many guns. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had skilfully evaded the broad issue raised, which was not that Irishmen who entered into competitive examinations were paid less than Englishmen, but that young men who had entered and passed were sent into Ireland and were paid less than young men located in England. Rents were not lower in Ireland than in England. It might be that rents were higher in the West of London in the height of the season; but that rule did not apply to the class of houses occupied by Civil servants. In general, rents were higher in Ireland than in England, and they were very much higher in Galway than they were in Dublin. The truth was the absence of competition for small middle-class houses did not encourage persons to build them; and that made rents higher in Ireland than in England. If Ireland paid no assessed taxes, it was because there was nothing on which they could be levied. As soon as ever it was found that the Irish could pay income tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it on them. This was a matter in which neither politics nor religion should influence them. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had introduced into the discussion an element that ought to have been kept out of it, and that was the relative merits of the men appointed to different offices in Ireland. Men holding similar positions in England and Ireland ought to be equally paid, for the work was as difficult in the one country as in the other. If the offices were overmanned, let the superfluity of officers be removed. The Government was responsible for the appointment of them, and no greater evil could happen to a service than that it should be overmanned. As an instance of the cruelty with which Irish Civil servants were sometimes treated, he would mention the case of an Irishman who, for domestic reasons, asked that he might be removed from the London General Post Office, where he had been eight years in the service, to that of Dublin, and the consent of the authorities was coupled with the condition that he must accept the minimum salary in Ireland. Everybody employed in the Civil Service in Ireland was discontented,

  2033
  and particularly the Poor Law medical officers. In England, whenever a medical man was called in to certify that a person was a dangerous lunatic, he was paid out of the rates, and this rule also obtained in Ireland until 1867, when an Act was passed providing that the officers should give such certificates "without fee or reward. This was an injustice, and there was no reason why the medical officers in Ireland should not be placed on an equality as regards work and pay with their English brethren.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYaccepted the canons of criticism laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said it was justifiable to pay Civil officers less in Ireland than in England if their labour and responsibility were less, or if the offices they held were of more recent date than the corresponding offices in England. He proposed to show that the duties and responsibilities of the persons employed in superintending criminal lunatics in Ireland were more onerous than those imposed on persons occupying similar positions in this country. The first institution founded in the kingdom for the treatment of criminal lunatics was established at Dundrum, in Ireland, in 1849, and the system adopted there worked so admirably that about 1860 the Government determined to establish a similar institution in England. The result was the establishment, in 1862, of the Broadmoor Asylum, in Berkshire. Now, let the House compare the expenses of the two establishments, and the results that were produced by them. The Asylum at Broadmoor contained on the average 471 patients, while the number at Dundrum was 167. The House would, however, be astonished to learn that at Broadmoor the annual expenditure was £29,545, as against £5,579 for Dundrum. This was owing in a large degree to the difference in the salaries of the officials. Again, every patient at Broadmoor cost the country upwards of £60 a-year; whereas a criminal lunatic in Ireland cost the country only £33 a-year. Her Majesty's Treasury allowed for the support of an Irish criminal lunatic £13 6s. a-year; but the allowance for an English criminal lunatic was upwards of £20 a-year. He would ask the House whether anything could justify such a state of affairs? Again, 101 attendants were employed at Broadmoor
  2034
  as compared with 22 at Dundrum, so that an Irish keeper had to do twice as much work as a similar officer in England, while he only received half the amount of pay. In like manner, the superintendent in England got £900 a-year, while the superintendent in Ireland received only £400. It was also more expensive to attend to the souls as well as the bodies of Englishmen. The chaplain at Broadmoor was paid £400 a-year, besides £18 to provide a substitute when he took his summer holiday; and there was an assistant chaplain in receipt of an annual salary of £50. But at Dundrum the Catholic chaplain received only £60, and the Protestant chaplain only £40 a-year. Again, the steward at Broadmoor received £290, as compared with £110 paid to the corresponding officer at Dundrum. The matron and the chief attendant received respectively £175 and £150 at Broadmoor; and £90 and £40 at Dundrum. Yet the House might perhaps be surprised to learn that while the working of the Broadmoor Asylum was wholly unsatisfactory, that of the establishment at Dundrum was just the reverse. The Broadmoor Asylum was crippled at its birth, and had never got into a healthy condition to the present day. It was only in 1860 that the Asylum was erected; but it was built so badly that large sums of money had from time to time been voted in order to make good the defects. This year there was a sum of between £2,000 and £3,000 included in the Estimates for this very purpose. The treatment of the lunatics confined at Broadmoor was about as bad as it could well be. The Commissioners, in their Report for the years 1868–9, stated that there were seven men confined in separate cages or cells which some of them had not quitted for many months, and one man had not since the last visit of the Commissioners left his cell, in which he had neither chair nor table for his use. The Commissioners admitted that the management of the Asylum was far from being what it ought to be; but they had no immediate expectation of an improved state of things. Owing to the deficient drainage and generally defective construction of the Asylum, the mortality among the patients was greater than in any other similar institution in the three kingdoms. These were some of the strongest facts that could be adduced

  2035
  in condemnation of the system followed at Broadmoor. The Reports with reference to the Asylum at Dundrum were, on the other hand, most satisfactory; and, therefore, they had a right to demand that the officials in that institution should be placed at least on a level with those in the English Asylum. One reason why the Dundrum Asylum was so well-conducted an institution was that the Irish were a far milder race than the English, even when criminally lunatic. If the Irish people generally were treated with fair play, the Imperial Government would find it as easy to manage them as the Dundrum attendants found it easy to manage the criminal lunatics committed to their charge.
  MR. BRADYwished to know, if it were the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the future to place the Civil servants who changed their position from one part of the United Kingdom to another on the same footing as that which they had occupied before they had made the change?
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he cordially approved of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University; but he objected to its being restricted to Ireland, and ventured to ask that it be extended to Scotland also. There were, in his opinion, much stronger reasons for including Scotland within the scope of the inquiry than there were for leaving it out. They had heard a great deal of the difference between the Irish criminal lunatic asylum at Dundrum, and the similar institution at Broadmoor in England. They had been told that the pauper lunatics at Dundrum were skilfully looked after by ill-paid attendants, while at Broadmoor a much better paid body of officials looked but indifferently well to a number of unfortunate human beings. But Scotland, so far from getting £900 or £400 a-year for its chief officers in criminal lunatic asylums, or £13 per annum for the maintenance of patients, got nothing at all either for lunatics, or attendants, or chief officers, or anything whatever of the kind. There was no proper Government criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland, all criminal lunatics being sent to private asylums, and boarded there as ordinary patients. Last year a Bill passed that House, but was rejected in the House of Lords, the effect of which would have been to enable the authorities in Scotland to force
  2036
  criminal lunatics to such private lunatic asylums as they chose. He was not about to deny that there might be grievances in Ireland in respect to the subject-matter of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member; but he would call attention to the fact that Scotland contributed to the Exchequer one-fourth more than Ireland, and therefore he could scarcely see why Dundrum should be so much elevated, and Scotland left at the bottom of the ditch without anything whatever. Then, with regard to the general expenditure of the country, he thought that Ireland and Scotland alike had great reason to complain. In Ireland and Scotland the salaries in the Civil Service were much lower compared with England; and he could not but regard that as very unjust, because, except in London, living was as cheap in any part of England as it was in Scotland or Ireland, and he did not see why there should he any difference between the salaries paid to Civil servants in the three countries. Take the case of the poorer class of civil employés, such as letter-carriers, and junior clerks in the Government offices. The letter-carriers were entrusted with jewels and valuable property of different kinds; yet in Dublin and Edinburgh they were paid no more than 18 s. a-week—an altogether inadequate remuneration for men holding so laborious and responsible a position. He could not therefore allow that the grievance was peculiar to Ireland, but must maintain that Scotland suffered equally—if, indeed, her complaint was not more sound, by reason of the fact that she contributed so much more than Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. According to the Civil Service Estimates for this year, the postal service in Dublin would cost £48,650, while that of Edinburgh reached £35,532 only; but the revenue derived from the service in Scotland was at least one-third more than was obtained from Ireland. Therefore, it must be clear that, judged by results, the Post Office employés in Scotland were much underpaid as compared with those in Ireland.
  MR. PIM, in supporting the Motion, instanced as a case of discrepancy between the two branches of the service, that while one officer was employed to every five prisoners in England, the proportion in Ireland was one to seven; and that while in England the cost of the

