Sitting of 26 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Game Laws [No. 337].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pensions Commutation Act (1871) Extension* [275]; Registration of Births and Deaths* [272]; Appointment of Commissioners for taking Affidavits* [277].
Second Reading—Public Works Loan Commissioners (School Boards Loans)* [266]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [256]; War Office (Pensions)* [252].
Committee—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) [198]—R.P.; Greenwich Hospital* [253]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment* [269]; Boundaries of Counties (Ireland)* [267]; Royal Military Canal Act Amendment* [270].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment (re-comm.)* [227].
Report—Local Courts of Record* [259–276].
Considered as amended—Military Manœuvres* [251]; Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [138]; Statute Law Revision* [283].
Third Reading—Countess of Mayo's Annuity* [268]; Parish Constables Abolition* [255]; Treaty of Washington* [260]; Debtors (Ireland)* [228]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 3)* [265], and passed.
Withdrawn—Spirituous Liquors (Retail)* [11]; Intoxicating Liquors Law Amendment* [62].
The House met at Two of the clock.

IRELAND—THE ANTRIM ARTILLERY— LORD MASSEREENE.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention or that of the Irish Executive has been called to the statement made in certain of the Irish newspapers to the following effect: that Lord Masserene, now in command, as Major, of the Antrim Artillery, granted permission to some 300 members of that Regiment to attend an Orange celebration held in his Lordship's park on the 12th of July; that on the evening of that day his Lordship harangued the men of his Regiment from the officers' quarters of the barrack in which they are stationed; that he ordered the band of the Regiment to play up the party air "Protestant Boys;" that four of the Catholic bandsmen laid down their instruments and refused to comply with his Lordship's command, but that the tune was performed nevertheless; whether it is not the fact that one-third of the Regiment in question consists of Roman Catholics; and whether the Irish Executive has instituted inquiries to ascertain if these statements are well founded, and, if so, what course the Government propose to take in the matter?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the general officer commanding in Ireland has inquired into the circumstances of this case, with the following result:—About 200 men of the Antrim Artillery received leave of absence for the 12th and two following days. All, although there was an Orange celebration in Lord Massereene's park at the time, were cautioned
1886
not to attend Orange meetings, and no report had reached Lord Sandhurst of misconduct on the part of any of them during their absence. The leave was given without inquiry as to religion, and it appeared that some who obtained leave were Roman Catholics. This leave was not given by Lord Massereene, but by the next senior officer, Lord Massereene having only arrived from London on the evening of the 11th. Lord Massereene did not harangue the men of his regiment from the officers' quarters or from any other place. He did address a purely civilian party, who on their return from a party-meeting, stopped opposite the mess-room windows. He recommended them to disperse quietly, which they did. In the mess-room a party tune, called "Protestant Boys," was commenced at the request of some of the guests, with the sanction of Lord Massereene, but was stopped after a few bars had been played on the representation of the bandmaster that it was distasteful to some of some of the band. The latest return that I have of the numbers of the regiment shows 146 Roman Catholics out of a total number of 495.

ARMY—CAMP AT HARWICH.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LEARMONTHasked the Controller in Chief, Whether he is aware that the tenant of the field, adjoining that on which the Camp is about to be formed at Harwich, has refused the use of it for the purposes of drill, although the field is the property of the War Office; and, whether he is not aware that this refusal of the use of the ground will seriously interfere with the training of the troops on this occasion?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: The property in question is let subject to troops having free access to it for drill, exercise, and athletic purposes, except between the 19th of March and the 30th of June in each year. I have had no official intimation that the use of the ground for drill purposes has been refused. In reference, however, to a private communication, the Commanding Royal Engineer has been already directed to point out to the tenant the right reserved to the War Department respecting the drill of troops. If the tenant objects to fulfil the condition

  1887
  of his holding, the Commanding Royal Engineer will be instructed to enforce the right of the War Department.

ARMY—ARMY RESERVE FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the Secretary of State for War, If the statement is correct that it has been decided that men who have attached themselves to the Army Reserve may, notwithstanding, enter the Metropolitan Police Force, and in addition to the pay of the Police, they are to receive their daily pay and annual allowances for necessaries as members of the Army Reserve Force; and, if there is any limitation of the number to be so admitted into the Police Force?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it has been the object of the Government to find civil employment, wherever possible, for those who have served in the ranks and joined the Army Reserve. With this view the Postmaster General has given them a preference for employment as rural letter carriers, and the Home Secretary has laid down a rule that a number not exceeding 500 may be admitted into the Metropolitan Police.

  THE TRINITY HOUSE—DISMISSAL OF MR. BEAZELEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is a fact that Mr. Beazeley has received notice of dismissal from the Trinity House for delivering a lecture on Fog Signals at the United Service Institution; and, if so, whether there is any chance of that measure being reconsidered?
  MR. A. PEELsaid, that Mr. Beazeley had written to the Board of Trade stating that he had received notice of dismissal, and attributing it to the cause mentioned in the Question put by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade replied that it had nothing to do with the internal discipline of the Trinity House, or with the management of the officers of that establishment; and that, although they fixed its salaries, and had jurisdiction in respect to pensions, yet its sanction was not required for the appointment or dismissal of any of the officers of the Trinity House.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL.—(Lords.)— [BILL 198.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd July.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Offences against Public Order.
Clause 14 (Penalty for keeping disorderly house).
MR. CAWLEY MR. CAWLEY moved, in line 12, to leave out the word "knowingly." He objected to the word "knowingly" on the ground that it would have the effect of introducing a means by which the clause could be evaded. To make the clause clear, therefore, he would move that the word be omitted. One of the objects of the clause was, that no improper use should be made of the premises, and the omission of the word to which he objected was, therefore, of great importance to carrying out the object which the framers of the Bill had in view.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if the word "knowingly" remained in the clause, it would only be for every licensed victualler to avoid making any inquiries in order to evade the penalties. If, however, the word were struck out the publican's interest would lie in the opposite direction, and he would then be most anxious to know whether his customers were of the class referred to in the clause, and would be induced to use the greatest circumspection in the management of the house.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconsidered that the clause should be left as it stood, because it was not intended to impose penalties beyond the ordinary intention of Acts of Parliament. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that publicans would be clearly liable for the acts of their servants.
MR. BRUCEcontended that the word "knowingly" was always inserted in Acts of Parliament where "wilfully" was intended. He had had repeated communications with police magistrates during the last three years, and they had never suggested that any difficulty arose from the word "knowingly" being inserted in an Act of Parliament. He felt satisfied that if persons belonging to the unfortunate class were in the habit of going to the house of a publican, and that they were known to the servants of

1889
the publican as prostitutes, that knowledge would be sufficient to implicate the master. Considering, too, the severity of the penalty, he thought the word should in all cases be retained.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved, in line 13, to leave out the word "reputed," because it gave the opportunity to policemen to insult respectable females. A woman was either a prostitute or she was not one; but the decision upon that point ought not to be left to the discretion of the police.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 13, to leave out the word "reputed."—(Mr. Muntz.)
SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he should support the Amendment, and he did so because if the word "reputed," as applied to prostitutes, was allowed to remain in the clause, it would place more power in the hands of magistrates and the police than they had at present, and that, he thought, was undesirable.
MR. FOTHERGILLalso supported the Amendment. He was not one of those who always abused the police, and he thought that the police, as a rule, did their duty very well; but they were only human, and therefore liable to the frailties of mankind, and he was not in favour of trusting too much to their discretion. Very serious annoyances might occur, in consequence of young and inexperienced policemen assuming on authority that they ought not to possess.
MR. HENLEYthought that if the word was struck out it would be very difficult to get any convictions at all without proving cases of actual prostitution, and it would not be desirable to do that. The clause, in his opinion, as drawn by the Government was much the best, and he had no doubt that if the clause were allowed to remain as it was, it would work fairly for all parties, for the police, who were always careful in these matters, would take care to be possessed of very good knowledge before they interfered with any respectable person's freedom.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that no clause in this Bill had given the Government more trouble to prepare, and they considered they were fully justified in
1890
inserting the word "reputed," as it would give an immensity of trouble if on every occasion the police had positively to prove that the person was a veritable prostitute; but "reputed" was well understood both by magistrates and police, and existed in several criminal Acts of Parliament.
MR. H. B. SAMUELSONopposed the retention of the word "reputed" in this clause. He would like to know what the exact meaning and intention of the clause was. If a woman was disorderly in a public-house and annoyed other quiet customers by her conduct, the provisions of the Bill would apply to her as well as to other disorderly persons, and she ought not to be allowed to remain there; but if she was orderly the use of the word "reputed" would be no reason for expelling her, or subjecting the keeper of the public-house to a fine, simply because she was a customer. The clause as it stood was alike unjust to the customer and the licensed victualler, who, in the majority of cases, could have no knowledge whatever of the fact whether a female customer at his bar was, or was not, a "reputed" prostitute.
MR. HARVEY LEWIShoped the Committee would strike out the word "reputed." If it was retained it would enable the police to take up any women they pleased, on the pretext that they were "reputed" prostitutes; and any conviction subjected the licensed victualler to a fine of £10 for the first, and £20 for the second conviction, which, with other endorsements on the license, might lead to a forfeiture of the license. How was a licensed victualler to know whether a casual customer was a "reputed" prostitute or not? Yet if he did not, and the police under this clause secured a conviction, he would be liable to one of those cumulative penalties which would exhaust a fortune and lead to wholesale confiscation. It was a penal clause so far as the word "reputed" was concerned, and he should divide with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).
MR. CANDLISHsaid, if the word was struck out of the clause there would be extremely little left of it. A licensed victualler could not know whether of all the customers who entered his house, some were "reputed" prostitutes or not. They ought not to throw the onus upon him in such a case, and if the word was

1891
struck out the clause would be entirely useless.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in inserting this clause was perfectly clear. He wished to draw a distinction between well-known brothels—houses where women of the unfortunate class habitually assembled—and those houses which "reputed" persons of that class occasionally frequented, and to discourage the licensed victuallers from supplying such customers.
MR. LOCKEasked what was the meaning to be attached to the words "reputed prostitute?" Did "reputed" mean that women were habitually, or only occasionally, to be classed under that name? If the former, the word "reputed" ought not to be introduced in the clause. It was unmeaning and unnecessary. If the latter, it gave the police a power which he should be very sorry to entrust them with. Some women might be the most amiable creatures in the world, but if somebody chose to give them a bad name, and a policeman—a serious policeman—saw such a woman, a well-dressed woman, coming out of a public-house, he might be possessed by the notion that, because she was clothed in showy raiment, she was a "reputed," not an habitual prostitute, and subject to the police supervision and interference authorized by this clause. Surely there should be some evidence, some facts to go upon, before a licensed victualler was taken before a magistrate to answer a charge under this clause. He thought the word dangerous, and should vote for its omission.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) did not touch this clause at all, nor the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). The clause was in fact meant to draw a broad distinction between houses known to be brothels and houses only occasionally frequented by persons of whose "reputed" character evidence would have to be given before the magistrate, which could leave no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person—such as soliciting in the streets, being seen coming out of houses of ill-fame, and so on. No practical difficulty whatever could arise from the presence of the word "reputed" in the clause.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he was extremely sorry to divide the Committee upon the subject; but his own experience on the bench as a magistrate at Birmingham had shown him that women could be charged by the police as being "reputed" prostitutes, when, to his own knowledge, they were respectable married women.
MR. DODSONsaid, hard cases made bad laws, and the instances which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham from his own experience, should not induce the Committee to strike out an important word from a practical clause. There was a somewhat similar provision to this in the Prevention of Crime Act, which was passed last year. In that Act there was a clause making it penal to harbour thieves or reputed thieves, and he was not aware that any difficulty had arisen through the operation of the clause.
MR. MELLORsaid, as a magistrate at Ashton he had had similar experience to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he should therefore vote for the omission of the word "reputed."
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that neither the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, nor the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had informed the Committee as to what decision the magistrates gave in the cases they had referred to.
SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he had been reminded, and he therefore wished to remind the Committee, that the reputation of a woman was more easily attacked and less easily defended than that of a man, particularly when it was dishonesty of which the man was accused.
MR. CHARLEYwished to point out to the Home Secretary, that if a woman were seen soliciting in the streets, there could be no doubt that she was a real and not a reputed prostitute.
DR. BREWERhoped the word "reputed" would be retained, or otherwise the most objectionable practices would be resorted to in order to prove actual prostitution.
Question put, "That the word 'reputed' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 35: Majority 126.
MR. WATNEYsaid, he desired to exempt the licensed person under this clause from penalty, unless he allowed prostitutes to remain longer than necessary to obtain refreshment. This 14th clause must be taken in connection with the following, which imposed a penalty for permitting premises to be used as a brothel. He thought the former clause open to great misconstruction, as it must be taken to mean that if a woman went into a public-house not for the purpose of pursuing her calling, but simply in order to obtain refreshment, the publican would be subjected to a heavy penalty. In London it had been decided that women, whatever their character, had a perfect right to go into a public-house and obtain the necessary refreshment. With a view to bring the clause into unison with that practice, he would move as an Amendment, in line 13, after the word "prostitutes," the insertion of the words, "providing that he allows them to remain longer than necessary to obtain refreshment."
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper upon the same subject, and he feared that the adoption of the words under notice would practically defeat the object of the clause. His opinion was that the clause, as now worded, would carry out the object of the Government; but as it would be liable to be misinterpreted occasionally, he should presently propose to amend it in such a way as not to destroy the vitality of the first part of the clause.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that however painful it might be to hon. Members to argue the case of these poor unfortunate women, it must after all be remembered that prostitutes were human beings, and how were they to obtain refreshments, if not in public-houses? Some pity should be shown them. In his opinion the whole tone of this legislation was very cruel.
MR. MELLYsaid, the last speaker, who resided at Merthyr Tydvil, could hardly be expected to perceive the object and meaning of the clause to which the people of Liverpool attached the utmost importance. In that town prostitutes habitually congregated in public-houses for the purpose of carrying on their trade. As a Liverpool magistrate he had had on six or seven occasions to commit publicans; but the convictions were over-
1894
ruled, on the ground that the parties met together for the purpose of refreshment. Placards were put up to this effect—"No lady can come here who does not buy a sandwich and glass of beer, and no one can stay more than ten minutes." In consequence of that notification it was impossible to convict. He should be the last man to prevent these unfortunate women from obtaining refreshment in any licensed victualler's house; but the object of the clause was to prevent the habitual gathering together of prostitutes. The Government had introduced words in the clause to meet the necessities of the case, because it was exceedingly difficult to prove the offence of prostitution. Everyone knew what took place. They saw people going away in cabs, and they perfectly well knew what was their object. If the Committee were in any way to alter this clause it would be valueless.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill), feel that it was difficult or unpleasant to speak on behalf of any class of Her Majesty's subjects. He thought that these unfortunate women were as much entitled to the just consideration of the House of Commons as any other class, and he entirely declined to be bound by the Liverpool experience of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly). If there had been any town which had done harm to this question, it had been the town of Liverpool. It first went into the violent extreme of Free Trade, and now it was going into the violent injustice of restriction. They had established an unfortunate example in one direction, and it seemed that their policy was equally unfortunate in the other. He protested against the whole framework of this clause. He should like to know what was a "reputed prostitute." A woman was either a prostitute or not, and he protested against such language as that employed in this clause. It provided that any licensed person who knowingly permitted his house to be the habitual resort and place of meeting of reputed prostitutes was liable to be convicted. If a person came into his house and took refreshment, and somebody said that the person was a reputed prostitute, the man was to have a conviction recorded against him. ["No!" An hon. MEMBER: Habitual resort.] Supposing a woman came

1895
in every day—and why should she not? The hon. Member for Stoke said that the women were suffered to solicit. In that case the object was prostitution, an offence which had been dealt with in a separate clause; and therefore it was perfectly plain that the words which had been put in, excluded the notion that the object was prostitution. But whatever the object of the words, they seemed to him unjust, and therefore he should vote against them.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the words of the existing law were—"knowingly permitting and suffering persons of notoriously bad character to assemble and meet together." Nothing was said about their meeting for the purposes of prostitution, or prosecuting their vocation; but the Judges had put that gloss upon the clause. The result was, that this city and other cities abounded in places where these women congregated for the purposes of their immoral and most injurious vocation, and under the circumstances the law was utterly incompetent to deal with them. He had had deputation after deputation from the inhabitants of certain parts of London, complaining of the state of the law, and calling upon the Government to take the requisite means to amend it. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to introduce words to negative the construction put upon the Act by the Judges; and it was for that purpose that these words were inserted, and they must trust to the discretion of the magistrates who had to enforce the law. The difficulties of proving that women were met for prostitution were great and almost insuperable, and the clause in the existing Act, which was intended to preserve public morals and public decency, had been totally ineffective; and if these words were inserted, the present clause would be ineffective for the purpose also. No doubt, the clause might lead to occasional hardship; but the question for the Committee to decide in this, as in many other cases was, whether, in the interests of public morality, order, and decency, they would run the risk of inflicting an occasional hardship, which in this case would simply be a refusal of refreshment, which might tend to throw an obstacle in way of these women pursuing their miserable trade. If the words to which objection had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr.
1896
Harcourt) were left out, the clause would be utterly useless, and the scandalous and disgraceful scences which were now going on in this and in many other towns must continue.
MR. J. LOWTHERwished to point out to the Committee that the unfortunate class with whose rights and privileges they were now dealing were not the only class concerned. The public-house keeper was placed in a position of serious responsibility. This clause was governed by Clause 18, which defined the class of persons whom the landlord might turn out and refuse refreshment. He might refuse to admit any person who was
"Drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, and any person whose presence on his premises would subject him to a penalty under the Act."
If, therefore, the attention of the publican was drawn to the presence of one of these persons, it was a question whether or not under Clause 18 he had power to turn her out. He (Mr. Lowther) believed that he had no such power, but at the same time should like to know whether his license would be jeopardized if he did not do so. It would be said, no doubt, that a mere isolated case would not be sufficient, and that the penalty would only be imposed when the same house was habitually resorted to. But everything must have a beginning, and at what stage was the public-house keeper to exercise the duty thus cast upon him by statute, of deciding as to the quality of his customers, and of stamping with his own ipse dixit a woman as of infamous reputation. Could there be anything more monstrous than a public-house keeper thus constituting himself a judge of the mode of life of his customers, and was it not a nice position to place a licensed victualler in?
MR. BRUCE: He has that power under the existing law.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he understood this to be a Bill for improving the law, and not for stereotyping a monstrous abuse.
MR. BRUCE: The publican is forbidden by the existing law to allow persons of notoriously bad character to assemble in his house, and he is responsible for knowing what their true character is.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, from his own point of view, was simply stereotyping what must

1897
be admitted to be a monstrous abuse of the existing system. He hoped the Committee would consider whether they were justified in imposing this duty on the publican. They were constituting him a judge of what he could not by any possibility know; and he wanted to know what protection would be given to him against actions for defamation of character? It was of no use talking about reputed thieves. A record of convictions for thieving was kept, and no policeman would tell a publican that a man was a reputed thief, unless it could be proved by the record; but here, the public-house keeper was to be left to his own unaided judgment. He would suggest that the words proposed should be added to the clause, and that then the clause should be struck out.
MR. WHITBREADobserved that no persons were more interested than those engaged in the trade in removing all complaint against it on the ground of decency and order. The clause, in his opinion, was one which imposed penalties on licensed victuallers for acts of which they might know nothing. It was admittedly a question of degree and certainty. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted that it was not an offence to give refreshment to these unfortunate women, who might require it from day to day, for the very sustainment of life. Then, where was the line to be drawn? He (Mr. Whitbread) admitted that in some parts of London there were houses which required a careful supervision, but that was a question entirely for the discretion of the local magistrates—a discretion which was, in his opinion, mischievously taken away by the provisions of the Bill. The result of that was, the difficulty in which they now found themselves. That women even of the unfortunate class alluded to should be supplied with refreshment once or twice—nay, three or four times a-day if they wished it, was admitted. But where was the permission to stop? Where were the local magistrates to draw the line in cases of this kind, where the offence was not under the control of the licensed victuallers? They could only convict in cases where public scandal was given, for they must, on the one hand, allow these women to have refreshments, or turn them out altogether. He himself believed the better course
1898
would be to leave such cases to be decided by the discretion of the magistrates, who would be acquainted from their local knowledge with all the circumstances of the case.
MR. COLLINSwas of opinion they ought to make the clause so clear that "he who ran might read." It was not its intention to close public-houses against those unfortunate women altogether. That was not its meaning, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to insert the words "reasonable refreshment." They might depend upon it they would never get a man who kept a public-house to refuse a woman who came to his house for refreshment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt his suggestion.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was entirely opposed to the proposed power to be given to the magistrates, on the ground that they should not be permitted to be the sole interpreters of the law.
MR. WATNEYsaid, he must ask for an expression of the sense of the Committee upon his proposal. Where he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in this—they were all agreed to punish those really meant by the clause; but where a poor woman went to a public-house to obtain refreshment it was, he thought, most unjust to punish a publican for giving it.
MR. HARVEY LEWISthought the clause monstrously unjust. It was perfectly clear that if these poor women were to be allowed to live at all, they must have some refreshment; and it was most unjust to punish a licensed victualler for giving it, and even to subject him to the danger of forfeiting his license for doing so. He also objected to the proposition of the Home Secretary—that the magistrates were not to be permitted the exercise of any discretion, but to be compelled in every case to convict under what he considered a Draconian law.
MR. STRAIGHTwas of opinion that the unhappy women to whom allusion had so frequently been made were placed in a very cruel position under the Bill. As it was, the police were ready enough to raise a cry against their class—too often when they did not deserve it; and, under the clause as now proposed, they might in the most harmless way

1899
come to a public-house for their beer, to take it home, and in that sense to be said to be in the habit of "frequenting" the place, thereby rendering the publican liable to proceedings. The result of that would be, that in some places they would be denied refreshment altogether. He objected to the clause and viewed with fear and suspicion the Bill generally, as being one composed almost wholly of penalties. Having imposed a large variety of penal restrictions upon electors, and having made the exercise of the franchise a pain instead of a pleasure, the Government now desired to deal in a similar way with the licensed victualler.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the present law were sufficiently stringent, why were they now legislating to improve it, and make it more beneficial to the community? His answer, therefore, to the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) was, that Parliament was asked by the Government to exercise one of its principal functions in order to effect the desired object. What he had to complain of during the present discussion was the very wide range hon. Gentlemen took in their views of the meaning of the Bill. The present clause was not an exception. It did not prevent these women from going to or getting refreshment at a public-house, nor punish the licensed victualler for supplying it. It simply meant houses well-known in the neighbourhood as places of meeting for these women, and the magistrates would easily understand it in that sense, and in that sense only. As, however, there seemed to be a general objection to the clause as it stood, he would suggest that the Committee should reject the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), which was too wide, and adopt that of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), which would permit women, although "reputed protitutes," to remain in licensed houses sufficiently long to obtain "reasonable" refreshment. He must however, say that it was against his will that he acceded to the Amendment.
MR. WHITBREADobserved that it was important for the Committee to know what it was the Home Secretary proposed to give. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he was willing to accept the Amendment of the
1900
hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex. That of the hon. Member for East Surrey did not include the very offence they were talking about, and he therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would lay down clearly in the clause what he meant by saying that those persons should receive proper refreshment.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsuggested that if the hon. Member for West Essex would change "or" into "and" in his Amendment, it would meet the object in view.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Essex would not make any important difference. If the right hon. Gentleman would only say what concession he proposed to make, it would be easy to settle the words of the clause to meet it.
MR. BRUCEremarked that a substantive offence might be committed under the clause before they came to the word "or." He should, therefore, propose to insert, instead of "or who shall allow," "if he shall allow."
MR. WATNEYsaid, he was willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, after the word "prostitutes," in line 13, to strike out the words "whether the object of their so resorting or meeting is or is not prostitution." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was outrageous to leave those words in the clause. The publican was to be fined, and his license, perhaps, taken away, if such persons came to his house, whatever the object with which they came. Such a provision, he thought, could not hold water; for it was admitted that even prostitutes were not to be starved to death. They were to have something to eat, or to drink, if they wanted it; and, therefore, if they came to a public-house for a perfectly honest and proper object, no crime at all events was committed by them, nor was any committed by the publican. He was, in fact, doing that for which, by the law, he might be punished for not doing. Those women went to those places for their dinner or their tea; but

1901
by the clause, whatever their object, improper or not, still, if they were women who were "reputed prostitutes"—whatever that might mean—the publican was bound to prohibit them having any. Now, there was no necessity whatever for those words, unless to create an offence which did not exist at present, and he would therefore move that they be struck out.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from the word "whether," to the word "prostitution," in line 15.—(Mr. Locke.)
MR. R. N. FOWLERexpressed a hope that the Home Secretary would not give way.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, on the contrary, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would. Up to that time the law had always required proof of a criminal intent in these matters, and he trusted the law would long remain so. The truth was that even now, if there were not magistrates who were disposed to mitigate the severity of the laws enacted by the Legislature, about half the adult population of the country would now be in prison. Only the other day it was stated at the Mansion House that, during the reign of the present Majesty, 4,000 Acts of Parliament had been passed, and as he believed most of them contained an average of ten misdemeanours, there were 40,000 misdemeanours that had been created by the Legislature since Her Majesty's accession. Happily, however, in this country magistrates would not act upon such. Acts of Parliament, and he trusted that even now some means would be found of escaping from legislation of this character. He had understood that the object of this Bill was to amend and improve the system of licensing, and if it had been declared at the outset that that was a mere Bill for the aggravation of penalties, he believed it would have been rejected by the House. He knew perfectly well that these penalties were proclaimed in the name of humanity and liberty. It was always so. There was nothing in the world so cruel as the tender mercies of a real philanthropist. There was no barbarity which he was not prepared to commit in pursuance of his sacred crotchets. A stand must be made against this kind of thing; they must seek some protection against that form
1902
of legislation, which, in the name of liberty, put everybody into prison, and in the name of humanity treated everyone with cruelty. ["Oh, oh!"] Let hon. Members see whether it was not so. A person was not to go into one of these houses, with the exception which they had succeeded in getting, not, as his right hon. Friend had said, by his good will; but, even with that exception, people were not to be allowed to go into these houses, not because they had any bad object. If they had any bad object, he agreed that they should not be allowed to enter them. But it was now thought necessary to legislate against humanity and the view of English liberty which had been, and which he hoped always would be, taken by English Judges, and to tell English Judges that they must convict, even though there were no object of prostitution. And who were going to support such a proposal as that? Was it not hon. Gentlemen who in that House had raised an agitation on the Contagious Diseases Bill? Had it not been complained that women were taken into custody upon the mere reputation of their being prostitutes, that they were dealt with in a harsh and severe manner, and that they were subject to examination and other indignities? ["Question!"] That was the question. He wanted to know whether persons who took that view of the subject were going to support a clause of this kind, which declared war against women who were reputed prostitutes, whether they went to a public-house for purposes of prostitution or not? He could not conceive anything more grossly inconsistent than that persons who took that view of the liberty of the subject should support a clause of this character. Hon. Members were no doubt willing to prevent the habitual resort to public-houses for purposes of prostitution; but he hoped the House would never consent to people being dealt with in the way proposed when they went to public-houses with no such object. He was quite sure that if that House did agree to it, the English people would never allow it to be carried out.
MR. BRUCE, in reply to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Harcourt), said nothing could have been more distinct than his (Mr. Bruce's) statement at an early stage of the Bill. By far the greater portion of that statement went