  2037
  prison staff was £15 18 s. 8d. per prisoner, it amounted in Ireland to only £9 3s. 5d. That showed that the officers in the Irish prisons were worse paid, while they did more work than in England. He quite agreed in the opinion that the inquiry ought also to ascertain whether any branches of the service were overmanned, and he trusted that the result would be to place the officers in England. Scotland, and Ireland, all on the same footing, so that the same salary should be paid for the same work wherever that work may be done.
  MR. WALTERhad no desire to enter into any discussion of the rival merits of the English or Irish modes of feeding lunatics. In consequence, however, of the strong remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Galway with reference to the treatment of criminal lunatics at Broadmoor Asylum, he wished, as one of the visitors of that institution, to put the House in possession of one or two facts. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated, that Broadmoor Asylum, as originally constructed, was one of the worst buildings in England. The work was scamped and done as badly as possible. It was perfectly true that the drainage was in so defective a state that it produced a considerable amount of illness; but he begged to inform the hon. Member that all this had now been remedied. The sewers had been taken up and relaid, and if the work was not at this moment actually completed, it would be so shortly. As regarded the position of Broadmoor, however, there could be little doubt that no more magnificent or healthy site could have been selected for the reception of the particular class of persons the institution accommodated. With regard to the treatment of the inmates, he could from personal knowledge testify to the fact that there was not the slightest foundation for the assertion that they were badly cared for. It was true that there were particular cases where it was found necessary to keep desperate lunatics in separate confinement. The late superintendent died from the effects of a blow which he received in the chapel of the institution, and no doubt there were characters so dangerous that he should be sorry to visit them even in the company of one of the warders. Such cases, however, were very exceptional, and
  2038
  nothing could be more humane or kind than the general treatment of the inmates. To such an extent was this course pursued that any stray visitor to the institution might well be pardoned if he entertained the idea that entrance within its walls was the reward of meritorious behaviour. It was only a short time since that he was present at a party at Broadmoor where 29 persons, each of whom had committed murder, sat down to tea. At certain times theatricals were permitted, and, in addition to billiards, there were magnificent grounds to walk in. In 1869, the period which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) spoke of Broadmoor, he (Mr. Walter) was not connected with it. During the last two years, the time he had been connected with it, he was sure that all his colleagues would bear him out when he said that nothing could be more considerate, more humane, or more kind than the treatment which those prisoners received. He was, therefore, surprised to hear the charges that had been made that evening, and could only attribute their being made to the fact that the hon. Member had not made himself conversant with the nature and management of the institution.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYexplained that he had not quoted from the Reports, and that he had referred to Broadmoor only by way of contrast to Dundrum.
  MR. MAGUIREexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward the Motion (Mr. Plunket) would accept the terms proposed by the Government. All that was wanted was a full and honest inquiry, and then much more would come out than the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think. The remuneration given to the postmaster and postmistress in rural districts and small towns was a matter that required investigation as much for the benefit of the public service as for the interest of the holder of the office. They wore, in fact, scandalously paid. In the district in which he resided, which contained a population of 3,000, and in which were established large works, the postmistress was only paid the small salary of £8 or £10 per annum. The state of things that existed at one time which made a difference between England and Ireland had passed away, and the public servant in Ireland had now as much to pay for his food,

  2039
  clothing, and the education of his children, as the Civil servant of a corresponding grade had to pay in England. He was glad the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had put in a claim for Scotland; and, although hon. Members for Scotland sometimes gave Irish Members hard hits, there was no jealousy on their part against Scotland.
  DR. BALLsaid, that as the inquiry was to be conducted by persons who were to be appointed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and as the noble Lord was to preside over its deliberations, he assented to the inquiry.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he rose for the purpose of supporting the suggestion just made by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that the inquiry for which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had moved, and to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assented, should be extended to Scotland. He did not think that the inquiry would be complete if it were not so extended. It would demonstrate, he thought, that the officials in Scotland were as much underpaid as wore the officials in Ireland, and that observation particularly referred to those connected with the Post Office, who were, he must say, shamefully underpaid. So much so, that it was difficult to get respectable persons to fill those offices. With respect to letter-carriers, it was a shame to have men paid 10 s. or 12 s. a-week, to whom, valuable property was committed. He trusted that the inquiry would be extended to Scotland.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the postmasters and postmistresses were paid on exactly the same scale in England. Ireland, and Scotland, and therefore there could be no inequality as between the three kingdoms. No doubt they received small pay for the onerous duties they had to discharge; but the advantages which the possession of the office gave to small shopkeepers was such that many would gladly discharge the duties without pay for the appointment. As to payments to the Post Office officials in Dublin, one of the most experienced officers of the Department had recently been to inquire into the matter, and had just made his Report; and if it turned out that any injustice was committed, it certainly should be remedied. He might state that, under the Post Office system,
  2040
  revision of salaries was constantly going on, and hardly a day passed without his raising the salaries of some of the Post Office employés in Dublin.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he did not gather from what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) that it was the intention of the Government to extend the inquiry as suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). It had been shown that a grievance existed in Scotland as well as in Ireland, and a similar one, and as an inquiry had been granted in the one case, he (Mr. Kinnaird) did not see why Scotland should not have the benefit of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the right hon, and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) was mistaken in supposing the inquiry offered by the Government would be presided over by himself. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised merely that those conducting the inquiry should be appointed by him as Chief Secretary. The Government did not think it desirable to extend the inquiry to Scotland, because the inquiry would be made into each department separately, to see whether the officers of that department were adequately paid for the work they did, and it would not be convenient to mix up the case of Scotch officials with the case of the Irish. The Government could not accept the proposition that a comparison between the salaries paid in London and in Dublin was the only test to go by, though such a comparison should, no doubt, form part of the case. The difference between the cost of living in England and in Ireland should also form one of the considerations in the case. The object should be to see that the officers of the Civil Service wore paid a fair price, but not a higher price than the Government could get the work done for, because it was obviously improper that the Government should be in a worse position than any other employer of labour.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he thought the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very fair one, and with reference to his suggestion that the inquiry might prove the men were overpaid, he had to say that the men themselves were quite ready to await the consequences. He understood that the Chief Secretary

  2041
  for Ireland was to nominate certain persons who should inquire into that matter. He felt sure that the noble Marquess would nominate persons who would possess the confidence of the Civil servants as well as of the Government. He gladly accepted that offer, and begged to withdraw his Resolution.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he regretted to hear that the inquiry was not to be extended, because he thought there was much need for it, and more especially with respect to the Post Office. The remuneration of the officials of that establishment was most inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had spoken of the advantages of having a post office connected with a shop; but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that there were many persons who gave their whole time to the service—he alluded to the country runners, who received about 15 s. a-week, and who had to pay a considerable proportion of their salary for the shoes they wore. He hoped the Government would reconsider their decision, at least so far as regarded the Post Office, and allow the inquiry to apply to Scotland.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, it would be extremely inconvenient to extend the inquiry to Scotland, and very unsatisfactory that gentlemen qualified to conduct an inquiry in Ireland should be sent to discharge similar duties in Scotland. He had heard no complaints from the Civil servants of the Crown in Scotland.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INCOME TAX.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANrose to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the advisability of repealing that part of the Income Tax Act which relates to Incomes derived from Trades and Professions, excepting Joint Stock Chartered, and other Incorporated Companies, and substituting for such Revenue other Taxes less grievous and inquisitorial; and to relieve from the operation of 'The Act' all Incomes of £200 and under; and, further, to consider whether any other and what Tax or Taxes specially affecting those classes now sought to be relieved could be equitably imposed as a substitute for such part of the Income Tax so proposed to be repealed."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that the judgment of the country had been pronounced, and pronounced most emphatically,
  2042
  against the income tax. He would not ask the House to grant a Committee to consider the incidence of that tax. That had been done over and over again, and the illogical, unjust, vicious, and mischievous character of the impost had been clearly demonstrated. The worst feature of the income tax system was the inquisitorial and overcharging proceedings of the Special Commissioners. The Government and the officials at Somerset House, when a case of grievance was brought before them, showed a desire to examine into it and afford a remedy. It was the irresponsible officials connected with the assessing and levying of the tax whose arbitrary acts and unjust decisions rendered the impost so odious to the community. The country had declared through innumerable public meetings irreconcilable hostility and war to the knife against Schedule D, relating to trades and professions. No modification or re-arrangement of that schedule would satisfy the public; nothing less than the repeal of that part of the Act would content them. The first Resolution agreed to by the Committee of 1861 condemned the continuance of the tax, and his Resolution proposed to take up the question where the Commissioners of 1861 left it. He believed that if that portion of the income tax were repealed it would leave a deficiency of something under £2,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked to surrender a large portion of the Revenue, would very naturally ask from what source the deficiency was to be made up; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, while stating that he could not spare this part of the tax, that it worked hardly and dishonestly, and that he would not object to its being got rid of in its present form if some good substitute for it could be obtained. He (Mr. Sheridan) had appended to his Notice of Motion various suggestions with reference to the sources from which revenue might possibly be drawn to recoup the Government for the loss they might sustain by the relinquishment of the tax under Schedule D. These suggestions were not his own; but they had been well thought out by people who had earned reputations in matters of finance. The suggestions were whether those new taxes might not be imposed in place of the tax under Schedule D—a

  2043
  graduated license tax or an assessment upon the rental of those classes proposed to be relieved; a small stamp duty upon all invoices and bill-heads issued for amounts in value of 40 s. and upwards; a smaller duty upon all invoices and billheads issued for amounts between 20 s. and 40 s.; an extension of the receipt stamp duty to all receipts for sums between 20 s. and 40 s.; and the extension of the present stamp duty—or some part thereof—on bills of exchange or promissory notes to all endorsements—except the first—upon such documents. It might be said that if they were to adopt any scheme on this subject and recommend it to the House they would be trenching on the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it was to find out what available means there were for raising the necessary Revenue of the country. But from the earliest period of the history of Parliament it was always considered the duty of the Commons to provide for the taxation of the country, and to criticise the measures brought forward for that purpose; and Sir Erskine May, in his valuable work, had laid it down as the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare what taxes could be diminished, and what could be properly imposed or increased, leaving it for the House to determine the question. There was, therefore, nothing irregular in the suggestions themselves, and nothing irregular or questionable in the proposal that a Committee should be appointed in order to see whether they could replace one tax by another. It must not be supposed, however, that the income tax payers objected to bearing their fair share of taxation—on the contrary, they were quite willing to pay the same amount as they were now paying
  2044
  if it were collected in some other shape, and by some other method. They would even be willing to submit to a new assessment in the shape of a house tax, and to allow it to be a fixed tax, provided that they could thereby get rid of the abominable and inquisitorial tax under Schedule D. As to the first suggestion for a graduated license tax, or an assessment upon the rental of those classes who were proposed to be relieved, it was proposed that the trader should make a return of his last three or five years' business; that upon that return there should be based an estimate of what it was considered fair for him to pay; and that he should be assessed at that amount in the same way as if he were assessed upon the rental of his house. Supposing some such system were adopted, and made to apply to trades and professions, there would be some saving in the annual expense of collecting the tax. It might still be urged, however, that by adopting such a fixed tax there would be lost that element of elasticity which was of the greatest possible value to the State, inasmuch as the wealth of the country was constantly increasing and the amount of the tax continually varying. But the answer to that was that in the permanence of a fixed tax the State would get a full equivalent for the fluctuating character of the present income tax. It was manifestly unfair and unjust, and it was constitutionally and politically unsound, to swell the income tax for every passing exigency of State.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pensions* (93); Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads * (94).
Second Reading—Supreme Court of Appeal * (77), discharged.
Third Reading—West Indies (Incumbered Estates)* (88), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

  CORRESPONDENCE.
  Correspondence with the Government of Canada in connexion with the appointment of the Joint High Commission and the Treaty of Washington: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have not given Notice of the Question which I am about to put, and, therefore, it rests entirely with the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary whether he may think fit to answer my inquiry—but, knowing the desire of your Lordships for information on the subject, I beg to ask my
  1980
  noble Friend, Whether the long-expected communication from the American Government has been received?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, my answer to the noble Earl is a very simple one, but I will endeavour to convey it in a less conversational tone than that in which I replied last evening. The facts as to what I then said about the despatch are correctly given; but the details, not having reached the gallery with distinctness, are not quite accurately stated. In reply to the Question just put by my noble Friend, I have to say that I have been informed by the American Minister that he received the despatch last evening; but it is not very short, and as it has to be copied, and he wishes to make himself master of it, he has not yet communicated it.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME
COURT OF APPEAL.—OBSERVATIONS.
Order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Lord Chancellor's Motion to resolve,
That it is expedient that one Imperial Supreme Court of Appeal be established which shall sit continuously for the hearing of all matters now heard by way of Appeal before this House or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House be transferred to such Supreme Court of Appeal,
read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that though in accordance with a Rule of the House the Supreme Court of Appeal Bill stood before the Notice for the Adjourned Debate on his Resolution respecting the establishment of a Supreme Court of Appeal, he thought it would be more convenient if his original suggestion of considering the Resolution in the first instance were acted on by their Lordships.
LORD CAIRNShad understood that the debate on the Resolution had been adjourned in order that their Lordships might have the Bill before them and might pronounce an opinion on it; but if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thought it would be more convenient to take the adjourned debate on the Resolution before proceeding with the Motion for the second reading and the Amendment to that Motion, of which he had given Notice, he would address their Lordships on the Resolution, and conclude by moving an Amendment to

1981
the effect that the House did not think fit to assent to the Resolution, the Supreme Court of Appeal proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack not being a satisfactory substitute for the appellate tribunal of their Lordships' House.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, that there would be a great objection to pressing the Resolution before their Lordships knew what they were going to get in lieu of that which they were asked to give up; and he therefore begged his noble and learned Friend to allow the Bill to be considered before proceeding with the Resolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the adjourned debate on the Resolution might be proceeded with now that the Bill was before their Lordships.
Debate resumed:—
LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, when some days ago he laid his proposal on this subject before your Lordships, entered at considerable length into what I may term a historical review of the appellate jurisdiction of this House. I confess that while it appeared to me that, as a matter of research and curiosity, his investigation was interesting, it really had not much bearing on the question which he was submitting for your Lordships' consideration; but the use my noble and learned Friend made of it compels me to allude to it for a few moments. My noble and learned Friend stated that the appellate jurisdiction of this House had at different times been open to debate and controversy. He made especial mention of the other House of Parliament in connection with those controversies, and suggested that if it should become necessary, in any proposal for the improvement of the jurisdiction of this House, to ask for a vote of money, we could scarcely expect that the House of Commons would readily supply funds for improving the jurisdiction which it had impeached. Now, my Lords, I think it is important there should be no misapprehension as to how this matter of the jurisdiction of this House stands. This House, having been almost from time immemorial a Court of Appeal from the Courts of Common Law, has always possessed jurisdiction in writs of error. That jurisdiction has
1982
always been exercised—from time immemorial cases were brought here by writ of error to be heard before the Sovereign Parliament. Now, as far as I am aware, that jurisdiction has never been attacked or impeached. Another jurisdiction of this House stands in a somewhat different position. My noble and learned Friend was right in saying that with regard to appeals from the Court of Chancery, the jurisdiction of your Lordships' House cannot be taken to have been established till about 200 years ago. And what was the reason why it was not established before then? The reason was this—that the Court of Chancery itself was an usurper and an upstart, and had had to fight its own way into the possession of a jurisdiction. It was not until the beginning of the 17th century, in the time of Lords Ellesmere and Coke, that it was firmly established, and the Courts of Law acknowledged the jurisdiction for which it had been struggling. While the Court of Chancery was fighting for its jurisdiction, this House had jurisdiction, not only in respect of cases coming from the Courts of Common Law, but in respect of certain matters which came before it not by way of appeal. The Court of Chancery had not established its own jurisdiction till the period to which I have just referred, and that is the reason why the 17th century had progressed considerably before the jurisdiction of the House over cases from the Court of Chancery had been fully recognized. But what was it that the House of Commons denied to this House? Was it the right of this House to sit as a Court of Appeal in cases of writs of error or of appeals from Chancery? I do not so read history. As I read history, there were two questions in respect of which the House of Commons entered on the dispute and denied the jurisdiction of your Lordships' House. One was a question on which I am bound to say I think the House of Commons was perfectly right. This House undertook at one time to exercise not only an appellate, but an original jurisdiction in civil cases. It did so in the celebrated case of the East India Company, and the House of Commons challenged its right. This House submitted, and properly submitted. The other question on which the House of Commons came into controversy with this House was quite a

1983
different one. It was not a question of the right of this House to hear appeals, but a question of privilege of the Members of the House of Commons. It was raised in the case of Sir John Fagg, the King's Physician, who was ordered to appear at the Bar. When matters grew very warm, the proceedings of this House was spoken of in the House of Commons as a usurpation; but to show the nature of the question, I may appeal to a disinterested authority, Mr. Hallam, who says—"It was not one as to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, but one of the personal privileges of Members of the House of Commons." I think, therefore, I may assert positively that the appellate jurisdiction of this House has never been exercised under protest or subject to any infirmity of title. There was another topic to which my noble and learned Friend referred at such length that I do not think it should be passed over in silence. My noble and learned Friend referred to the mode in which the appellate jurisdiction of this House was exercised before 1856 as brought out in evidence before a Committee of this House, and also to the amount of arrears; and he did so in a way which may have led persons to suppose that it is now exercised in the same manner. He alluded to the means adopted for insuring a quorum during the hearing of appeals, and he said that Members of your Lordships' House who were not lawyers had been accustomed to sit with the Lord Chancellor, one or two of them attending day by day for that purpose. He spoke of a case which had been heard under these circumstances by Lord Brougham, and which had attracted much attention; and he mentioned how large were the arrears which had accumulated. I could not myself understand why it was my noble and learned Friend dwelt so fully on the system in which the appellate jurisdiction of this House had been exercised so long ago as before 1856. I imagine—though I can hardly think my noble and learned Friend meant to produce such an effect—that the effect of his lengthened reference to that old state of things was calculated to produce in the public mind the impression that his description of the state of things existing in 1856 was also a true description of the state of things existing at the present time. But, my Lords, nothing
1984
could be more erroneous than such an impression, and if it exists—as I am afraid it does—it ought to be corrected. I have had some knowledge of the appellate jurisdiction of this House, extending not only over the time which has elapsed since I had first the honour of a seat among your Lordships, but also over the many years during which I practised at the Bar; and as regards the composition of the appellate tribunal, I can say that for the last 15 years I never witnessed a House assembled to hear appeals composed of any other than noble and learned Members. I will not say that no such thing has occurred, but I never saw it. I remember that in a conversation I had with Lord Kings-down, whom I have the honour of regarding as a much-loved Friend of mine, I asked him why he so seldom attended in his place as a Law Lord to hear appeals in your Lordships' House. He told me he thought he was doing better public service in attending the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, because he found sometimes five, and seldom fewer than four, noble and learned Lords sitting here, and that throughout his experience, which your Lordships know to be very great, he had found three about the best number to compose an appellate tribunal. He thought that when the number was greater there was a division and dissipation of responsibility, and the tribunal was consequently less efficient and satisfactory than when it was composed of three Members. Now, my Lords, with regard to arrears of Business, I will ask your Lordships to observe what is the present condition of the appellate business in your Lordships' House. I think it ought to be known to the public. We have to-day entered on the hearing of the last case which was set down for hearing at the commencement of the present Session. The whole of the cases which remained over for hearing at the end of last Session have been disposed of, and the next case to be proceeded with is the first which was set down this Session. There have been only 18 cases set down during this Session, and now remaining to be heard; and having regard to the progress we have made heretofore, every one of those 18 cases ought to be heard in three weeks. I venture to say that such a statement can be made in regard of no other Court in this country. Now, my