1903
to show that the Bill consisted of two parts; one of which was the enactment of more stringent police clauses, of which the infliction of new penalties must be part. His hon. and learned Friend must be very ignorant of the controversies which had taken place on the subject, if he was not aware that one of the main objects contemplated by all parties was the introduction of more stringent police clauses for the maintenance of order in licensed houses. The present clause, as it now stood, provided that any licensed person who permitted reputed prostitutes to assemble or meet together on his premises for a longer time than was necessary to obtain refreshment should be liable to a penalty, and he should like to know what cruelty was inflicted under it? This was the simple issue before the Committee. If the Committee thought that it was not an offence against morality to allow these persons to assemble for a longer period than was necessary for purposes of refreshment, of course, they would support his hon. and learned Friend; but if they were anxious to put down a flagrant and crying evil, they would vote against the Amendment.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he was of opinion that the persons referred to should be enabled to procure necessary refreshment; but he had a suggestion to make which he thought would meet the views of both sides. He proposed that the words, the omission of which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, (Mr. Locke) should be left out, and that the following should be inserted in their place:—"or to be used by them otherwise than for necessary refreshment." That would enable prostitutes to obtain refreshment, and at the same time prevent the houses being used for purposes of prostitution.
MR. H. B. SAMUELSONthought the words proposed to be struck out were mere surplusage; and if they were omitted, the clause would then meet the object in view. He must express his regret that the Home Secretary should have stigmatized the section of the House which would vote against the Government on this point, as favourable to prostitution.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENthought the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Gregory) would ac-
1904
complish the object of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, and at the same time not be contrary to the spirit of the clause.
MR. LOCKEsaid, if his own Motion for omitting the words were adopted, he should be prepared to accept the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the object of the Bill was understood to be the regulation of licenses; but an impression had been brought to his mind, and perhaps it had been brought to the mind of official Members, that there was another object of the Bill. There was a proposal largely to reduce the number of licensed houses, and it seemed to him that it was sought to achieve this object by a process of severity. He held that it was the duty of the Committee and of the House to see in that process of reduction of the number of public-houses by penalties, that the public was not made to suffer for an object which might or might not be good in itself.
MR. FOTHERGILLexpressed himself in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Sussex.
MR. COLLINSsaid, the clause would get rid of only those public-houses to which prostitutes habitually resorted.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked, whether they were to understand that if the words proposed to be omitted were left out, those suggested by the hon. Member for East Sussex would be inserted?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, stated his intention to adhere to his original engagement, and accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson).
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 128: Majority 54.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, as an Amendment, in line 15, after the word "shall," the insertion of the words—
"If he allow them to remain thereon longer than is necessary for providing them with necessary and reasonable refreshment."
Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
MR. J. G. TALBOT, on the Proviso—
"Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted,"
moved the insertion after the word "shall," of the words "unless the convicting magistrate or justice shall otherwise direct." There might be circumstances which rendered it undesirable to record the conviction, and he believed that in many cases magistrates would avail themselves of the Proviso which he proposed, if it were inserted. He wished to say one word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were taking objection to a great many clauses, avowedly as the representatives of the licensed victuallers. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) also represented a number of that body, and he knew that a great many of them were anxious that this Bill should pass. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were acting very unwisely in opposing this Bill. If this moderate measure were not passed, they would have an immoderate measure forced upon the country, and the licensed victuallers would find themselves in a worse position than they would be under this Bill.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words "unless the convicting magistrate or justice shall otherwise direct."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
MR. LOCKE, who had a similar Amendment upon the Paper, said, there could not be the slightest doubt that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Kent was the same as he (Mr. Locke) had moved on the preceding clause on a former occasion, leaving the endorsement of the conviction on the license a matter in the discretion of the convicting justices. On that occasion, the hon. Member moved an Amendment to his (Mr. Locke's) proposal, and by so doing threw the whole case into confusion, and in consequence of that, many hon. Members, as they themselves had told him, voted differently to what they had intended. They did not, in fact, understand what the division was about. He (Mr. Locke) was desirous of carrying his Amendment now on this clause; but the hon. Member for West Kent interposed his, and very probably the result would be they would be both lost. The hon. Gentle-
1906
man might say there was no difference between the two Amendments; but if that were so, why on the face of the earth should the hon. Gentleman be so anxious to have his own Amendment adopted, unless it be that he wished to monopolize the whole credit of correcting the provisions of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman had read the Committee a lecture on their conduct, and said they were preventing the passing of this Bill, which was a moderate one. No one would more rejoice than he (Mr. Locke) would at the passing of a fair and just measure; but it was quite obvious that under this clause the licensed victualler would be placed in a very painful position, inasmuch as whenever he might be brought before a magistrate, charged under the provisions of this Bill, the magistrate was, as a matter of course, to endorse on the license the decision to which he might come. That was, he considered, extremely unfair, and accordingly the other evening he moved an Amendment leaving that to the discretion of the magistrate, and he did not see how the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman made that proposition more clear.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the difference between his two hon. Friends the Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), as the rival advocates of the licensed victuallers, placed the Committee in some difficulty. He (Mr. Harcourt), however, advocated a distinct interest—the interest of the British public; and speaking in that interest, he thought that those whom they entrusted with the administration of the law should also be invested with a discretion in reference to the endorsement of the convictions. He wished to see the hops of Kent and the sound malt of Southwark united in a loving cup, and therefore would advise his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark not to refuse the assistance offered on the other side of the House, for the carrying of the Amendment would secure all he desired, and what the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had with his usual sagacity suggested.
MR. BRUCEsaid, if he were to choose between the two he would prefer the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Kent, but he was prepared to vote against them both. He had never concealed the motive of this

1907
measure, which was intended to reduce the number of public-houses by weeding out all those which were badly conducted. For instance, at Luton, where there had been 250 public-houses, the number was now reduced to 200, which was quite sufficient for a population of 20,000 inhabitants. The result was most satisfactory, as the inhabitants were no longer exposed to the same temptations to disorder and crime as heretofore. He wished to give the magistrate the fullest discretion in deciding whether or no an offence was committed, and it was not asking too much to require that the decision should be recorded on the license. Under the system of restriction public-house property had acquired great value, and it would become still more valuable, when the number of houses was diminished by the abolition of the bad houses. That being so, the magistrates if left a discretion would shrink from exercising it, when their decision might jeopardize property worth from £2,000 to £3,000. The provision was not new to the law, as even the Judges were not allowed a discretion in the case of the second conviction of a man previously sentenced to transportation or penal servitude. If the Committee wished to see the number of disorderly houses diminished they would vote against the Amendment.
MR. STRAIGHTsaid, the illustration of the man sentenced to penal servitude brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was extremely unfortunate, as he had often heard Judges complain of their being left without that very discretion to which he had referred. The case of the borough of Luton was likewise an unhappy illustration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, for if, under the existing law, the magistrates of that town were able to diminish the number of disorderly houses to the extent mentioned, he did not see any necessity for a change which would create an aggravated punishment for an offence, which was already amply provided for by a pecuniary penalty. It seemed as if Her Majesty's Government were bent upon loading the pages of the statute book with crimes and misdemeanours, and rendering the existence of Englishmen as perilous as it would be intolerable. Among others, he observed that one of the offences, three convictions for which would forfeit a license, was the allowing
1908
prostitutes to remain in a licensed house longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment. The whole question, therefore, would be whether a reasonable time had been exceeded, and that question would undoubtedly cause great difficulty to the magistrates, who would in this instance, as in many others suggested by the Bill, be slow to convict if the conviction must be endorsed upon the license, without any discretion being left to them. The right hon. Gentleman should beware against the introduction of too much of this kind of thing in his present measure lest he find it as unpopular as his last.
MR. RATHBONEobserved that under the present law the magistrates might declare the license forfeited on the first conviction, so that the clause instead of making the law more stringent actually relaxed it. Under these circumstances, the advocates of the licensed victuallers were doing their clients small benefit, for as the mind of the public was now awakened to a sense of the evil, they would, if this clause were rejected, call upon the magistrates to carry out the stringent powers with which they were now invested.
MR. ASSHETONwished the Home Secretary to consider what would be the consequences of an enactment like that, affecting as it did, the question of confiscation of such an amount of property as in many instances would be the case? When the magistrates found that they had to endorse the convictions, and that those endorsements would abrogate the license, they would hesitate to convict, and thus the whole of the Bill would be defeated. Let them convict, and the Committee might rely upon it that if the offence was one which ought to be recorded on the license, they would not hesitate to do so. He would, therefore, suggest that the word "may" should be inserted in place of the word "shall."
MR. DODSONsuggested that, as the Amendment was the same as that proposed on Clause 13, and was supported by the same arguments, it would save the time of the Committee, if they at once divided on it.
MR. WETHEREDsaid, that when the Home Secretary spoke of the value of public-house property, he forgot that it had been seriously deteriorated by the introduction of that Bill of Pains and

1909
Penalties following the still-born monstrosity of last year.
MR. COLLINSsaid, that what the House had to consider was, how they might make that a practical measure; and they would not succeed in that if they threw difficulties in the way of convictions, which would be the case if the magistrates found that they had to inflict a punishment out of proportion to the offence.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he looked at the matter from a police point of view, and must warn the Committee that if they drove the unfortunate people against whom this clause was directed from their usual places of meeting, they would spread themselves over the whole town, and get beyond all police control.
MR. HENLEYsaid, although he had no doubt that magistrates would be very glad to be relieved of any discretionary power in the matter, yet he held that if the magistrates were to have the power of convicting, they ought also to have a discretion in deciding on the degree of the offence, whether or not it was of a character which ought to be recorded on the license. He felt certain, that if they took away the discretion of the magistrates, and left such heavy consequences hanging over a conviction, they would have no convictions at all. He was old enough to remember that when a fixed punishment was assigned to the crime of horse-stealing the Judges laboured in their charges to the juries to make it out a case of receiving, in which they had a discretion; and just so here, if the discretion was taken out of the hands of the magistrates, they would find some loop-hole or other to escape from the responsibility which the clause would impose upon them.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 159: Majority 6.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 (Penalty for permitting premises to be a brothel).
MR. T. HUGHES MR. T. HUGHES moved, in page 5, line 24, after "liquors" to insert
"and such premises shall be disqualified from receiving a license for the term of five years from the date of such conviction,"
1910
his object being to make the owner share with the occupant the responsibility. Brewers were generally the owners of those houses, and it was only right that they should be compelled to let their houses to none but proper characters.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that though the brewers were generally the owners of those houses in the country, that was not the case in London or other large cities, where the licensed victualler was generally the proprietor, and invested large sums of money in the concern. If this Amendment passed, the person who was the owner of the house might, without any fault of his, be ruined.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, for the same reason as that which induced his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill in the other House (the Earl of Kimberley) to withdraw a similar provision from the original Bill. The penalty proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Frome was a very heavy one, and he thought it would be a great hardship to impose it upon the owner—probably behind his back—and, as the hon. and learned Member proposed, for a first offence. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he should like to know upon what ground the hon. and learned Member proposed to add such an Amendment to the clause. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member, and if the Amendment was pressed, he should certainly vote against it.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERconcurred with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hughes). The clause, as he proposed to amend it, would be restored to the provisions of that which was in the former Bill. He was of opinion, that they were bound to hold the owner of the house as well as the publican in possession, responsible for any such violation of the clause as the Amendment was moved to guard against.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the owner of a house occupied by a publican could hardly foresee that his tenant would turn his premises to such uses; and if he pressed his tenant for his rent, or did not comply with his demand for a reduction of it, the tenant might turn round and convert the house into a brothel, and thus ruin the man's property. He agreed with the right

1911
hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the proposed Amendment, if adopted, would operate with great severity against the owners of houses, and the Government had acted very wisely, and were entitled to credit for striking such a provision out of the clause.
MR. RYLANDShoped hon. Members opposite would allow the Amendment to be negatived without a division, as it could have no other possible effect than that of confiscating the property of innocent persons.
MR. STRAIGHTobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of convicting two persons for the offence of one.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsupported the Amendment, with a view of compelling owners to inquire into the character of persons before they let their houses to them.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, it was desirable to take every precaution against any of those houses being made brothels. He thought, however, that a penalty should not be inflicted upon the owner, except in cases wherein he had heard of, and allowed, such a use being made of his house.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEhoped the House would come to a division on this clause. If it was intended to pass the Bill, hon. Members should take care not to allow it to be overloaded with too severe imposition of penalties.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, it was perfectly absurd to punish a building for an offence committed by a person.
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, the landlord could not be taken by surprise, as some hon. Members supposed. He could not, in fact, be taken by surprise. He regretted that the feeling of the House seemed to be opposed to his Amendment, and he would therefore withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 (Penalty for harbouring constable).
MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved, in page 5, line 37, at end of clause, add—
"Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted, unless the convicting magistrate shall otherwise direct."
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was one of the penalties which was considered by the House of Lords
1912
as being too severe, and rejected in consequence by them. He hoped the Government would not adopt it.
MR. CANDLISH, on the contrary, considered it was a discretion that should be given to the magistrate, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, it would give a disagreeable tenant an immense power for injuring the owner of the property.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it would be absolutely impossible to protect the public, if the interests of the owners were to be considered too narrowly—in fact, by so doing, an injustice would be done to the public. However, he had no objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment, more especially when it was remembered that the clause was sufficiently powerful without it.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconsidered that the interests of an unoffending owner ought not to be overlooked.
LORD JOHN MANNERS, for the reason that he thought owners might be unfairly treated in case the Amendment were adopted, said, he should support the clause as it stood.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17 (Penalty for permitting gaming).
MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved in page 6, line 8, at end, add "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member said, that it frequently would happen that offences which would come under this section would be of a trivial character, and he thought, therefore, it would be better for the magistrate to be allowed some discretion in awarding punishment for the offence.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 (Power to exclude drunkards from licensed premises).
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved in page 6, line 13, after "Act," the insertion of the words "and may use such force as may be required for that purpose."
MR. BRUCEsaid, the words were unnecessary, as the clause had sufficiently provided for that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Amendment made in line 19, by omitting "assist in," and substituting "expel" for "expelling."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Adulteration.
Clause 19 (Adulteration of intoxicating liquor).
MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved in page 6, line 26, after the words "mixed with," to insert "or uses in brewing." He said it was a well-known practice of brewers to mix salt with other ingredients in their brewing to increase the consumption of beer. He stated that from his own knowledge the more of such beer persons drank, the more they required; and in some cases, the barrels into which the beer was put had got so completely saturated with salt, that that kind of adulteration ceased to be necessary for the purposes in view. He believed they could do much to prevent this species of adulteration by more stringent regulations and penalties, and he hoped his Amendment would be agreed to.
MR. WATNEYsaid, as the hon. Member bad mentioned cases as within his own knowledge, in which this kind of wholesale adulteration was carried on, and noxious materials were used in brewing, he (Mr. Watney), as a brewer, would suggest to him that a very large and full list of materials not to be employed in brewing for the purposes of adulteration was to be found under the existing law. If the hon. Member really knew of any cases in which salt or any other material was used for the purposes he had mentioned, it was open to him to report the cases to the Excise authorities, who would, if the cases were proved, levy the heavy penalties attached to the offence, of which the hon. Member acting as informer, could receive the half.
MR. RATHBONEsupported the Amendment. A very large amount of the evil arising from the consumption of intoxicating liquors was to be traced to adulteration. They had that fact in evidence, though he did not believe that such adulteration could in the first instance be traced to any of the great brewers.
LORD EUSTACE CECILopposed the Amendment, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that adulteration was practised to the extent supposed; and that if it were the existing
1914
law was sufficient, if properly put in motion, to check it.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that as he perfectly acquiesced in the conviction expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the law was already sufficiently powerful to effect all that the Amendment proposed, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved as an Amendment, in page 7, line 9, at end, add, "if the convicting justice shall so order."
MR. DODSONtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the words to be inserted. The clause dealt exclusively with adulteration, and he thought no one would maintain that when the offence was committed, there should be any question of remitting the penalty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped before the clause was agreed to, that the Home Secretary would agree to omit the words by which a person convicted of an offence was required at his own cost to stick up a placard on his premises announcing the fact, and to keep it there for a considerable time. If the principle was correct, why should he not be equally required to put one up, where the test had been applied, and he had not been found guilty?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in fact, what was proposed was a simple extension of an existing Act. With regard to the converse proposition as put forward by the hon. Baronet, he thought it might safely be left to the option of the publican himself.
MR. CANDLISHhoped the clause would be struck out entirely. It inflicted a degree of discredit and degradation upon men who, as a class, ought not to be subjected to such treatment.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEexpressed a hope that the Home Secretary would be content with the law as it at present existed in this respect. Even under this Bill, a second conviction would ensure the forfeiture of the license. Why require, in addition, the publicity sought to be enforced by the clause?
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, although he would admit that the offence of adulteration was dangerous and excessive, yet the clause enacted new and most serious penalties, and he hoped the right