1985
Lords, such being the actual state of things, I cannot help asking myself why, at this particular moment, this measure of law reform is presented to us, in preference to other measures of law reform which are infinitely more pressing, and which logically ought to precede and not to follow a measure for the improvement of the Tribunal of Supreme Appeal? My Lords, not only is the progress of business such as I have described, but I venture to say there never was a time at which this House possessed so many advantages for the satisfactory discharge of its appellate jurisdiction. The presence of my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Colonsay), so long an illustrious ornament of the Scotch Bar and the Scotch Bench, has been, and must always be, of the greatest advantage in the case of appeals from Scotland. Then we have also the advantage of the presence of a noble and learned Friend of mine, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan), who, when there is any difference between the law of this country and that of Ireland, gives us the benefit of his experience in respect of the law of the sister country. Then, my Lords, with regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is true there has been a considerable arrear of appeals coming from one portion of the British possessions. Appeals from Bengal have multiplied of late years. This increase is only temporary, and is owing to causes which I need not now detail, but which it would be easy to explain. From other parts of India and from the colonies generally there has not been an increase in the number of appeals. My object is to show that the pressure on the Judicial Committee was only temporary, and it has been relieved by a temporary measure which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack told us at the beginning of the Session had worked well; my noble and learned Friend adding on that occasion a statement which I think we objected to—namely, that the Government deserved thanks for the way in which they had surmounted the difficulty of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, my Lords, if the appellate business of the House is in the position I have described, and if the business of the Judicial Committee is in the position described by my noble and learned Friend, I ask why it is that in
1986
preference to other pressing reforms we are now asked to take up that of the Supreme Courts of Appeal? Two years ago, the Judicature Commission, of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was a Member, and of which other noble and learned Lords were Members, made a Report in which they recommended the fusion, as it was termed, of Law and Equity; the constitution of one great Court to administer the two systems; and the establishment of a strong Court of Intermediate Appeal; but the Commission, after an attentive consideration of the entire subject, recommended that there should be a right of final appeal to the House of Lords. The Commission, by the establishment of a strong Court of Intermediate Appeal, would have diminished as much as possible the number of appeals to your Lordships' House, and in that manner would have strengthened, as much as possible, the Court of Supreme Appeal. The Commissioners reported—
"We propose further, that to this Court an appeal should lie from all judgments, decrees, rules, and orders in suits or proceedings not strictly criminal, of any Division or Judge of the Supreme Court, with certain exceptions which we shall afterwards specify. It may hereafter deserve consideration, after experience of the working of the Court thus constituted, whether its decisions may not be made final, unless leave to appeal from them be given either by the Court itself or by the House of Lords. In the meantime, we recommend that there should be a right to appeal to the House of Lords."
There was no difference of opinion among the Commissioners on that point; and the year before last my noble and learned Friend brought in a measure in accordance with that Report. That measure was not proceeded with;—but why has not the effort to act upon that Report been renewed? One is tempted to ask why the Report of the Commissioners is suffered to remain a dead letter—why the fusion of Law and Equity which the Commissioners recommend remains unaccomplished at a time when we are presented with a scheme which, even if it were a good one in its details, ought for every reason to come after such improvements as those which were recommended by the Judicature Commission? In like manner, a Commission sat on the Courts of Scotland. It was presided over by my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Colonsay), and met the year

1987
before last; but no measure in accordance with its Report has yet been presented to Parliament. What is the reason that that Report has been entirely disregarded? My Lords, I cannot help thinking a construction will be put on this out-of-doors which will be perfectly natural. There was a considerable outcry in some quarters during last autumn—not for a change in the appellate jurisdiction of this House—but for what was termed the "abolition of the House of Lords" altogether. So strong was the reference to the subject in some quarters that the Prime Minister thought it necessary to take notice of the proposal in a celebrated speech made at the end of the year. He is reported to have asserted that, though some persons recommended the abolition of the House of Lords, he would think once, twice, three times, before consenting to such a proposal. Some persons have been bold enough to doubt whether, after all, that declaration of the Prime Minister is a perfect security for the continuance of the House of Lords. But be that as it may, my Lords, I am afraid that out-of-doors this construction will be put on the scheme of my hon. and learned Friend—that the abolition of the House of Lord would be too strong a measure to propose at the present time; but that this measure would be a step in the right direction, and a preparation for the time when the Prime Minister may be prepared to think once, twice, and even three times. My Lords, for the appellate jurisdiction of this House I have no abstract preconceived idea. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that we ought to have the best Court of Appeal possible. That is what the country has a right to, and we shall be only doing our duty in taking the most effectual means to provide it. I see great defects in the present system, but I see great advantages in it also. I am anxious that those defects should be remedied; and if they cannot be remedied I shall not be deterred from accepting any proposal for a better tribunal of appeal by any preconceived idea that this House ought not to part with its appellate jurisdiction. But, my Lords, before we go further let me invite your Lordships' attention to some other considerations connected with the subject, and to the width of the subject on which we are invited to legislate. My
1988
Lords, this is not a question which concerns England alone. The question of a Supreme Court of Appeal is often discussed as if it concerned England only; but comparatively England has not a very large interest in it. The appeals from the Courts in England are very few. The appeals from Scotland and Ireland are much more numerous than those from England. And it may be worth while asking the question why the appeals from England are so few. My Lords, I believe it is because the Intermediate Courts of Appeal in England are so strong. Her Majesty's subjects in England have such confidence in the Intermediate Courts of Appeal that when they get the decision of a primary Judge, and afterwards of the Court of Intermediate Appeal, they are satisfied and do not carry the case further. And, my Lords, I believe that just in proportion as you can inspire the other parts of the kingdom with the same confidence in the Intermediate Courts so you will diminish the number of appeals to the Supreme Court. But as regards England, let me remind your Lordships of what took place in 1856, when there was a reference to a Select Committee to inquire—
"Whether it is expedient to make any, and, if so, what, provision for more effectually securing the efficient exercise of the functions of this House as a Court of Appellate Jurisdiction."
Lord Cranworth, who was at that time Lord Chancellor, was Chairman of the Committee. There were also on the Committee Lord Harrowby, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Derby, Lord Stanhope, Lord Carnarvon, Lord Grey, Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Somerset, Lord Granville, Lord Campbell, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Redesdale, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Abinger, Lord Elgin, and Lord St. Leonards. My Lords, that Committee made a Report, in which one of the first sentences is the one to which I am about to call the attention of your Lordships. Speaking of the number of witnesses examined, the Report states—
"Among these witnesses there appears to be a very general agreement as to the expediency of retaining the appellate jurisdiction of the House, and in this view the Committee entirely concur."
My Lords, use has been made of an introductory chapter to a legal treatise written by Lord St. Leonards, in which that noble and learned Lord points out

1989
the objections which were made to the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of this House was exercised many years ago; but it would be a mistake to suppose that he is in favour of transferring that jurisdiction from this House. Many of your Lordships are aware that a domestic affliction prevents Lord St. Leonards being present at this debate; but I had a letter from him this morning in which he expresses himself strongly against such transfer, and says it ought not to be made. As regards the Scotch appeals, the Committee of 1856 examined the Lord Justice General of Scotland, the Lord Justice Clerk, the noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord Colonsay), Mr. Kerr, and Mr. Anderson, all of whom were members of the Scotch Bar. And those gentlemen, who were more competent than most other persons to express an opinion on the matter were unanimously of opinion that the jurisdiction of this House in Scotch appeals was extremely popular in Scotland, and that great dissatisfaction would be felt in Scotland at a transfer of that jurisdiction to any other tribunal. A most remarkable document was sent to the Committee signed at a very large meeting of the Writers to the Signet. I attach more importance to that document because, if there be any class of professional gentlemen who, more than another, have no personal interest in the maintenance of the appellate jurisdiction of this House, it is that of the Writers to the Signet. Appeals coming to the House from Scotland do not come through them, but through Scotch agents in London, who are a different body. Well, what does the document state?—
"That this society fully recognizes the great benefits which have resulted to the Law of Scotland from the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and would deprecate any alteration by which its judicial functions would be vested in any other body."
That is strong testimony; and but only this morning I received a letter from Mr. Anderson, one of the gentlemen I have alluded to as having been examined before the Committee, in which he says—
"My experience since I gave my evidence before the Appellate Jurisdiction Committee in 1856 has only tended to confirm the opinion I then entertained as to the desirability of the House retaining its appellate jurisdiction, and I believe that a great majority of the lieges of Scotland
1990
concur in that opinion. Any measure to remove that jurisdiction to a separate Court, whether sitting in Westminster Hall or in the Parliament House, would in Scotland be extremely unpalatable. Further than this, I do not presume to say a word on the merits of the Bill now before Parliament."
My Lords, before I leave the question of Scotland, let me remind your Lordships of a view of this subject which I think was expressed by Lord Aberdeen. By our Treaty of Union with Scotland we expressly contracted that under no circumstances were appeals from the Scotch Courts to be sent to any of the Courts in Westminster Hall. I admit that my noble and learned Friend intends that this new Court shall be a Supreme Court; but it may be composed of three Barristers of 10 years' standing, and I do not very well know how a Court composed of Barristers of 10 years' standing will come to be regarded as an Imperial Court, nor how my noble and learned Friend will be able to persuade the people of Scotland that if his Bill passes, the appeals from their Courts will not be taken to a Court in Westminster Hall. They may think that you will be doing in substance, if not in form, the thing you undertook not to do. Now, as to Ireland, my Lords, the subject of the appellate jurisdiction was one that caused very great contests in Ireland in the last century. In 1783, after much controversy and debate, Ireland succeeded in having the House of Lords which then existed in Dublin the tribunal of final appeal for Irish cases; and for that reason, on the Union of Ireland with this country, there was an agreement that Irish appeals should be heard by this House only; but what will the Irish people say if they hear that appeals from their Courts may be brought before three English Barristers of 10 years' standing? Is this a moment—when Home Rule is exciting so much agitation in Ireland—is this a moment for you to open a door which you may hereafter be very glad to shut, and to give those who are agitating for Home Rule an opportunity of saying to their countrymen—"Do not carry your appeals to London, to have them heard by three Barristers of 10 years' standing." Remember, my Lords, when you talk of the "Imperial Parliament," those words have a substantial meaning—they are not words of mere formal description; and I take it that one of the greatest advantages, in a