1915
hon. Gentleman would not press it in its present form.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the offence against which the clause was directed was, as he had said, a very serious one, and the principle it embodied was really one of the common law and practice. In public parks and on railways, the names and occupations of persons convicted of offences against the by-laws and regulations, together with the penalties inflicted, were constantly placarded. He did not see why the convictions of persons who were guilty of wilfully breaking the law by adulterating their liquors should not be made equally public. He did not attach very great importance as to the time during which the placard should be exhibited; but he did think it was of great importance that the offence of adulteration should be checked by the severest penalties that could be inflicted for the purpose.
MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he thought it would be an amendment, if the police were to affix the placard, instead of the publican.
VISCOUNT SANDONthought the objection could be met by advertising the conviction in each case in the local newspapers. Compelling a man to placard on his premises the record of his own conviction was neither more nor less than adding a second penalty for the same offence.
MR. MUNTZtrusted the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause as it now stood. Nothing was more scandalous or deserving of more severe punishment. In the district with which he was connected two-thirds of the cases of poor fellows being sent to gaol arose from drunkenness brought on by drinking beer which was largely drugged with Coculus Indicus. It was the law in France, that for the offence of adulterating any article, the vendor on being convicted must put up a notice of his conviction, and if he took it down or allowed it to be taken down a policeman was placed on his premises—at his own expense—to see that the notice was properly exhibited for the prescribed time.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that nearly all the adulterating materials mentioned in the Schedules were poisons, and he thought that those who used them or were privy to their use should be not only punished by fine, but well exposed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that on a second conviction the magistrate had power to give the fact publicity by advertisement.
LORD HENRY SCOTTthought publication of some sort should take place, and if even this proposal for placarding the house were adhered to, the punishment would not be too severe for the offence.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that he was told that a gallon of spirits, such as was sold at some public-houses, could be made for 2d., the principal ingredient being sulphuric acid. He hoped the names and offences of such shameless adulterators would be ordered to be stuck on their shop-doors, and that they should be ordered to do it themselves.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he did not object to the placarding, but to the man placarding himself. The notice might be put up at the police office.
MR. BRADYthought it was neither right nor just that having paid the penalty for selling an adulterated article, the publican should be compelled to placard his own offence. This portion of the clause would, he believed, prove ineffectual in preventing adulteration.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he approved of the suggestion of his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), that publication of some sort in a newspaper should be made, and must say he saw no difficulty in doing so. He could corroborate the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) as to the practice that was pursued in France.
MR. WHITBREADobjected to the proposed punishment on the ground of its being un-English. He would ask the Committee to distinctly consider whether the placarding would have the effect they believed it would have. If the person convicted were a poor man, the fact of compelling him to plead his own offence might have the effect of bringing to him no small share of custom from those who thought that he had been harshly dealt with. He believed that when the question of adulteration was thoroughly investigated, it would be found that there was much less adulteartion in what was sold under the name of intoxicating liquors than in most other articles.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTconsidered the penalty an unprecedented one as regarded the English law, and intended voting against it. With respect

1917
to what was done by the French police, he trusted that the Committee would not consent to the adopting of any such system. Was Parliament prepared to pass a law declaring that whatever offence a man committed he should be placarded for a fortnight? A man might be convicted in the Divorce Court of an offence of a cognate character, and he would ask was he to be placarded at his own expense? If this was thought to be a proper way of preventing offences, let it be made a part of the criminal law of the country that a man should be obliged to go about with a placard on his back, and another in front of him, stating the nature of his offence. Formerly men were branded for certain offences, but the common sense of mankind revolted against such a punishment, and it had been abolished. He objected to the re-production of penalties of a similar character to one particular case.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would, upon bringing up the Report, again consider the clause and the suggestion made for modifying it, by causing a police constable to affix the notice of conviction. He might, however, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford that as the law now stood magistrates had power to publish the names of offenders in a newspaper, and in such other manner as they might think desirable.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he was in favour of the punishment, on the ground that it carried with it a sense of shame. He therefore thought the right hon. Gentleman should not give way, and allow the police constable to do what the delinquent himself ought to do.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that if these penalties were imposed on innkeepers, the same ought to be imposed on those who adulterated milk or anything else.
MR. WETHEREDremarked that the placarding of the house might injure a future and more respectable occupier.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 (Possession of adulterated liquor or deleterious ingredients), agreed, to.
Clause 21 (Schedule of deleterious ingredients).
MR. WTNGFIELD BAKER MR. WTNGFIELD BAKER moved as an Amendment, in page 7, line 37,
1918
after "Gazette," insert "and in two or more of the daily newspapers."
MR. BRUCE, in opposing the Amendment, said that The London Gazette was the authorized medium of the publication of every official act.
MR. WINGFIELD BAKERsaid, he proposed the Amendment as a fairer mode of giving notice to the two classes likely to be affected by the clause—the wary and the unwary. For the former, it would supply better evidence to convict; to the unwary, better notice of the danger. The Gazette was not like an Act of Parliament, no one offending against it could be convicted, unless it was proved he had read the order in The Gazette. Considering the heavy punishment to be incurred, he begged leave to urge the Amendment on the Home Secretary.
MR. BRUCEsaid, his hon. Friend might depend that when such an order appeared in The London Gazette, it would receive a far wider circulation than was suggested in the Amendment, for anything that might appear in that journal of the nature referred to in the question would be sure to be copied by all the leading papers, and thus disseminated all over the Empire.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 (Analysis of intoxicating liquors).
MR. WATNEY MR. WATNEY moved an Amendment, in page 8, line 3, to leave out from "any of the," to "to do and," in line 5, inclusive. The hon. Member said he wished to strike out the words which enabled a superintendent of police, or other constable, to procure samples of intoxicating liquor, and to confine that duty to officers of Inland Revenue.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment; but he had given Notice of Amendments to provide securities to prevent anything like oppressive conduct being adopted towards individuals.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CECIL RAIKESproposed in page 8, line 24, to omit "may," and insert "shall," the object being to compel the officer to declare that he is about to analyze the liquor.
MR. BRUCE MR. BRUCE moved—it being now ten minutes to seven—that Progress be reported, and intimated that it was the intention of the Government to resume

1919
the Bill at twelve o'clock to-morrow (Saturday).
MR. GLADSTONE: I may add, Sir that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit beyond 4 o'clock.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether he is really serious in his intention to take the Licensing Bill to-morrow? The announcement has certainly taken the House by surprise.
MR. GLADSTONE: We really intend to take the Licensing Bill to-morrow, and we gather that what we propose is agreeable to the general sense of the House.
COLONEL BARTTELOT: I must protest against the statement that this course is taken with the general concurrence of the House. We have worked well during the past week, and it is really too bad that on the only day that we have to ourselves the Government should put this Bill down. I protest most earnestly against its being taken. Why not take it on Wednesday?
And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he proposed to put the Military Forces Localization (Expenses) Bill for Monday and that they proposed to close Supply at a sufficient early hour to bring to a close the discussion on the second reading of that Bill.

JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION—REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTin rising, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to
  1920
  the Reports of the Judicature Commission, and to move—
  "That the administration of the Law under the existing system is costly, dilatory, and inefficient; that a competent Commission having reported that the judicial organization is defective in all its branches, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should in the next Session of Parliament present to this House a measure for its reform and reconstruction, which, without increasing the public charge, shall provide for the more effectual, speedy, and economical administration of justice,"
  said, it was not his fault that that important subject had been brought forward at such a late period. Had it related to the burning of a Judge in effigy, or to the discussion of a sensational Judgment, no doubt the attendance would have been very different. The last part of his Motion was the most important, and he wished to elicit some declaration from the Government that this great question should no longer be left in the position which it now occupied. No man would deny that the law was costly not only in respect to the public establishments connected with it, but was still more costly to those persons who had the misfortune to have recourse to it. The cost appeared on the Estimates to be something like £4,000,000. That, however, was an entire mistake. Owing to the unfortunate system of keeping the public accounts, the judicial establishments were classed with the police and prisons, which had no proper connection with them. In round numbers, they might take the cost of the judicial establishments of the three parts of the United Kingdom at £2,000,000 a-year. That was a costly establishment nobody could deny, and if he were to take up time in proving that it was dilatory in its administration of justice, he should of necessity be dilatory in doing so. Everybody who took an interest in the subject, on looking into the Report of the Judicature Commission would find that the existing administration of the law must be inefficient, because in nearly every branch of it reform was recommended. Substantially, however, nothing had been done, though that Report was presented nearly three years ago. Lord Palmerston once spoke of an ignorant impatience of taxation; but in this case there was what he would describe as an ignorant patience of the evils of the law. Persons who knew nothing of the subject regarded as inevitable evils which

  1921
  others who had paid attention to the matter knew to be capable of being remedied. They looked upon these evils as the Indians looked upon the smallpox—it had come from heaven, and submission was a duty; or in the spirit in which Mussulmans perished, exclaiming, "Allah is great." A distinguished lawyer (Lord Langdale) once accounted for the fact that so little was heard of the evils of the legal system—notwithstanding that these tended more than anything else to unfasten the links which bound society together in harmony—by the reflection that during the progress of their suit both parties feared to excite any unpleasant feelings in the mind of the Judge, and the decision once given, the successful party naturally saw in it the triumph of justice, or if he was conscious that his cause had prevailed through the error of the Judge, he was at least disposed to enjoy his triumph in silence. The disappointed suitor, on the other hand, like the discarded servant, was conscious that any representations of his would be viewed with suspicion. He, himself, had received from Liverpool very strong representations as to the dissatisfaction felt with the existing administration and defects of the law, and he was glad to see the hon. Member for Liverpool in his place, and hoped he would express his views upon the subject. With the object of endeavoring to remedy the evils complained of, and improve the existing condition of affairs, he had put down a few definite propositions which it seemed to him desirable to carry out. First, the consolidation of the multifarious Superior Law Courts with distinct jurisdictions into one Supreme Court, which should exercise universal jurisdiction, without technical distinction as to the form of remedy. That was a change recommended by the Judicature Commission, and he believed approved by everybody. His second proposal was the creation of a single High. Court of Appeal for the whole Empire constituted with a sole regard to judicial efficiency and severed from all political functions. That was a point upon which he believed the House of Commons, at all events, was agreed. In the third place, he proposed that there should be a reconstitution of the local tribunals, with a view to giving greater efficiency to the provincial administration of justice, embracing under this head a
  1922
  reorganization of the County Courts, and the establishment of Courts in the provinces which should possess a higher jurisdiction than the Courts which now exist. The fourth head of his proposal—and to, this he attached great importance, as the keystone of law reform—was a change in the office of Lord Chancellor on the basis of a separation of the judicial from the political functions of that office, so that the head of the law might no longer be a political partisan, and the administrative and legislative departments of the law might be assigned to a Minister responsible to Parliament. His fifth, and last proposal, was that there should be a consolidation of the manifold and separate subordinate departments of legal administration with a view to their greater economy and efficiency. Under this head he included the various offices in the Court of Chancery, a reorganization of the Masters' offices in the Courts of Common Law, and the establishment of some substitute for the existing and highly objectionable system of private arbitration. They had 35 Superior Judges, receiving from £10,000 down to £5,000 per annum each, and the astonishing thing was that with so large a number there should be such a deficiency in judicial power and accommodation; but it was due to defective organization and separate jurisdiction, and the want of that application and condensation of labour which made the efforts of able men practically inefficient in the administration of the law. By a redistribution of their duties their effective power would be greatly strengthened. If 10 men were taken for a Court of Appeal, 20 might be taken, and would be found sufficient, for the work of London, leaving five to be sent into the provinces to form centers of provincial Courts. The public had a right to expect that the Courts of Justice should always be open, and, by adopting the course proposed, that could be done, and at the same time give every Judge adequate time for vacation. The Appellate Jurisdiction had occupied the attention of both Houses of Parliament over and over again, and various schemes had been proposed, none of which had hitherto succeeded in obtaining the sanction of Parliament; but of all the schemes submitted for the consideration of Parliament, by far the most unsatisfactory was that which had come down

  1923
  within the last few days from the Committee of the House of Lords. It was proposed by that Committee to keep the Appellate Jurisdiction in the House of Lords, with all the objections to the political functions which belonged to that House of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor, an ever-changing officer, and who, from the nature of his office, was essentially a political partizan, was to be at the head of the Court; and to strengthen that Court it was proposed to create four salaried members at £7,000 per annum each, who were to be Peers for life, but who were only to vote on judicial questions, and by their Writ of Summon they were to be excluded from an equality with the other Members of that House. A more degrading proposition he could not imagine than that Judges who were sufficiently eminent to occupy these positions should be asked to accept them on terms such as he had described. They were not to add to the lustre of that House by becoming members, nor was the House to add dignity to their profession by allowing them to enter on an equality with the other Members of that illustrious House. These Brummagem Peers—these pinchbeck Peers were to be out-voted by the other Peers, but they were to come in as ornamental persons on show occasions. He doubted very much if any of the present Judges would assent to such a proposal. A second class of Judges were to be ex-officio Members of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords; but he read with amazement in the Report he had alluded to, that they were not bound to attend. The £7,000 a-year drudges, who were not to be Peers, were to do the heavy work, and the ex-officio were to attend voluntarily when they liked. The Lord Chancellor, when the Committee was sitting in two divisions, or when for any reason he might think it necessary for them to be present at Sittings in Error, might summon a sufficient number to attend, provided that no ex-officio Member should be required to attend more than 20 days in a-year, or "if prevented by any reasonable cause." This proviso was made on behalf of the Law Lords who were already receiving pensions of £5,000 a-year from the country, and it abundantly told its own origin. Altogether, the proposals which had been sent down were of a most extraordinary character, and he hoped the
  1924
  House of Commons would not assent to them. One other recommendation must necessarily call for attention—namely, that for the decision of Indian cases there was to be established Indian assessors, who were neither to be Peers for life nor to have power to vote, but they were to be paid out of the Indian Revenue; and they would have to decide on questions of importance affecting our Indian subjects, but they were not to be upon an equality with the second-class Peers. He hoped that when such a proposal came to be submitted to the House it would meet the fate of other propositions of a similar character. As to local tribunals, there were 60 County Court Judges sitting 134 days in the year, costing the country £500,000 a-year; and the Judicature Commission said that the staff was far larger than was necessary. He would suggest the creation of five or six centres, such as Liverpool, for Provincial Superior Courts, and that five or six of the County Court Judges of the district should act as suffragans under the superior Judge, disposing of the smaller business, both civil and criminal. It was monstrous that a Liverpool civil cause could not be tried between March and August except in London, where the witnesses might have to wait days or weeks before it came on. Half the delays were caused by the choking up the vestibules of the law—in Chambers, at Chancery, and at Common Law. A large part of the administrative staff both in Chancery and at Common Law, were disorganized and altogether inadequate for the duties they had to discharge. It might be asked whether his scheme would be an expensive one. Now, he believed that, though piecemeal reforms might be expensive, a review and consolidation of our whole system would affect great economies, both in the Courts of First Instance, the local Courts, and the administrative staff. The object of his Motion was not to develop any plan of his own, but to ask the attention of the Government and the House to the subject, because it was impossible for a private Member to deal in an efficient and effectual manner with such a subject. He therefore asked the House to assure the Government that they desired that the question should be dealt with by them; and that if they were disposed to deal with it, to assure them that the House would support them

  1925
  in doing so. The present Government had achieved great legislative triumphs, and they might achieve a still greater one by energetically addressing themselves to this question. He trusted that the Attorney General would crown the capital of his great reputation by a measure of law reform worthy of the subject and of himself, and that the Prime Minister, who had dealt with questions affecting a portion of the Empire, would apply himself with equal success to a matter affecting the whole Empire. The right hon. Gentleman recently spoke of the Government as growing old. Now, a great law reform would be a worthy crown of the old age of any Government; for its beneficent operations would be universal, and it would be un seamed by the scars of party conflict. He knew of no great question which would occupy the Government next Session, and, in the event of their taking up this question, he would advise them to take the profession, especially the Judges, into their confidence, believing that they would find no disposition to obstruct reforms. He had abstained from entering into details, desiring to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. The harvest was ripe; it was for them to put in the sickle, and he trusted they would gather into their garner this rich harvest. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the administration of the Law under the existing system is costly, dilatory, and inefficient; that a competent Commission having reported that the judicial organization is defective in all its branches, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should, in the next Session of Parliament, present to this House a measure for its reform and reconstruction, which, without In-creasing the public charge, shall provide for the more effectual, speedy, and economical administration of justice,"—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GRAVES, after thanking the hon. and learned Member for Oxford for bringing the question under the notice of the House, said, he should not have intruded himself upon the debate were it not for the reflection that,
  1926
  although the question partook of a professional and technical character, yet it was a question which ought not to be left entirely to the consideration of legal Members of the House, because it largely affected the interests of the trade and commerce of the country. What he ventured to complain of, on account of those whom he represented, was that in a commercial county like Lancashire there should be so great a deficiency in the facilities that were required for a thorough administration of the law. For Liverpool and the neighborhood there were now three Assizes; but as an interval lasting from March to August was allowed to take place, many most important mercantile causes had either to stand over or to be brought up to London for final adjudication. The House was well aware that that was attended not only with great inconvenience, but with great expense to the parties concerned. Moreover, a large amount of arrears had to be carried over at every Assize held in Liverpool. He was not prepared to state the exact proportion of the business there; but leaving out of the reckoning the Home Circuit, he believed he was near the mark when he said that the business of the Northern Circuit was equal to the whole of the circuits of England put together. In 1859 three Assizes were granted to Liverpool, including a winter one, and in 1864 Assize Courts were held also in Manchester; but such was the extraordinary increase of business that, notwithstanding the relief afforded by Manchester, the Liverpool causes were really more numerous than before Manchester got Assizes for itself. In 1866, he ventured to bring this question before the House, and he received from the Attorney General of that time, now a Member of the other House, the strongest assurances that it would have the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. More recently, important deputations waited upon the Prime Minister from the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool as well as from the legal profession in those towns, and they were assured that the subject would have the anxious attention of the Government. He was aware that subsequently a Bill on the subject was introduced into the House of Lords, which came down to the House of Commons, where it was met by a Motion from the hon. and

  1927
  learned Member for Tiverton, which had the effect of causing the Bill not to be proceeded with. This year, again, although an Appellate Jurisdiction Bill had been brought into the other House, there was no High Court of Justice Bill introduced; and it was of that important omission he especially complained. Year after year Speeches from the Throne conveyed distinct assurances that large measures of law reform would be introduced; yet Session had succeeded Session without any fulfillment of those reiterated promises. About two years ago, he brought in a Bill conferring upon local Courts Admiralty jurisdiction, and enabling Judges of the High Court to visit Liverpool occasionally, in order to dispose of cases of that character. It was a fact worthy of remark that one-third, if not more, of the whole business of the Court of Admiralty came from Liverpool, and that a large number of the cases were local, occurring in the River Mersey from collisions and other causes. The witnesses were on the spot, yet the people of Liverpool were compelled in cases over £200 to bring their witnesses to London to have their cases settled there. The then Attorney General, Sir Robert Collier, took exception to the clause in the Bill dealing with that matter, and he (Mr. Graves) had, in order to get it passed at an advanced period of the Session, to content himself with a measure minus what he regarded as its most valuable part—namely, that which afforded facilities for trying Admiralty cases at Liverpool. All that remained was the jurisdiction conferred on County Courts and upon the Liverpool Court of Passage, the amount being limited to £200. What was really wanted in Liverpool was a continuous Judge sitting in that place. He did not mean that there should be one Judge sitting throughout the year, but a Court sitting through the year. It had been estimated that, if a Court sat there continuously, the amount of general business forthcoming would occupy it for 112 days. He submitted, therefore, that a sufficient reason existed for the early consideration by the Government of the question of law reform, with a view to its speedy application, and he felt persuaded that if it were left solely to the legal Members of that House—among whom, probably, there would be great difference of opinion—a satisfactory con-
  1928
  clusion might not be arrived at for some time; but if the commercial Members of the House came forward and stated their own grievances, and if the Government took up the question in a right spirit, the result would be an enormous convenience in the administration of justice and economy both of time and expense. On these grounds, he urged the Government in the coming Recess to prepare a measure on the subject to be introduced into Parliament early in the next Session, so that there might be brought about a more speedy and economical administration of justice in the country.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that it was desirable to interest those hon. Members who were connected with commerce in a question of this character, which could not be settled within a reasonable time if it were left entirely in the hands of legal Members whose differences of opinion caused so much delay. He recollected, too, that in settling the Bankruptcy Bill, the lawyers received most effectual aid from Liverpool and the commercial Members of the House generally. Whenever a Lord Chancellor brought forward a measure of law reform, the very first difficulty he had to encounter was the opposition of other members of the legal profession, who set about picking holes in the Bill. The Government had, no doubt, other important questions to settle; but none was more entitled to their consideration than those relating to reform in the administration of the law of the land. When he found how measures of law reform were postponed he did not see any prospect of success for measures which might be introduced; and he therefore thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford was entitled to great credit for bringing forward the subject, and for the able manner in which he had done so. It was clear that any measure of law reform must proceed from the Government of the day, and it was the duty of the House to urge on them the necessity of introducing broad and comprehensive measures, and not to leave it to private Members to effect partial changes. He regretted that law reform had not been made a more prominent question in the programmed of the Government. The Judicature Commission, which was ap-

  1929
  pointed in 1868, made a Report in 1869, stating that the judicial system of the country was unsatisfactory, and ought to be reformed. The Speech from the Throne in 1870 pointed that out as one of the prominent measures to be introduced. The pledge given in that Speech had been partly fulfilled by the Lord Chancellor introducing a Bill for the establishment of a High Court of Judicature and of an Appellate Tribunal. That Bill passed the House of Lords; but on the 25th July, 1870, the Prime Minister was obliged to postpone the consideration of the Bill until the following Session. From that time to the present, however, nothing had been heard of that measure of law reform, which was intended to carry into effect the Report of the Judicature Commission. He therefore hoped and believed the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford would be useful in urging on the Government next Session to propose some measure which would be sound and beneficial, and calculated to accomplish the object in view. There were abuses now existing with regard to Liverpool and other places which must be remedied in any reform introduced on the basis of the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, and he wished to impress on the Government the necessity of introducing some satisfactory measure early in the next Session. There was one extensive measure which was not touched by the present Motion, and that was the alteration and amendment of the law itself. The law of settlement and the law of real property required considerable alterations, and those alterations would be greatly facilitated by the establishment of such tribunals as those contemplated by the Judicature Commission. He trusted the Government would give some distinct pledge of their intention early next Session to introduce such an amendment in the judicatory system of the country as would bring home to every man in the land a cheap and efficient remedy in the locality in which he resided, without compelling him to wait for months before he could obtain justice.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped the House would not be led away by the eloquence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) or of those who succeeded him from the terms of this Motion. They were asked to declare that—
  1930
  "the administration of the law under the existing system is costly, dilatory, and inefficient." ["Hear, hear!"] He heard something like a cheer from three or four hon. Members in a House certainly not largely attended, and he took the cheer of those three or four hon. Members to represent the amount of interest which was felt in the question. ["No, no!"] Well, six hon. Members said "No" in reply to those who cheered. But they could not get an alteration of a system of judicature which would make it efficient, unless the public would evince a proportionate interest in the question, and would support those who had not dilettante, but substantial reform at heart. Until the public took an interest in the question, it was quite impossible that measures could be successfully introduced and passed into law. Why had not measures of law reform been introduced and carried? Because they had been set on one side to make way for political questions which had greater interest for the country, which aroused stronger feelings among the constituents, and which, consequently, met with greater support in that House. It was not that there was any want of zeal, energy, or ability on the part of the legal Members of the House. They were quite as desirous as some of the hon. Members who talked of urging them on, to bring forward legal questions. It was of no use attempting it; there was no chance for them. The police supervision of public-houses had a great deal more interest for this House and for the country; and it was useless to talk of reforming judicature, until we had determined upon the style of the label which was to be put on the House of the publican who sold adulterated beer. ["Oh, oh!"] That was the plain fact. It was impossible to carry legal measures, because there was not sufficient feeling aroused in the country as to their necessity. He did not agree with the Preamble to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, for he did not acknowledge the whole of their system of law to be either dilatory or inefficient. He spoke of that branch of the law with which he was most familiar. He did not follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, in saying that those were best qualified to amend the law who were least acquainted with it; and, therefore, he did