1991
tripartite country like ours, is that the supreme appellate jurisdiction is exercised by a tribunal composed of Members of this House, which House itself is composed of Peers who represent every part of the kingdom. There are Peers from Ireland and Scotland, as well as from England, and therefore nothing is more easy than for the people of any of the three countries to give effect to their complaints—if they have any to urge, against the way in which the appellate jurisdiction is exercised. But if you take three Barristers of 10 years' standing and shut them up in a room, there is nothing to connect them with any distant part of the Empire. Now let us turn to the Colonies—for we have to deal with them also. We have colonies governed by every system of law under the sun—by Civil, Dutch, Roman, and French law. We have free colonies—colonies with free institutions, and colonies without; we have colonies that we have become possessed of by cession, others that we have got by conquest, and others that we have made ours by colonization. Every one of them, either by charter, custom, or constitution, has become possessed of a system of law by which their appeals are to the Sovereign in Council. They admit that jurisdiction, they are satisfied with it, they are willing to abide by the Orders made by the Queen in Council; but if you alter all this—if by violent legislation you take their appeals away from an Imperial tribunal and send them to a tribunal which may be composed of three Barristers of 10 years' standing, I want to know is that a policy which will give confidence to the colonies and strengthen the connection between them and the mother country? Have the colonies objected to the present system? Have the colonies been consulted on the change you propose to make? There is another point we must bear in mind. My noble and learned Friend told us that while he invited the House to transfer its appellate jurisdiction, he proposed to leave to the House its legal jurisdiction, if it may be so termed, over such matters as impeachments, the trial of Peers for treason and felony, and those legal questions—often difficult and important—with regard to claims to Peerages, which have to be tried by the Committee of Privileges. But, my Lords, what will be the consequence of the transfer of the appellate
1992
jurisdiction? As long as you have the jurisdiction you have of necessity a body of legal men ready equipped to deal with judicial questions. No matter what Government may be in power, it would feel it to be its duty as long as the jurisdiction remains with your Lordships' House, to see that the staff who are to exercise that jurisdiction are efficient to have men equipped—to use a nautical phrase—for judicial functions. But abolish those functions—do away with the appellate jurisdiction of this House—and what will be the consequence? The legal Members of your Lordships' House will have no judicial duties to perform, and at the end of 10 or 20 years you will have no person skilled in judicial trials, if, unfortunately, any case of impeachment should arise. Between this House and the Supreme Court of Appeal there will be no connection; and I do not think that, under such circumstances, there will be any guarantee for a continuance of the jurisdiction which my noble and learned Friend now proposes to leave with this House. It may be said that the Lord Chancellor will be here, and will be able to guide the House in any questions of that kind. My Lords, I am not at all sure that the Lord Chancellor will be here. I hope my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack will not think I am alluding to him personally when I say I am not sure the Lord Chancellor will be here. I say so for this reason—what will the Lord Chancellor have to do? I might, indeed, say what will he have to do elsewhere. I am at a loss to know what he will have to do in this place, and certainly he will have nothing to do in the Court of Chancery. If his Bill passes, and he should go into the Court of Chancery he will be turned out as an intruder; and, for the first time in the history of this country, there will be a Court of Chancery without a Chancellor. But what will he have to do in the House of Lords? So long as the House of Lords is a High Court of Appeal the Lord Chancellor has to discharge great judicial duties. Naturally, he is found in this House, and naturally he is elected Speaker of this House; but if the only judicial function he will have will be that of presiding over a Court of Appeal outside this House, will the House consider that it ought to elect him Speaker?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid that, being a Peer, the Lord Chancellor would still be in their Lordships' House.
LORD CAIRNS: Yes; but what I mean to say is this—that I do not see what reason there will then exist for the House to have the Lord Chancellor for their Speaker. Why should the Members of this House act differently in this matter from the Members of any other deliberative Assembly? Why should the President of a foreign Court be withdrawn from that Court to be President of this Assembly also? Nay—why might not that very Court say, why should we have as our President a Minister of State who changes with successive Governments, and who brings into it an element of uncertainty and change when we want certainty and permanence? I say that when you have withdrawn the appellate jurisdiction from this House its other judicial functions will naturally follow. I ask whether you will have strengthened the position of this House when you have made it merely the Second Chamber of a deliberative Assembly, having no connection with the functions of the High Court of Parliament which it has hitherto exercised? And, my Lords, for what alternative is this to be done? What is the alternative with which we are presented in this Bill? Now, without raising any of the topics of controversy in reference to the jurisdiction of this House, I may say at once that I agree to certain objections made to this House as a Court of Appeal. The first objection to which I will refer is, that there are no continuous sittings—namely, that except in the Session of Parliament the House does not sit at all, and that even during the Session it is in the habit of sitting only four days in the week. I take that to be the first objection. The second I believe to be an objection as to form. The third is, that the expense of appeals to the House of Lords is very great; and the fourth is, that there are what may be called two co-ordinate branches of final appeal—one of which belongs to this House, and the other to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The last objection is, that there is no certainty of an adequate number of Judges highly trained and experienced being always present at the argument of appeals. Now, my Lords, I have said I agree in all these objections; they ought to be remedied,
1994
and, in my opinion, they are perfectly capable of being remedied. There are some of them that may be put out of question at once. With regard to continuous sittings of the House, I believe that every proposal ever made for altering the jurisdiction of this House proposed that there should be continuous sittings for hearing appeals. Then, with regard to the expense of appeals, I believe the expense of appeals can be, and ought to be, lessened. But, my Lords, I take leave to say that the Bill of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack contains no provision whatever for lessening these expenses beyond this—that power is given to make rules on the subject. Why, my Lords, this House has already power to make rules upon that subject as well as any other Court which may be constituted. Then, with regard to the form in which judgment should be given, the Bill of my noble and learned Friend leaves that to the Court he proposes to constitute. These—the continuous sittings, the form of judgment, and expense—are minor matters, in which an alteration or improvement of the system could easily be made. But I now come to more important matters. There is the question of two Imperial Courts of Appeal. The way in which my noble and learned Friend stated his objection to the present system was this, he said—You have got the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which hears appeals from the colonies where English law prevails; you have also got this House, dealing with questions of English law and appeals from the English Courts; and that there is nothing to prevent these two Appellate Courts from coming on questions of English law to perfectly opposite conclusions. Now, it is not to be forgotten that although these two Courts have existed for a long time, such a thing as my noble and learned Friend suggests has never yet happened; but I quite agree that it is desirable to prevent the possibility of such a thing. How would the Bill of my noble and learned Friend prevent the possibility of such a collision? I find his Bill, to my amazement, draws a hard and sharp line between the two Divisions of the Court he asked your Lordships to approve, and to one of these Divisions every appeal which comes before your Lordships' House is to be referred, and to

1995
the other Division every appeal which now goes to the Committee of the Privy Council is to be referred; and the members of the two Divisions are to be separate persons, although they are to have the power of asking a member from one Division to come and sit in another Division. So that my noble and learned Friend, who stated strongly his objections to the two co-existing Supreme Courts, has virtually accomplished the very same end by his Bill, and the same thing may happen under it. But I go further. The fifth objection I stated was this—that there is no certainty of an adequate number of Judges highly trained and experienced to dispose of the appeals in this House. Well, now, let us look at the composition of the Court which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack prefers. And first, I must begin by saying that in this Court three is to be the number to form a quorum. I do not quarrel with that. How is the Court to be composed? I hope your Lordships will not feel that I am playing on your credulity when I tell you that the first three persons who are to compose the First Division of this Supreme Court of Appeal, to which are to be referred all the appeals from all the Courts of the United Kingdom, are the noble Marquess opposite the President of the Council (the Marquess of Ripon), the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), and Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the proposal in the Bill. These are the first three persons who may form a quorum of the First Division of the Supreme Court, and determine what I may call our domestic appeals. Well, now, I have great confidence in the good judgment of the noble Marquess, and the noble Earl, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time, I do not think that they would do otherwise than agree with me in saying it would scarcely be fair to call upon them to decide upon intricate questions of black-letter law. Suppose while they were engaged in hearing a case of abstruse and difficult law, suddenly there comes one of those crises which will occur in political life—the Government perhaps taking offence at some particular measure in the other House which they treat as a question of Confidence, and the result is a change of Administration. There is a new
1996
President of the Council, a new Secretary for the Colonies, and a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer hies to Downing Street most anxious to acquaint himself with the Budget he is to bring forward. The Secretary for the Colonies resorts to his Office to make himself familiar with the geographical position of the countries with which he will have to deal. The President of the Council goes to the Council Office to do—whatever the President of the Council does at the Council. They are all met by the permanent officers of their Departments, who say the first thing they must do is to go and sit in the Supreme Court of Appeal, to take up the threads of the intricate black-letter question which their predecessors were so pleasantly engaged in hearing when they went out of office. Yet that is the first quorum my noble and learned Friend recommends. What is the second quorum? Three Barristers of 10 years' standing. No doubt, that is preceded by an enumeration of certain noble and learned Lords in this House. But although we might be content to give my noble and learned Friend our assistance during the Parliamentary Session, it does not follow that we should undertake to give our continuous labour during the Recess also. In that case, what would the second quorum come to? To these Barristers of 10 years' standing. To be sure, a Barrister of 10 years' standing is not fit to sit in this Court unless he is a Peer; but if he is a Peer, so wonderful is the effect of that fact on the 10 years' standing, that he is at once competent to sit in these appeals. Then, with regard to the Second Division, what is the first quorum? Three persons appointed by Sign Manual of Her Majesty. That is the qualification—"any three persons that Her Majesty, by Sign Manual, may appoint," will be fitted under this Bill to dispose of all colonial appeals, all ecclesiastical, and all Admiralty appeals. With reference to the appointment of Members by Sign Manual, my Lords, I remember that upon the eve of the hearing of one of the most important cases ever submitted to the Judicial Committee, the appointment was made to that Committee, under the Sign Manual, of a gentleman of whom I desire to speak with the greatest respect, because I entertain for him great regard—I mean Mr. Bernard.