  1931
  not profess to give any opinion on the amendment required in that branch of the law in which he had not practiced. But he would say that it was not true of the great branch of the law with which he was familiar that it was either dilatory or inefficient. ["Oh, oh!"] He said that from his own knowledge. Those who cried "Oh, oh," did so without knowledge. He asserted that the practice of the Court of Chancery could not be accused either of dilatoriness or inefficiency, and he defied anyone who was familiar with its practice to contradict him. That it was costly he did not deny; but it was impossible to make any complicated system of law like ours cheap—in the sense of costing little—in order to get great and difficult questions of fact and law decided. The Government had introduced into the other House of Parliament two Bills, for the purpose of carrying the Report of the Commissioners into effect; but those Bills were rejected, and there was no reasonable prospect that the Government would be more successful next year in that respect. During the present Session, a Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor with the view of giving effect to a portion of the Re-port relating to Appellate Jurisdiction; but the Lords threw out that Bill also. [An hon. MEMBER: Quite right.] If that was quite right, what became of the proposition of the Motion, that they should bring in a Bill next Session? [Mr. VERNON HARCOURT said, he meant a good Bill.] The Bill to which he (the Solicitor General) referred was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Committee; and if that was not desired, he did not understand the reference in the Resolution to their Report. The House of Lords, having thrown out the Bill, appointed a Committee to consider the subject. That Committee had just made its Report, and to convey an idea of it, he might state that it proposed to give to each ex-Lord Chancellor, who now received £5,000 a-year for attending the Sittings of the House of Lords at the hearing of appeals, an additional £2,000 for doing exactly the same work, or, as the Attorney General suggested, a little less. The proposition which had been adopted by the Committee of the House of Lords was that they should have four salaried Members of the Appeal Committee in addition to the Lord Chancellor,
  1932
  receiving £7,000 a-year, and the qualification was that each Member should have filled the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland. Then, it was also suggested that there should be another class, who would be, in fact, the present paid Members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and who now received £5,000 a-year for sitting a much larger number of days, and doing a great deal more work than it was proposed the new Committee should be compelled to do. If that was the kind of law reform that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford recommended—
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT, interposing, said, if the Solicitor General had paid him the compliment of being present when he addressed the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have heard that he strongly objected to that Report. Having been absent, the hon. and learned Gentleman read that which he (Mr. V. Harcourt) had objected to, and held him responsible for adopting it. That was not the way to deal with law reform.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, said, he was dealing with the proposition of the Motion, which was that the Government should bring in a Bill next Session which would have some chance of passing. But as it was of no use to bring in a Bill who would have no chance of passing both Houses of Parliament, the Resolution must mean that they should promote a measure to a great extent in such a form as had already been approved by the House of Lords. The Committee of the House to which he had referred was composed of 26 of the most authoritative Members of the House, and he thought that its opinion was not likely to be shaken in the ensuing Session, even if another Bill should be introduced. That being the state of matters, was it fair to reproach the Government with not bringing in a Bill? Having twice brought in Bills which had failed to pass, they had not received encouragement in the matter, and it would be vain to occupy the time of the House of Commons when there was not the slightest prospect of passing any substantial and effectual measure through the other House of Parliament. He did not blame the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) for bringing forward just grounds of complaint; for

  1933
  he thought that the great town of Liverpool had a right to say that its business had so increased that more efficient means should be provided for disposing of the numerous cases which arose in that town. That, however, was an independent proposition, quite different from the recommendations of the only Report which the Commission had yet made. Those recommendations were, first, an alteration in the Appellate Jurisdiction, and secondly a change in the nature of the Superior Courts of Law and Equity at present located in London. The Commissioners proposed to give the Courts new names, to alter their procedure in some general and indefinite manner, and to merge or fuse what were commonly called the branches of Law and Equity. But when those recommendations were submitted to the Judges of the Superior Courts, they met with almost universal disapprobation, and the criticisms passed upon them prevented any effectual legislation. What was the present position of the Government? It was stated that another Report of the Judicature Commission was signed and about to be presented; but surely no one could expect the Government to pledge themselves to carry out the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners before they knew what those conclusions were? [Mr. VERNON HARCOURT remarked, that his Resolution said nothing of the kind.] He was aware of that; indeed, the Resolution was of that vague and indefinite kind which said nothing. It committed the Government to nothing; it told the House nothing. It was framed in that vague, general, and deceptive manner, which was the means usually adopted for acquiring cheap popularity at the expense of utility. It proposed a Utopian scheme. Suppose some hon. Member proposed that the Government should bring in a Bill for providing roast pig for any individual who desired to eat it, such a Resolution would be just as useful and practical as the one now offered to the House. He admitted that if anyone would tell them how to prepare a measure of improvement which it would be possible to pass, a duty would be cast upon the Government to carry it out; and when they were told that it was desirable to make things better than they were, how could anyone dispute the assertion? But by carry-
  1934
  ing this Resolution the House would merely allege that the present system was to some extent defective; that it was capable of being reformed; that they would like to reform it—upon which they were all agreed—and that they did not know how to do it, upon which they were also agreed. That was a very safe Resolution; but if the hon. and learned Member would give them a draft of a Bill, they would consider it, with an earnest desire to carry it into effect. They had no wish to recoil from a difficult task, or to appear to refuse a Motion for reform either in the Judicature or anything else. All they asked was that those who said it was their duty to bring in an effectual measure of law reform should give them at least some outline of what they desired the Government to propose. If the House passed the Resolution it would encourage learned and unlearned Members to weary the House with long speeches, and to curry at small expense of time and labor the favor of the public, under the notion that they were law reformers, and to propagate the idea that the Government were not, forsooth, desirous of carrying out any law reform. Now, that was not the case. The lawyers were all agreed that defects existed; but they were not all agreed about the means by which those defects were to be remedied. He believed he might say they were disagreed. It was not possible to get the lawyers in the House of Commons to agree, and it was still less possible to get people who were not lawyers to agree upon any plan. When the subject came to be considered in a fair and dispassionate spirit, it would be found that all the law reforms which had been carried out during the last 40 years had been initiated and carried through by lawyers. It was utterly untrue, therefore, to say that efficient aid was to be expected from persons who knew nothing of the subject. All the Commissions of which anything was to be expected must be composed of lawyers, and all effective law reforms must emanate from those acquainted with the principles and practice of the law; and if lay Members of the House of Commons could only induce their constituents to take a quarter as much interest in the great question of law reform as they took in other questions, there would be no lack of lawyers, whether they were aspirants for personal distinction, or

  1935
  were animated by the love of their profession, or by the desire of benefiting the community at large, who would do their best to accomplish the object in view; but law reform would not be accelerated by general abuse of the existing system, or by vague propositions like that which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had submitted to the consideration of the House.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, in supporting the Motion, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had managed to rub them all the wrong way, and had argued that the Report of the Committee was a bad Report; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was not bound to take the recommendation of the Committee; and if the Report was bad, in Heaven's name let him bring in a good Bill. They ought, however, to be just in this matter, as some of the inaction which had occurred was due to the House of Commons itself; and the time of the Government had been occupied with first-class political measures. The present system of legal legislation was like an Irishman's cabin, a patch here and a patch there, and the whole without symmetry or system. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that Chancery procedure was costly, but he also held that it was dilatory. He would not say that it was inefficient; but its efficiency was not an adequate recompense for either its costliness or dilatoriness. He believed that cheap law in England would continue a mere dream, and must contend that clients did not get their money's worth for their money, and he ridiculed the idea of lawyers being paid by the length of their pleadings. If they were to make justice more expeditious, they must lighten the labors of the Judge by simplifying the procedure; or they must increase the number of Judges, which would involve an additional charge to the country; and if they wanted cheap justice, they must adopt the plan shadowed out by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) and localize the Courts. He most earnestly pressed Government to take up this matter without delay, as by so doing they would earn the gratitude of the country.
  MR. WESTthought, after the speech they had heard from the hon. and taught Solicitor General, that the Government had gone back very much in-
  1936
  deed from the promises they had held out in 1870. They had been told that the Government despaired of effecting any legal reform. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL denied having said that.] The hon. and learned Gentleman at least argued that it was vain and useless for them to embark in legal reform, because they could not get up such an excitement on that subject in the country as arose when they dealt with a question affecting public-houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman further told them that the Government could not undertake any law reforms, because their great scheme sent down from the House of Lords to that House in 1870 failed. Now, if he recollected rightly, the scheme of 1870 was so miserable that the Lord Chancellor could not even get either of the Law Officers of the Crown in that House to support it. It was said, indeed, that the small measure of 1870 was an attempt to carry out the recommendations of the Commission of 1869; but really that was a statement made, to say the least, without sufficient consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman had further alleged that the administration of the law was neither costly, dilatory, nor inefficient; and he talked about dilettante lawyers; but if the present system was so perfect as the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead them to suppose, surely the Judicature Commission, which had been so long engaged upon that subject, must have been entirely wasting their time. Neither could he see how the hon. and learned Gentleman could find such fault as he had with their Report, if he reflected on the fact that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General represented the Government on that Commission. In his (Mr. West's) view the first step towards law reform was to reform the highest Court of Appeal to which suitors had to go. If, however, the Government were never to introduce a measure of law reform until all the lawyers were agreed upon it, they would have a fair reason for despairing—as they appeared to do—of being able to achieve any legal reform.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that in venturing to make a few humble observations upon the subject under notice, no one felt more than he did the risk that an unlearned man like himself ran in venturing to mix up in a discussion of that kind. But he felt compelled to do so

  1937
  by the consideration that the unlearned portion of mankind were quite as much interested in those questions, and perhaps more so than the learned, for there were in that case the shearers, and those who had the chance of being shorn. He had heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General with great dismay. It left on his mind—and he feared it would also leave on the minds of those who read it—the impression that it was difficult to come to a conclusion whether or not the hon. and learned Gentleman felt that the Government of which he was a Member were most unable, or most unwilling, or both, to undertake the question. The warmth with which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke made it impossible to doubt that he was sincere in what he said; and seeing how much that matter had been bandied about for the last two or three years, it seemed that what they had heard that night did not hold out a very hopeful prospect for the laity at large. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the country was interested in public-houses, and that the Government could legislate respecting them. Whether they would be successful in attempting to deal with the publicans and sinners remained, however, to be seen. The hon. and learned Gentleman further told them that the great learned men, so far from being agreed about law reforms, were all disagreed. That was offering them but poor consolation. But having himself seen something of legal reform, and especially of the Court with which the hon. and learned Gentleman was most conversant, he (Mr. Henley) ventured to say that if the Government, or any man in the Government, had an honest, strong conviction that legal reform was necessary, and joined to that conviction a resolution which turned neither to the right nor to the left, but endeavoured to carry it out, that man would be able to achieve, with the assistance not of the learned, but of the unlearned, such reforms as he could show were necessary, and would be beneficial to the public. If, however, they were to wait till the learned men all agreed, that never had happened, and never would happen, because the instant one said "White" another said "Black." There was but a poor lookout, therefore, for the unlearned part of the community, when they heard the
  1938
  mouthpiece of the Government make such a confession of weakness as had been made that evening. It was a confession which he had never expected to hear, and which he sincerely hoped he should never hear again; but he must say that if the Government really felt weak in the matter, it was an odd way of inviting external aid to cast ridicule in the manner in which it had been done upon the recommendations made on the subject of legal reform. It seemed to excite the indignation of the Solicitor General that anyone should dare to ask the Government to do something next year. If that were the opinion in high places, the House could not have much hope that anything would be done, unless there was pressure put on the Government from without. The reforms made during the last 50 years had not been made through pressure from without, but by the energy of some able men from within, who, seeing what was wanted, did it. Probably, the hon. and learned Member knew what reforms had been instituted by Lord Romilly. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL dissented.] The hon. and learned Member shook his head. Perhaps he did not know as well as those who were on the Commission that it was owing to Lord Romilly's resolution and singleness of purpose that the reforms hitherto made were carried out, despite great discouragement, under a Whig Government. Therefore, if the present Government had connected with it as able and resolute a man as Lord Romilly, law reform would not be wanted.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the public need only to ponder over and inwardly digest the hon. and learned Gentleman's (the Solicitor General's) speech to discover why they had no law reform. Not only did his hon. and learned Friend not listen to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) but from beginning to end he entirely misstated what had been said, for a great part of his hon and learned Friend's (Mr. V. Harcourt's) speech was devoted to expressing disapprobation and dissent from the recommendations of a certain Committee of the House of Lords. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, however, occupied himself by referring to that Report as if it had been the foundation of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for

  1939
  Oxford, and could not conceive the Government had any chance of passing a measure of law reform, because the House of Lords rejected one two years ago. Could not the Government introduce a better measure? Were all measures introduced by the Government the embodiment of their final and unalterable conclusions? And if the argument were carried to a legitimate conclusion, what would have been the fate of the Ballot Bill? The Government had reintroduced that Bill, although once rejected by the Lords; and the Lords had passed that Bill in deference to popular opinion, although strongly disapproving its principle. Then he had objected to the introduction of abstract Resolutions. That was a strange argument to come from the Treasury Bench, considering the Government owed its position to abstract Resolutions. The Government should, above all others, be grateful to abstract Resolutions. Then it was asked why did not independent Members introduce measures of their own? Surely, however, that could not be asked in sincerity, when it was taken into consideration that the time at the disposal of independent Members was reduced to a minimum, and when they could not pass measures of even secondary importance except by the merest chance. The Solicitor General had also construed the Motion into a censure on the Government. It was no such thing; it simply expressed a preference for law reform over other promised measures; and as for the plea that there was no feeling in favour of such a measure in the country, the very object of the Motion was to express such a feeling through the medium of the House. Besides, it would be no difficult task for the Government to create a feeling in favour of law reform. The House knew how successful influential and leading Members of the Government could be in getting up a platform cry in favour of anything. They might in all truth point out the doubtful utility of some of the paltry measures passed; but that there could be no doubt as to the utility of making law less complicated, less dilatory, and less expensive. The working man might be told the question affected him as vitally as anybody else, and it would not take much to awaken enthusiasm for law reform. The Government had always two ways of dealing with a question.
  1940
  They could treat it with indifference, or put their backs to it. Let them treat a measure of law reform as they treated the Bill for the Reorganization of the Army. Let them say the interests of the country were wound up in it—that it must be passed if the House were kept sitting late in the autumn, and then if no response came they would be justified in repeating the statement of the Solicitor General. Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, who had done as much in the way of law reform in another country as anyone, had recently addressed a letter to The Times, in which he said that there was no question which so vitally affected the interests of everyone in this country as making our law simple, less complicated, and less costly. He referred to the Church Building Act and the Sanitary Acts as being so numerous and complicated that it was impossible for anyone to express a confident decision upon any point raised in connection with them. And as an instance of the necessity for codifying our law, Mr. Stephen referred to the fact that our legislation was so complicated that it was impossible to define the power of the Secretary of State for India. Mr. Stephen had added that any adequate measure of law reform would be impossible until some Representative of the Government was able to devote his whole time to such matters, an opinion with which he (Mr. Fawcett) cordially agreed. He thanked the hon. and learned Member for Oxford for having taken up this subject, for his hon. Friend could speak on it with a weight of authority and influence to which he could not pretend. After the speech of the Solicitor General, the taunts he had addressed to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, and the misrepresentation of his motives, his hon. and learned Friend owed it to the House and to the great subject he had taken in hand to ask the House to express its opinion upon the question, and, if possible, to obtain a definite instruction to the Government that law reform next Session should take precedence of almost any other question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthankfully accepted from his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) the assurance that the Resolution was not brought forward in any spirit of hostility to the