1997
Well, this Bill goes further, because under its operation any number of persons may be appointed by Sign Manual, and any three Judges may constitute the Supreme Court for the decision not only of ecclesiastical and maritime cases, but also of colonial appeals. Then there is a provision in the Bill with respect to the payment of salaried Members. There is a power to appoint as many as 10 salaried Members, with £6,000 a-year each, to the two Divisions of this Court, who may have simply the qualification of being Barristers of 10 years' standing. I own it appears to me that the position under the Bill of Barristers of 10 years' standing will be a very hopeful one. I cannot conceive anything more tempting to induce a Barrister to enter the House of Commons with the view of receiving a reward for his Parliamentary services, than the prospect of promotion to this Court of Appeal, with a salary of £6,000 a-year, besides the chance of being made a Peer. And be it observed, too, that these appointments are to be open not only to English, but to Irish Barristers, as well as to Scotch Advocates. I admire the dexterity with which my noble and learned Friend has dealt with the possibility of the recurrence of any such question as to appointments to the Judicial Committee as that which arose in the present Session; because I find that the definition of the qualification for paid Membership in the Bill is that—
"No Member of the Supreme Court shall he qualified to be a salaried Member unless he has held for a period of not less than two years one or more of the judicial offices herein mentioned as qualifying a Peer or Privy Councillor to be a Member of the Supreme Court."
If the Bill had stopped here we should avoid any such difficulty as occurred in the case of Sir Robert Collier; but we have got one qualification which renders all others unnecessary, and that is that to be a paid Member a man must be a Barrister of 10 years' standing. There is also another observation which I wish to make with regard to the salaried Members. I find, with respect to the Firs Division, there is a statement that a preference in choosing its salaried Member is be given to ex-Lord Chancellors if they are willing to accept the office Now, against that I must protest. It is I contend, putting ex-Lord Chancellor in a position which is entirely unfair.
1998
If they are persons of merit, and persons whom the Government desires to appoint, then well and good—let them get these appointments; but I protest against the idea that they should have any sort of right, in preference to other persons, to have three of those paid offices assigned to them. Let me ask your Lordships to observe the manner in which the present paid Members of the Judicial Committee are dealt with. If I had not read the provisions of the Bill I should have deemed it impossible that they could have been placed in such a position. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect the statement which was made to us by the Government this Session with regard to the appointment of those Members of the Judicial Committee. After the appointment of Sir John Colvile, the Government offered the further appointments to Members of the judicial Bench who they were anxious should accept them; but the offer was in several instances declined. The Government told us that the grounds on which these refusals were based were that the Judges considered they would be losers by accepting the appointments, inasmuch as the salaries of their clerks were not provided for. That being so, it is obvious that the result of fixing the salaries at £5,000, as was done by the Bill of last year, was that we lost the services of certain eminent persons whose services the Government themselves desired to secure in preference to those who were ultimately appointed. At the time the Act was passed several persons warned the Government that the salaries were such as would not tempt the best men to accept the appointments. But what is the proposal which is made in the present Bill? Not having obtained for £5,000 a-year the men whom they were anxious to appoint, they now propose to give £6,000 a-year, which if it had been offered last year, would have secured the services of such men as they themselves admit they would have liked to obtain. We have heard something from my noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury) of stagnation tempered by jobbery; but this I am tempted to call parsimony tempered by prodigality. There are also some other matters in the Bill to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention. There is one matter which is of transcendent importance with

1999
respect to the criminal law of this country. This Bill proposes to transfer to the Supreme Court which it attempts to create the jurisdiction of a Court which is called the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. Your Lordships are probably aware that this is a Court in which the Judges of the Superior Courts assemble together for the purpose of dealing with any points of criminal law which may have been reserved for their decision at the trial of criminals. There are, I believe, no more important functions than those which the Court for Crown Cases Reserved discharges. There are, I believe, no more difficult functions, and none which it is more dangerous to meddle with. It is proposed by this Bill to take away the jurisdiction which is at present exercised by the criminal Judges, who are every day in the habit of dealing with criminals and of administering criminal law, and to transfer that jurisdiction—to whom?—to three men, any one of whom may never have seen a criminal in his life, or who may never have seen a criminal trial conducted in this country. I own that, though I have been brought up to know something of law, I should entirely refuse to pronounce an opinion on the most ordinary question of criminal law which might have been reserved for the decision of this Court. Here, therefore, you run the risk of endangering the administration of the criminal law of the land. If a mistake should occur with regard to any one of those cases you might let loose the prisoners in our gaols and at Quarter Sessions, and might overthrow the whole system of criminal law which from year to year has grown up in this country. That is a proposal so dangerous that I must, with great respect for my noble and learned Friend, characterize it as being as wild a scheme as was ever submitted to the Parliament of England. I now come to the next blot in the Bill. In it I see the extinction of one of the most wholesome practices which ever prevailed in this House, and one of the most valuable elements in its judicial functions—I mean the attendance here of the learned Judges of the land. No cases have, I believe, been ever so satisfactorily decided by this House as those which have been decided with the concurrence and advice of those learned Persons who have been in the habit of attending the
2000
House as Assessors, and who do not object to lend us their aid in that form. It was only this morning that your Lordships disposed of an extremely important case which came before you, after a hearing before the learned Judges, who were, with the exception of one, unanimous as to the judgment which ought to be given. I concurred in that judgment; but I should have arrived at a decision with comparatively little satisfaction if I had not been fortified by the learning and ability which had been brought to bear by the learned Judges in the case. Now, it is not proposed that they should attend the House to give it the benefit of their advice under this Bill—for it could scarcely be expected that they should attend a Court composed of the two noble Lords opposite, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and three Barristers of 10 years' standing. Well, what is the next thing the Bill proposes to do? It proposes to suppress all intermediate appeals—that is to say, all appeals from Intermediate Courts of Appeal in England. In this respect nothing can be more inconsistent than the provisions of the Bill, for it deals with intermediate appeals from Ireland or Scotland, or from the colonies, while it suppresses those from England. It, in this respect, exactly reverses the recommendations of the Judicial Commission, as well as the logical mode of proceeding, and throws upon the Supreme Court a burden which it would be impossible for it to discharge. Take the judicial statistics for 1870. The Privy Council and the House of Lords together disposed of 112 cases—the former 61, the latter 51. That may be taken as the working power of these two bodies for the time they sat. Now it is proposed to throw on the Supreme Court of Appeal, in addition, the work of the Exchequer Chamber, of Bankruptcy appeals, and the re-hearings of appeals in the Court of Chancery. The appeals disposed of by the Exchequer Chamber in 1870 were 56, in Bankruptcy they were 59, and the re-hearings of appeals in the Court of Chancery were 141—making in all 256; and, if I add interlocutory motions in the Court of Chancery, that would be 160 more—giving a total of 416 cases in addition to the present business of the House of Lords and the Privy Council. It would, in my opinion, be highly objectionable that

2001
such an amount of work, in addition to what these two bodies now have, should be thrown on the Supreme Court, even if it could be done in the usual way. But what does my noble and learned Friend propose? In order to prevent this accumulation of business, he proposes to suppress not only the Intermediate Courts of Appeal, but to prevent there being any appeal at all from what are called interlocutory orders in the Court of Chancery. Perhaps your Lordships are not familiar with what are called interlocutory orders. They comprise the injunctions of the Court. It was only the other day that a primary Judge of the Court of Chancery, for whose judgment I have great respect, granted an injunction against the Great Western Railway to compel them to stop their trains at Swindon in order to enable passengers to obtain refreshment. The Great Western Company were of opinion that the order was erroneous, and they appealed to my noble and learned Friend and the Lords Justices, and next day the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the decision and delivered the Company from the injunction. But, according to my noble and learned Friend's Bill, there would be no appeal, except with the consent of the Court that makes the order, or of the Supreme Court; so that in order to have an appeal at all you should have a preliminary appeal to know whether there should be an appeal. And that would be the case, although there ought to be an appeal next morning, or else companies might be seriously injured, tradesmen ruined, and the business of the country most injuriously affected. Then the Bill does not allow appeals for less than £1,000, whereas half our colonies have by charter got the right to appeal for sums very much less. I ask, my Lords, is it possible that by this Bill you are going to overthrow these charters? I believe that this measure is a very hurried production. I know the number of matters that take up the time of my noble and learned Friend, and therefore I do not say the fault is his. But, as a great, important, nay, almost, constitutional question is involved, I cannot help pointing out the manner in which this Bill has been prepared. One of the first things that I find in it is this—it proposes to transfer to the Supreme Court which is to be formed all the jurisdiction
2002
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My Lords, I thought everybody knew that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has no jurisdiction whatever. It is a consultative body, and is absolutely without jurisdiction. The curious thing in the Bill, therefore, is that it proposes to transfer from the Judicial Committee what the Judicial Committee has not got. But the jurisdiction of the Queen in Council, who has jurisdiction, it does not propose to transfer at all; and therefore the Bill would in this respect be absolutely inoperative. Nay, more, I find power given to Her Majesty to refer to the Supreme Court any matters which it would be lawful to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But the noble Marquess the President of the Council knows very well that Her Majesty cannot refer. Her Majesty in Council may refer; but Her Majesty in person can refer nothing. What do I find next? I find a provision that this Court may have a colonial Judge, if the person to be appointed has held the office of Chief Justice of any colonial Court. The original salary of such a Judge may be £1,000 a-year; but at the end of a certain time he may retire on a pension of two-thirds not of his original salary of £1,000, but of £6,000—that is to say, on a pension of £4,000 a-year. What do I find next? Something, I own, which startles me—namely, that this Bill is not to transfer to the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor with respect to persons of unsound mind. I am ashamed to mention these things; but I must say that it is one of the first principles of the law of lunacy that the Lord Chancellor has no original jurisdiction whatever, any more than I have, or than any one of your Lordships has. There is no original jurisdiction in the Lords Justices or the Court of Chancery; the jurisdiction is in the Queen, and it is committed by Sign Manual to any person Her Majesty may please, as a matter of convenience, and the habit is to give it to the Lord Chancellor. I want to know, then, what has become of the Lord Chancellor's own original jurisdiction? I find that nothing in the Act is to interfere with this original jurisdiction; but I suppose it is to interfere with the original jurisdiction in Chancery when it is gone. But if the original jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is

2003
gone under this Bill, how are the Lords Justices to sit? They sit at present for the Lord Chancellor, to exercise the original jurisdiction which he has not time to exercise; but if that jurisdiction be taken away by the Bill, where is the source of their authority? My Lords, I regret that this measure, both in details and in principle, is one which I cannot for a moment imagine your Lordships would accept as an alteration of the present system of appeal. I believe the present system is open to amendment, and I should be the first to assist in such amendment as is required. If my noble and learned Friend had thought right to move for a Select Committee of this House, to inquire into the whole subject of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House and of the Privy Council, and had referred his Bill to it as a document, not as a Bill read a second time, I should have been most willing to embrace that proposal. But if I am asked to assent to the second reading of this Bill, or the passing of the Resolution of my noble and learned Friend, I must say that I am unable to do so. And if my noble and learned Friend desires that your Lordships' opinion should be taken upon the adjourned debate, then I shall be compelled to move, as an Amendment, that, in the opinion of this House, it is not thought fit to assent to a Resolution affecting its jurisdiction in writs of error and appeals otherwise than in connection with a measure which shall provide a satisfactory alteration of or substitution for that jurisdiction; and that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of Her Majesty's Government under this head are not satisfactory.
LORD PENZANCE: No one, my Lords, who has been conversant with the practice of the law can doubt that for many years—for the last 15 or 20 years at least—the decision of appeals in this House has been such as to command the confidence and respect of the country. The same remark is true, in my opinion, of the other tribunal to which attention has been drawn—namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The decisions of that tribunal—partly owing to the very distinguished services of some of its Members, now unfortunately dead, and partly to the eminent position which a Court of that kind holds in the country—have also commanded the respect of the colonies.
2004
But though such are the facts, it will, I think, not be denied that from time to time a question has been raised as to whether the construction of the appellate tribunal of this House is one that can properly be defended as likely to work satisfactorily. I will not go over all the objections on that head because they have been stated by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; but to my mind it is obvious that a tribunal not sitting the entire year when other tribunals are discharging their duties—a tribunal which, in fact, only sits half the year, and which, consequently, must delay the decision of appeals—cannot be in a thoroughly satisfactory state. Agreeing, then, that the existing jurisdiction is, in the main, exercised satisfactorily, I also agree with my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Cairns) that before the House parts with its jurisdiction it ought to be satisfied that the tribunal to which it is proposed to transfer that jurisdiction shall be such as will remedy the evils complained of, shall also be of the same high standing and entitled to the same respect as the existing tribunal. In making a proposal to remedy the existing evils by the construction of a new tribunal, I think care should be taken, both by the selection of persons highly fit for the office and by the creation of a tribunal sufficiently strong in point of numbers, to give it weight it might otherwise lack. Under these circumstances, I cannot help feeling that many of the provisions of the Bill introduced by my noble and learned Friend require further consideration. Taking the measure as a whole, I recognize the Bill as an honest attempt to constitute a tribunal of adequate strength to meet the exigencies of the case—there is an evident intention on the part of my noble and learned Friend to create a tribunal in every way worthy; but having examined the details of the Bill very carefully, I am bound to say there are many parts of it—especially that relating to Crown Cases Reserved—with which I cannot agree. Into these details I will not now enter; but considering that the existing state of affairs is not unsatisfactory, and viewing the array of opposition on the other side, I would submit to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether it is not expedient, as my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down suggested, that this subject

2005
should be referred in its integrity to a Select Committee, to take this Bill and the whole subject into their consideration.
LORD WESTBURY: My Lords, when this Resolution was first proposed I took the liberty of pressing upon the attention of your Lordships that it was idle to ask us to transfer our jurisdiction unless we knew what was the tribunal to which it was proposed that that jurisdiction should be transferred. That was so far assented to by the Government that the debate was adjourned in order that the Lord Chancellor might proceed with his Bill. The Lord Chancellor this evening, by giving precedence to the adjourned debate, has produced this result—that the Resolution is discussed on the basis of his Bill, and he prefers to let it be regarded as a Resolution which is to depend upon the merits of his Bill. For my own part, I was from the first well aware that the measure would not bear discussion. I knew very well what would be the damaging effect of proceeding with the discussion upon it; and in the early part of the evening I ventured to entreat the Government to let the Bill be considered before proceeding with the Resolution; my object being that my noble and learned Friend might agree to have either the Bill, or the question which it raised, referred to a Select Committee, and to postpone the discussion of the Resolution until the effect of that reference was ascertained. In order that the end that we have so long endeavoured to arrive at may not be frustrated, I would earnestly repeat my request to the Government to say at once—"Let the whole subject go to a Select Committee, and let the Resolution be indefinitely postponed." Your Lordships must not for a moment entertain the opinion that the present state of things is so satisfactory, of so roseate a hue, that no reform is needed. If there is one thing that is required to establish the House of Lords in the respect and full esteem of the country, it is that the House of Lords as a Supreme Court of Appeal should adequately supply the wants of our vast Empire. It is necessary to ensure that character for the tribunal, to make it a real tribunal and not one in theory only—that such a Court should sit more frequently in the year, and should be capable of dividing itself into two or more Chambers, to meet the
2006
exigencies of the case. It is necessary that you should have a body of Judges of the highest character accustomed to consider every part of the law which prevails throughout your vast Empire, and capable, therefore, of constituting a Court in such a manner as shall answer any emergency that may arise. That you cannot do at present. I deprecate, therefore, any eulogy on the present constitution of the Court which will cause you to hold your hands and believe you are a perfect body. I am no friend to patchwork. The evil of that sort of work is, that when people find a hold they are content to stop that hole; when they find a rent in their garments, they are content to mend that rent and go on. Having regard to a complete tribunal, I maintain that your Court of Appeal ought to be framed after you have brought the subordinate jurisdictions of the country into the shape in which you are satisfied they should remain. I had not the honour of sitting on the Commission of 1856 which considered the condition of those subordinate jurisdictions. I am not, therefore, conversant with the proceedings of that Commission, but I understand that they recommended an entire alteration of the character, status, and functions of the inferior jurisdictions of the country. If any such design be in contemplation, it is evidently impossible for you to say what ought to be the final position and character of your ultimate Court of Appeal, until you have finally established the nature of the jurisdiction of your inferior Courts. Although, therefore, I entirely agree in the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where the last point I have adverted to may be well considered, I do not think you will be able to find a firm basis for your Supreme Court of Appeal, until you have determined whether there shall be any alteration in the jurisdiction and condition of the inferior Courts of Justice in England. This debate, however, must undoubtedly create among those who are interested in the administration of justice, and who are anxious for the character of this House, many painful feelings. Such a result might have been avoided, if the Government had abstained from pressing on the discussion upon this ill-advised Resolution. But when they determined to ask your Lordships to take a leap in the dark, to abandon your jurisdiction, and