  1941
  Government, but rather in order to obtain a general expression of opinion from the House that the views which his hon. Friends had put forward with so much clearness and ability, should in some shape or other be made the subject of legislative action before long. He thanked his hon. and learned Friend personally for having brought the question forward, and he begged him to understand that in the few observations he should make he would speak in no spirit of hostility to his hon. and learned Friend, or to the cause which he advocated. But, filling the official position which he had the honour to hold, it was his duty to look at matters from a somewhat different point of view, and to consider the difficulties which lay in the way of effective action. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) said that the speech of the Solicitor General had filled him with dismay. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself did not bring much comfort to his (the Attorney General's) mind, because the right hon. Gentleman said it was very difficult to do anything in the matter as long as the lawyers disagreed, and that in the course of a long experience he never knew a subject on which the lawyers agreed. That speech was not calculated to infuse much hope into others. Those who had heard the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would be of opinion that its scope and object had been misunderstood. His hon. and learned Friend was a great Equity lawyer; he practised in the Court of Chancery, and, if second, was second to none but one great and distinguished man who practised in that Court. His hon. and learned Friend, therefore, was naturally enamoured of the system with which he was familiar, and of which he was so conspicuous a part. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, and the hon. Member for Brighton would admit that the Solicitor General directed the main scope of his observations to the defence of the judicial system of the Court of Chancery. The Resolution before the House, however, was addressed to the reconstruction of our entire judicial system, which was described as costly, dilatory, and inefficient. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, while admitting that the Court of Chancery was costly, denied that it was either dilatory or inefficient. Well,
  1942
  he would leave the defence of the Court of Chancery to his hon. and learned Friend. But in that branch of the legal system with which he (the Attorney General) himself was connected, he admitted that large and extensive reforms might be made. He had admitted that before, and no one who remembered the statement which he laid before the House would deny that there was in it materials for law reform, and law reform for a long time. But hon. Gentlemen must not run away with the notion that the wishes of his hon. Friends the Members for Oxford and Brighton could, despite of experience, be easily carried into effect. The House must recollect that, in order to make anything like an efficient alteration in the administration of the law, the Bill which proposed to make it must pass both Houses. It was also necessary to the same end that the highest Court of Appeal should be dealt with. The House of Lords was in possession of that jurisdiction, and he would repeat now what he had said elsewhere—that he did not believe that any plan for the reconstruction of our judicial administration would have a chance of success in the House of Commons which preserved in anything like its present position the judicial functions of the House of Lords. But then it should be borne in mind that we had to deal with an ancient, honourable, and proud Assembly, which treasured its judicial functions as its most precious inheritance, and which, as far as present indications of opinion went, was resolved not to part with it. If, therefore, he had stated the case fairly, it would be seen that the task which his hon. Friends proposed was one of no little difficulty. He did not make these remarks with the view of conjuring up difficulties; but any man who wished for success in what he attempted must be prepared in a candid spirit to take into account the conditions of the problem with which he had to deal. This was what the House of Lords thought of law reform. The Lords appointed a Committee, consisting of 27 of their most distinguished Members, including all the Law Lords except Lord St. Leonards, whose age precluded his attendance. Their notion of a Supreme Court of Appeal was, that there should be four ex-Lord Chancellors receiving £7,000 a-year each instead of their present £5,000;

  1943
  there were also to be certain life Peers—lawyers, who were not to take part in the legislative functions of the House; who were to have titles, but would be semi-noblemen; and the persons who suggested that these lawyers should be appointed on such conditions, sitting mute while the House was discharging its legislative duties, and taking an inferior position in the Tribunal of Appeal, were two noble and learned Lords of his own profession. It had been said that the river Lethe ran between the Bar and the Bench, and certainly a very deep and broad Lethe must run between the Bar and these noble and learned Lords when they made such a proposition. If any persons supposed that he, the present leader of the English Bar, would submit any such proposal to the House of Commons on the part of the profession to which he belonged, they had greatly mistaken his character. The facts he had mentioned showed the chance which an efficient measure of law reform had in the present state of opinion in the House of Lords. He thought he heard his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich say—"Then go out!" If his going out were followed by the coming in of his hon. and learned Friend, he would go out with great pleasure. His hon. and learned Friend should have his office for the asking to-morrow; but he did not know that his going out would much advance a measure of law reform, unless his hon. and learned Friend would pledge himself to carry those measures, which was not to be expected. The difficulty he had mentioned was one of the almost insuperable obstacles in the path of anyone who wanted to reform our judicial organization. His (the Attorney General's) notion of law reform was, to take particular portions of the law which might not touch the prejudices and excite the passions of an Assembly over which they had no influence, and try to improve these portions. That was a humbler, but it was a practical duty, and might lead to good results. Such a duty he had already undertaken, and in this very year had carried through a Select Committee an important amendment in the law relating to juries. Then there was the law of evidence, which he should certainly endeavour to reform another year. But he was not prepared to propose a large change in our system of
  1944
  judicial organization, because he could not put the keystone to such an edifice; it was not his duty to do so; the task of initiating such a change must rest with the Lord Chancellor, and must be undertaken in the other House. He would not enter into the details touched on by his hon. and learned Friend; but as to one of them he did not agree that it would be well to create a High Court of Appeal entirely free from political influence. He should be sorry to see his profession cut off from all connection with the political world. Such a separation could not tend to the advantage of the public, of the profession, or of the Bench. The Bar and the Bench were all the better for their contact with the current of political opinion in this country. Nor did he think it was well for the Common Law branch of his profession when it was dominated by that most able, upright, learned, but, he must add, somewhat narrow-minded man, Lord Wensleydale. With all respect for that learned Judge, his influence in the profession was not at all a healthy one, and would have been much better had he been in this House and mingled with political parties. He was one of those lawyers whose epitaph some one had written and had said—"Summâ industriâ, et summo acumine, leges Angliœ ad absurdum reduxit." He did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend in other respects. While thanking him for the way in which he had brought this question forward, he really could not see how anything would be gained at this period of the Session by reviving a matter of this kind; and he therefore hoped his hon. and learned Friend, as well as the hon. Member for Brighton, would be satisfied for the present with the opportunity they had had of drawing out debate on the subject, and would allow the Motion to be negatived.
  DR. BALLsaid, he was disposed to agree with the Solicitor General, when he viewed with jealousy abstract Resolutions on law reform, and also with the Attorney General, in attaching more value to patient and laborious investigations of detail connected with the administration of the law, than to any heroic remedies which might be suggested to meet the defects complained of. As an Irishman, however, he must express his decided dissent from any proposition to make the appeals from

  1945
  the Irish Courts he represented not to the House of Lords, but to English Judges of the same calibre as in the Courts appealed from. Scotch lawyers entertained the same opinion on the subject. It was a serious matter to meddle with a tribunal which had in its favour all the sanction of antiquity—the sanction of acquiescence on the part of other portions of Her Majesty's dominions—and which was respected not merely on account of the superiority or wisdom of its decisions, but for those very adjuncts and sources of respect which his hon. and learned Friend could not, in a moment, create in the new Court he proposed. For his own part, he most emphatically advocated the maintenance of the external name, authority, power, and dignity of the House of Lords as the appellate tribunal. With regard to the expense attending the transfer of property, he had witnessed a variety of changes in connection with law in Ireland, but with no real good result, except in the case of the Landed Estates Court, which considerably cheapened the cost of transference, and at the same time rendered litigation, in regard to title unnecessary, if not impossible. The fact was also notorious that land sold in the Estates Court brought a higher rate of purchase than any land that was sold on private title, because the purchaser obtained the land free from the burdens that were inseparable from a want of finality. Lord Westbury evidently had these advantages in his mind when he brought in his Bill for the registering of titles. He thanked the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns) for the efforts which he had made to cheapen the expense of the transfer of land, and would say, if they wanted a real practical law reform, let them extend the Parliamentary title of Ireland to English property.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would endeavour to bring the debate down from the high altitude which it had attained. He believed that the reason why landowners had refused to carry their land into Lord Westbury's Court, was that it cost more to get an indefeasible title than what it was worth. No doubt, when an indefeasible title was obtained, it added to the value of the estate; but gold might be bought too dear, and he thought it would be impossible and undesirable to compel persons to register
  1946
  their property so as to give an indefeasible title. The reforms of the Judicial Committee and the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords were comparatively unnecessary to the mass of the people in this country. Not one case in a thousand would come before any ultimate Court of Appeal. What was wanted to be got rid of was the intervention of the London and the local attorney. Every person was occasionally driven into a Law Court; but so long as the County Courts had jurisdiction only to the extent of £50, that limitation operated as a denial of justice. County Courts ought to have almost unlimited jurisdiction; they ought to have power over the transfer of property, the Judge having power to reserve any question that came before him to a higher jurisdiction. The County Courts were perfectly competent to deal with cases either of £50 or £5,000, and plaintiffs would be glad to bring their actions in them. What was wanted was a local jurisdiction, and that could be easily given, for the County Court Judge visited every market town in his district every month; whereas the Assizes were held only three times in a year. Supposing an action of ejectment to be commenced, the tenant was served with a notice, and he had not a leg to stand on. He admitted this; but he said he would stand over till the Assizes came in September or October; he would gather in his crops. The landlord could do nothing with him. The landlord was driven into a corner, for the Assize Courts were held only at long intervals. What was wanted was local justice. Instead of reforming the Judicial Committee and the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, what was wanted was that the County Court Judge should decide all cases, unless the Judge decided that they ought to be heard before the superior Judges, or the defendant, upon removing the cause to a Court of Superior Jurisdiction, gave security for costs. In that way they would ensure prompt and inexpensive justice.
  MR. GLADSTONE, as he understood that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) to take the judgment of the House on the Amendment, must venture to say a few words to show that the course taken was highly impolitic. In the first place, the hon. Mover of the Resolution intended by a vote of the

  1947
  House to assert that the administration of the law under the existing system was costly, dilatory, and inefficient; and then the Resolution went on to assert that a competent Commission having reported that the judicial organization was defective in all its branches, it was desirable that Her Majesty's Government should, in the next Session of Parliament, present to the House a measure for its reform and reconstruction, which, without increasing the public charge, should provide for the more effectual, speedy, and economical administration of justice. With regard to the first of these points, did the hon. and learned Member think that it was wise, as a practical measure, to call on the lay Members of the House, who must feel that they were unacquainted with the subject, to assert for their own credit and in their legislative character that the administration of the law under the existing system was costly, dilatory, and inefficient? [Mr. WHALLEY: Oh!] The hon. Member for Peterborough knew everything, and propounded as matters within his own knowledge many things known to nobody else on the face of the earth. He (Mr. Gladstone), however, was not prepared to put an opinion in the scale in such a matter. It was not a wise, a circumspect, a dignified course of action to call on hon. Members who knew nothing practically of the working of the law to say that it was costly, dilatory, and inefficient. The position was worthy of examination, but it was not fit for a legislative declaration from the House. As to the second point—that, a competent Commission having reported that the judicial organization was defective in all its branches, it was desirable that the Government should in the next Session of Parliament present to the House a measure for the reform and reconstruction of the existing system, which, without increasing the public charge, should provide for the more effectual, speedy, and economical administration of justice—he thought the proposition was a reasonable one to entertain. But was it proper that the House, at the close of the Session, should introduce a cut-and-dry measure for consideration next Session? The policy was at least questionable, and it was unwise, because it had a tendency to diminish the responsibility of the Government. It was simply to receive an order from the House that a
  1948
  certain measure was to be produced. Was that the mode of obtaining successful legislation? Why, it would enable the Government to shelve the responsibility off their own shoulders, and to lay it on his shoulders and the shoulders of the House. Let not the hon. and learned Member steal a march on the Government; but let him remember that in a similar manner the hon. Member for Brighton had already ordered the Government to introduce a measure for elementary education in Ireland. Was it not better that the Government should be left to act upon their own responsibility than that the function should be taken from them, and that they should be directed by means of abstract Resolutions proposed by private Members to introduce Bills dealing with questions upon which they, as responsible Advisers of the Crown, were not prepared to take action? If he desired to indulge in a tendency to ease and repose—which was not unnatural in one who grew old—he should like nothing better than to be relieved of the responsibility of directing action by a line of conduct similar to that which was being pursued by his hon. and learned Friend. He would admit he had a leaning to the views expressed by his hon. and learned Friend; but he felt it to be his duty to warn the House against entangling itself in the consequences of passing abstract Resolutions. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton seemed to be of opinion that, in reference to the Irish Church legislation, the Government acted upon an abstract Resolution. To an extent he was right; but his hon. Friend, who possessed a good memory, must remember that the action taken was not delayed until a Session after the passing of the Resolution, but came on the following day. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not put the House in the false position in which it would be involved by agreeing to the Motion he had proposed, and that the House itself, if the proposal were pressed to a division, would agree to the original Motion, which was, that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEexpressed his opinion that the view taken by the hon. Member for Brighton with regard to the Irish Church was correct, and that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government really did propose and