2007
accept their substitute, the exposure of the wretched nature of that substitute became necessary. I only hope that the Government now will, without further discussion, accept the proposal to refer the whole matter to a Committee; because otherwise nothing will enable you even to approximate to the mode in which this matter ought to be decided. If your Lordships are required to decide it upon the materials before you, I shall be content, and I think the majority of the House will be content, to vote against the Resolution, and to vote also against the second reading of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will indulge me with the opportunity of giving some reply to the argument—the no doubt able argument you have heard from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) against the Resolution. My Lords, I can have but one object in view—namely, to ameliorate our judicial system, to rescue it from being a laughing-stock to foreign countries, and make our jurisdiction in this House a reality and not a mere pretence; and if it be your Lordships' desire that a Special Committee be appointed in order to a further inquiry into the whole, I have no objection. I will cordially submit to any amount of inquiry. But certainly I should not myself have suggested any such course, because my impression was that the appellate jurisdiction of this House has already undergone a sifting examination. Three inquiries have already been instituted—in 1813, in 1823, and in 1856; but if your Lordships are of opinion that another inquiry is called for, I shall be most anxious to have the matter again thoroughly sifted, and cannot, therefore, but accede with pleasure to the proposal of a Select Committee. There is usually much difficulty in summoning Committees upon which the attendance of the Lord Chancellor is necessary, his time being so much occupied with other duties; but, as your Lordships have heard, there has been greater expedition in disposing of appeals, and a greater clearance of them than I can before remember. I can say the same of the Court of Chancery, where there are no arrears whatever, and I should, therefore, have time to attend the proposed Committee. As to the speech of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), he has not grappled with one
2008
single position of mine. My case was this—that if your Lordships really exercised this appellate jurisdiction, I should be the last person to ask you to part with it. But you do not exercise it. Since the Bishop of London's case in 1844 there has been no attempt to exercise it—but, in reality, it has not been exercised since 1780. Bearing this fact in mind, it is not quite right that my noble and learned Friend should attempt to throw a gorgeous robe around the appellate tribunal here, and invest with the sanction and dignity of your Lordships' House a decision come to by a body of four, at the most five, and often three, Peers to whom you delegate these high functions. That is the real state of the case; and my noble and learned Friend will not, I am sure, repel the statement that if your Lordships attempted as a body to exercise these functions and determine judicially what should be the fortunes of any one family in this kingdom, your appellate jurisdiction would not last three weeks longer, and your Lordships yourselves would be the first to abolish it. The question is a grave one, vitally affecting your dignity as well as the due administration of justice, and if that justice is really administered by a small Committee here, it is better that they, and not your Lordships, should bear the blame—if blame there be—arising from any error or miscarriage of justice. As Lord St. Leonards has been mentioned, I may say he has expressed the opinion that, as regards appeals in Chancery, the jurisdiction of this House is a usurpation. However, this House went on entrusting its jurisdiction to the Lord Chancellor himself, assisted by two lay figures, who sat with him on one day, and were replaced next day by two others. That condition of things went on for some time, except on occasions when there were great contested cases upon which the whole House took upon itself to vote—these being certainly not the best decided cases which were heard; and at length it was found so unreasonable, and the delays were so great—occurring as they did in a tribunal which did not, like other tribunals, sit six days in the week or all the year round, excepting the usual vacation; a tribunal fettered in every way by being connected with this House, though not deriving one particle of assistance from it—that in 1813 there was an inquiry,

2009
to which, no allusion has been made by my noble and learned Friend. It was then found that 380 appeal cases were in arrear; but the only suggestion was that a Vice Chancellor should be appointed, so that Lord Eldon should be able to attend here. In 1823 there was another Committee, and the principal remedy then suggested was that there should be a ballot for the attendance of Peers, who should be fined £50 for non-attendance. Was not that a ridiculous mockery of justice? Two lay Peers were to be compelled to attend each sitting of the Appellate Court, and there write letters, read the newspaper, or do anything else that took their fancy, under a penalty of £50. In 1856 another Committee, composed of some of the most distinguished and thoughtful Members of this House, admitted the grievances which existed, and said that the remedy was to appoint two paid Members of the Court, at a salary of £6,000 a-year, and a Deputy Speaker, and it was suggested that they should be Peers for life. These paid Members, however, were never appointed. That Committee sat 16 years ago, and not a single step has since been taken for the improvement of the appellate tribunal. My noble and learned Friend commented on the proposal that Barristers of 10 years' standing might be appointed—thinking, apparently, that he could best entertain the House by ridiculing that feature of the Bill. He invests the Judges hero with every possible dignity, and speaks of Irish and Scotch Peers watching over appeals relating to their respective countries; while in contrast to that he describes Barristers of 10 years' standing as Judges. Now, with the exception of a noble and learned Lord (Lord Colonsay), who gives us the benefit of his assistance, and of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, has any Peer from Scotland or Ireland watched the proceedings of the Committee to see that those countries had justice? I must complain grievously of my noble and learned Friend for representing as the effect of the Bill the appointment of three Barristers of 10 years' standing—a class of men from whom some of the best Judges who ever sat on the Bench have been selected. He did not attempt to deal with the anomaly of this House really doing nothing, and of the Law Lords—sitting, if necessary, with the deficiency in number made up by lay Lords, taking
2010
no interest in the matter—with the evil of the want of continuous sittings and of the increased expense attendant on a Court with all these adornments. My noble and learned Friend cannot understand my reference to the state of things in Lord Eldon's and Lord Brougham's time, unless I wished to make your Lordships believe that that state of things still exists. That was hardly an expression worthy of him, or of what I venture to say he thinks of me. Transported by his eloquence, he could not believe that I introduced that observation except with the view of prejudicing the existing state of things. Now, I introduced it simply because it was true. He has never known an instance of a layman sitting to form a quorum, but in my own shorter experience I have once sat with a Bishop, because none of my noble and learned Friends were present to assist. These things are, no doubt, the result of accident; but the recurrence of such accidents will be prevented by an effective Court. Then it is said we are going on well. I believe at present eight learned Lords—who have been actively engaged in the legal profession—sit in your Lordships' House. Two of them have not once attended the sittings since I have sat here, being engaged in Courts of their own. Five have occasionally sat; and a sixth (Lord St. Leonards) I should be delighted to see sitting, if his age and strength permitted him. Of the Lords who usually attend, four are over 70 years of age. Is there sufficient security of their continuing to attend to justify your Lordships in saying that no necessity of improvement exists? I will not follow my noble and learned Friend in entering into the details of the Bill, but one or two points I am bound to notice. My noble and learned Friend on the other side of the House (Lord Cairns), referring to the possibility of conflicting decisions by the Judicial Committee and this House, said the error was perpetuated under this Bill by the division of the Court into two Divisions with co-ordinate jurisdiction. Now, though I propose two Divisions, there would be a full Court, and whenever an important point of law arose it would meet—so that the error is completely corrected. With regard to the noble Lords who might be called in to deal with colonial questions connected with special legislation, and how far an Act was within the powers of the colonial

2011
Legislatures, it has been my lot to sit with, those distinguished personages on questions of that kind. It was because such eases might occasionally arise that the Bill provided for them, and my noble and learned Friend should not have amused the House by leading it to suppose that there was the slightest notion of those noble Lords being called in, except for that particular purpose. They would not be among the salaried Members of the Court, who are to sit continuously. Had we gone into Committee I should have been ready to enter into all these details; but I do not see, with my noble and learned Friend on the right, that we could have discussed the Bill better without first considering this Resolution. I have only one object in this matter. I wish to see justice so administered as not to bring discredit on your Lordships' House. At the present moment we have a tolerably sufficient body to hear these cases; but there is no security for that continuing to be the case. I am old enough to have over and over again seen a Lord Chancellor sitting with two lay Lords, who could take no part in the proceedings, and indeed changed from day to day. There is no safeguard against the recurrence of that. I wish to see these evils corrected and to create a real, substantial Court of Justice—not a sham Court, with a sham Bench, under the veil of your Lordships' name and sanction. I have no objection to the proposed inquiry being directed both to the Judicial Committee and to this House, in order to see whether any and what improvements can be made in the constitution of these Courts, or in the appellate jurisdiction generally, and whether the Bill is referred to the Committee or not I do not care. All I want is that the facts should come out; and when they are once out it will be seen that considerable changes must be effected to satisfy those who desire to see justice satisfactorily administered. I must beg pardon of the House for noticing what was thrown out by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) as to this Bill being the first step to the abolition of the House of Lords. I hope we are all of one mind in desiring to remedy existing defects and to have an effective Court. Any sinister object of abolishing this House, or weakening its influence, hardly requires to be disclaimed; and, so far from the Bill having
2012
such a tendency, I believe the transference of this jurisdiction will be a most effective means of strengthening this House.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he desired to remove an impression which his words had apparently made on his noble and learned Friend. What he had said was that he was sure his noble and learned Friend had no intention to use this proposition as a means of weakening the influence of the House of Lords, or of leading to further alterations in it; but that it would be, and indeed had already been, understood in that sense. This was the feeling out-of-doors, which he was anxious to prevent. The Order of Reference he would propose was this—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the appellate jurisdiction exercised by this House, and into the working of the system of appeals to Her Majesty in Council, and to inquire what changes or improvements should be made with reference thereto."
It was his intention that the Order of Reference should be as large as possible.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was not aware that, either in speeches or in the Press, it had been represented that the proposed action would weaken the House of Lords; indeed, it was supposd it would rather have a contrary effect.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the expressions of opinion were not confidential, and he would take care the noble Earl was put in possession of them.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he was confident that on his side of the House many Peers would agree in the opinion that their Lordships' jurisdiction was a solid and important reality, which he trusted the House would not lightly part with.
After a few words from Lord DENMAN, The said Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME
  SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read, and discharged.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into the working of the Appellate Jurisdiction exercised by this House and into the working of the system of Appeal to Her Majesty in Council, and whether any and what changes or improvements should be made in reference thereto."—(The Lord Cairns.)
  Motion agreed to; and Committee appointed accordingly.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.