  1949
  act upon an abstract Resolution, upon which he brought in a suspensory measure with regard to the property, position, and functions of the clergy, rather than to the general question of the position of the Church itself. At the same time, he agreed in thinking that abstract Resolutions were so unadvisable that it would be unwise in his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) to ask the House to divide upon his Motion. If, therefore, the Motion was pressed he should vote, not against it—for he agreed in the main with the principle involved, more especially with reference to the propositions which had come from the Judicature Commission, which could not remain suspended for many months, and which, under any circumstances, ought to be dealt with in the next Session of Parliament—but he should vote in favour of the proposition that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, for that was nearly similar to the Previous Question. It ought also to be borne in mind that his hon. and learned Friend had not asked the House to vote upon a question of reforming the law generally, but merely as to the machinery by which the law should be administered, and, until he (Mr. Spencer Walpole) knew more clearly what that machinery was to be, he could not vote for an alteration in its processes. He hoped the Government would soon be able to see their way to take up the question, which had long been under consideration, in its broadest sense, and deal with it comprehensively and as a whole.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had asked the hon. and learned Member for Oxford to leave the matter of law reform in the hands of the Government; but, for his own part, he would entreat the hon. and learned Gentleman not to yield to that appeal. After the speeches of the Solicitor and the Attorney General it was manifest that the cause of law reform could not be advantageously intrusted to the Government of which they were Members. Nothing was more directly opposed to anyone's experience than the Solicitor General's statement that the Court of Chancery was a perfect model, and that though it might be costly, it was certainly not dilatory, and was most efficient. It was an absolute anomaly, and the best thing to be done with it would be to treat it as the Court of
  1950
  Chancery in Massachusetts was treated—shut it up, and put a notice on the door—"No more Business to be done here." An eminent American Judge had told him that that course had worked extremely well, and that the State was now rid of an unmitigated nuisance. There was no wrong that the Common Law would not provide a remedy for. As an instance of the delay which occurred in the progress of cases through our Law Courts, he might instance a case in reference to which he had placed a Notice on the Paper—the Tichborne case.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it was irregular in the hon. Gentleman to refer to a Motion not yet before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he only wished to give it as an instance of the costliness, delay, and inefficiency of the present administration of the law. It was the case of a man who for five or six years had been ranging the country.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already stated that the hon. Gentleman's reference to a Motion not yet before the House was irregular.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had abandoned that Motion, and he believed he was at liberty to refer to the Tichborne case as one of the greatest scandals to the administration of justice in this country. He wished to ask the Home Secretary, if he would not put an end, with as little delay as possible, to that great scandal.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, this was irregular, and he must call upon the hon. Gentleman to proceed with the subject immediately before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was aware that he had no right of reply, but wished to say just a sentence in answer to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The Solicitor General having put the issue on this ground—that neither the House of Commons nor the country cared about law reform, he (Mr. V. Harcourt) thought that that point ought to be tested. There was no doubt that the Solicitor General did not care about law reform.
  MR. WHITWELLremarked that although only one Gentleman connected with the commercial interests of the

  1951
  country had had an opportunity of taking part in that discussion, yet commercial men were particularly alive to the importance and also the urgency of reform in the administration of the law, and would not long remain content with the law as it stood. If the Report of the Judicature Commission stimulated the Government into action, it would do great good to the community; but as he saw no practical issue to the Resolution which had been moved, he should vote against it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 45: Majority 15.
  Original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTINGS.

  WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.
  MR. RYLANDS, in withdrawing a Motion of which he had given Notice,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient during the period of the Session when there are Morning Sittings, to take opposed Votes in Committee of Supply on Friday nights, after the Motions on going into Committee have been disposed of,"
  complained strongly that, without any Notice on the Paper or otherwise, there should be a Saturday Morning Sitting, totally regardless of any arrangements which private Members might have made. It was the result of the policy of the Government in endeavouring to push forward measures which there was no time adequately to discuss.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, that although he did not ordinarily take a prominent part in matters of the kind, he had received so many representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House of the great inconvenience which they would be subjected to from the holding of a Morning Sitting to-morrow (Saturday), owing to the shortness of the Notice which had been given, that he felt he could not do otherwise than make the strongest possible remonstrance against the course taken by the Government upon the point. He was quite aware of the difficulty in which the Government were placed in endeavouring to get the Business
  1952
  before the House completed in any reasonable time. But the measure set down for the Morning Sitting was one that had attracted much more than common attention, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend would not think it necessary to take a Saturday Sitting in the face of the fact that several hon. Members had left town under the impression that the Licensing Bill would not be proceeded with until some day next week.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcomplained of the sudden and unexpected way in which the determination of the Government to sit on Saturday had been conveyed to the House.
  MR. MONK, on the other hand, stated that, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had given quite as full a Notice as was possible under the circumstances.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that early that Session he gave Notice of a Resolution, to the effect that in the event of any alteration of the Meetings of this House being proposed, such alterations should be proposed only on Fridays, and before 5 o'clock, and should then take effect during the ensuing week. It was quite true that the presumption of the House was that they were here always, and it appeared that they were almost always there in fact. At the same time, it was impossible to keep more than 600 hon. Gentlemen always there, who had engagements in different parts of the country. He intended to have gone into the country himself to-morrow, and he should have done so, had he not received a message which prevented him. But for that accident, he should not have been at home in London when the Notices were distributed, and he should have known nothing of the meeting on Saturday, for he had left the House before the announcement was made just before 7 P.M., expecting nothing of the sort. Of course, he was but one out of 600; but sometimes in the event of a division, a single vote was effective. It appeared to him that that was a matter which nearly affected the constitution of that House, for when a certain number of hon. Members only assembled at a very short notice without the knowledge of the great body of the House, that a Sitting was to be held, the hon. Members who assembled constituted a sort of self-appointed Committee, but it was

  1953
  certainly not "the House" that met. It was manifest, then, that unless their Rules comprehended due notice as to the time of meeting, though a certain number of hon. Members might be present in the House, practically it was not "the House" itself that assembled. Having seen the great difference of opinion which prevailed among hon. Members with respect to questions touching the course of Business in that House, and seeing how hon. Members had on those questions allowed themselves to be counted out when they had attempted to bring forward the matter, he determined not to do anything further in reference to the Resolution of which he had given Notice that Session, and withdrew it; for the House seemed not to have a due regard either for its own dignity or efficiency, but wantonly allowed any infringement of privileges. By the present arrangements of the House unofficial Members were precluded from bringing forward questions in which they felt a deep interest. He trusted that in the next Session, if not in that, they would come to some Resolution which would ensure to all hon. Members of the House that they should, on Fridays, know at what hour the House was to meet in the ensuing week.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was extremely sorry if he had done wrong; but he did not wish to waste time in defending the course he had pursued, because he believed he had in this matter acted in accordance with precedents familiar to the majority of the House; and, further, he was informed that a Sitting on Saturday having been ordered by the House, the Resolution was now irrevocable. He, therefore, saw no grounds for consuming the time at that hour (half-past 1 o'clock) in discussing the question.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcontended that no sufficient Notice had been given that there was to be a Morning Sitting on Saturday. He would appeal to Mr. Speaker to say whether the course which had been adopted was not irregular.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there had been no irregularity in the matter. The House was quite at liberty to fix a meeting on Saturday without specific Resolution to that effect, although occasionally the House had thought proper to pass such a Resolution. On the Report
  1954
  of the Committee on the Licensing Bill at the Morning Sitting, he had distinctly put the Question that the Committee should be resumed at 12 o'clock on Saturday, and, as it was not challenged, of course the Committee was fixed for that time.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, that after what had passed, he would only desire that what he had said might be considered as a remonstrance against the recurrence of such a Resolution without longer Notice being given.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental* (253); Law Officers (England) Fees* (254).
Second Reading—Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (243); Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* (247); Wild Birds Protection (248); Bastardy Law Amendment* (244); Judges' Salaries* (242.)
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (224–255); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (229–256).
Committee—Report—Masters and Workmen (Arbitration)* (234); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2)* (240).
Report—Inclosure Law Amendment (238), negatived; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (212); Grand Juries, Middlesex* (235).
Third Reading—Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225), and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS— SCHEME FOR HUGHES' CHARITY, BEAUMARIS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE BISHOP OF BANGOR, having presented Petitions from the Feoffes and from Conference at Bangor against the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the better management of the Charity of David Hughes, founded in 1609 at Beaumaris, in the county of Anglesey, moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme. The right rev. Prelate complained that whereas by the will of the founder the Bishop of the diocese for the time being was necessarily a trustee, the Endowed Schools Commissioners had omitted his name from amongst the ex-officio members. The Commissioners justified their action by the 17th section of the Act, which, however, merely provided that no person should be disqualified from being a member of a Governing Body on the ground of his religious faith; and he confessed he could not see how that could be construed to mean that the Bishop of the diocese on the instance of the parishioners was unfitted for the office. Another objection was to the removal of the school from Beaumaris; and a third was as to the sale of lands or portion of the endowment.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the better management of the Charity of David Hughes, founded A.D. 1609, at Beaumaris in the county of Anglesey.—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners were in no way to blame for leaving out the Bishop from among the ex-officio Governors. A doubt having arisen as to the meaning of the 17th and 19th clauses of the Act under which the Commis-
  1858
  sioners framed their scheme, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken on the point last year, and they gave an opinion that it was not competent to the Commissioners to appoint an ecclesiastical corporation to be a trnstee. On that ground, and that ground alone, the name of the Bishop had been left out by the Commissioners, and he thought it furnished an ample justification for their conduct. As to the general question, he believed the right rev. Prelate admitted that the school had not been working satisfactorily; and it was on the invitation of a great many persons in the county of Anglesey that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had been induced to go out of their way to take up the foundation. The removal from Beaumaris, to which the right rev. Prelate had objected, had been decided on because there was a great preponderance of evidence in favour of the desirability on account of convenience to the inhabitants of the Isle of Anglesey, of having it in a more central part of the island than the town of Beaumaris; while, with regard to the last objection, what had been proposed was solely with a view to promote and extend the usefulness of the school as much as possible. He hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on the contrary, trusted the House would agree to the Motion, and would thus exercise that influence which the Act vested in it of stopping, if it thought fit, any of the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. He thought that the two Houses of Parliament ought to be satisfied with being the guardians of the spirit of the Act, leaving the guardianship of its letter to the Courts of Law. Judged by that rule, the scheme now under discussion was undoubtedly opposed to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Act, as it was understood in both Houses at the time of its passing. Now, it was well known that a great many founders in former times, anxious to leave their property for the promotion of religious education, indicated that desire, in the clearest possible manner, by appointing, as ex-officio trustees, various spiritual corporations, such as rectors, vicars, and Bishops. Well, when the Act passed, it was supposed that it would give effect in a broad manner to the wishes generally of the

  1859
  founders of the schools that might be dealt with; but it was never imagined that it would be made the instrument of a system of Dissenting raids upon the Church of England endowments. In an evil hour, however, the point now raised by this scheme was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown; and they, moved by one of those strange caprices that sometimes overtook the clearest intellects, determined that the clause which declared that you should not establish a test of religious opinion for trustees, excluded Bishops and vicars from being ex-officio trustees altogether. Such was certainly not the intention of either House when the Act passed; and however much it might be its letter, he felt certain it was not its spirit. The clause was only intended to exclude tests as directly applied; but it was not intended to make the Commissioners assume that because a man held a particular office he must hold particular opinions. In the present case the intention of the founder of the school was clear. He directed that the Bishop of the diocese should not only be a permanent trustee, but also gave him two votes in the election of the schoolmaster; yet the Bishop was now to be excluded altogether from the trust. The question raised by this scheme was not merely one turning on a point of law, nor was it only a dispute between the Church of England and Dissenters. The fact was, that the latter, in order to carry out their views, were obliged to fight in the uniform and under the banner of the friends of secular education, and if their Lordships approved of the course taken in this matter by the Commissioners at the instance of the Dissenters, the result would be this—not that ex-officio Dissenting trustees would take the place of ex-officio Church of England trustees, but that trustees would have to be appointed who had no connection with any spiritual office or body whatever. That appeared to him a retrograde system. He regretted that the time was passed when this point could have been made the subject of judicial interpretation.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that this Session the Endowed Schools Commissioners had to acknowledge great forbearance—perhaps he should rather say neglect—on the part of Parliament. Only once—in the case of the Grammar School at Ripon—had there been an
  1860
  attempt to ask the opinion of the other House on their proceedings, and the present was the first occasion on which those proceedings had been in any way brought under the notice of their Lordships. However, the proverb—"It never rains but it pours," was likely to hold good in this instance, because there were no fewer than three cases in which objection was to be made this evening to schemes formed by the Commissioners. He could not say that out-of-doors matters had been quite equally smooth for him and his Colleagues. He had been called "a pedantic nobleman" one time, and "an amiable nobleman" another time; he hardly knew which was the worst. He had been compared to Mr. Ayrton, one of the Assistant Commissioners, and to Judas Iscariot. But still he believed that, especially since the issue of their Report—a Report which had been generally received in a tone of compassionate contempt—the result of their labours had been to give such an impetus to secular education in the direction of the principles of the Schools Inquiry Report, that if, to the general satisfaction of mankind, they were themselves to be swept from the earth to-morrow, what they had done would have produced lasting and substantial effects; and, in that case, all the invective and all the compassion might go to their own place. In the Beaumaris case the Commissioners were accused of something like sharp practice in having so timed the day of laying the scheme before Parliament that there was barely time for its consideration. With this, however, they had nothing whatever to do; it was wholly in the hands of the Education Department. That Department was well able to defend itself. He would only say that if they did mean sharp practice they chose an odd way of doing it, for the schemes were before Parliament on July 4, when it was quite doubtful if they would not have to stand over till next Session. As to the complaint about the removal of the school from Beaumaris, that step had not been decided on by the Commissioners without a full consideration of all the circumstances, and the most ample local inquiry. The people of Beaumaris no doubt objected, as everyone always did, to the withdrawal of any portion of the endowments which it possessed; but it was assuredly the duty of the Commis-

  1861
  sioners to take a broader view, including the whole of the district around, and in that view they were satisfied; and he asserted, without troubling the House with details—which, however, he was able to do if required—that the course actually proposed was the best even for Beaumaris itself, the county of Anglesey generally, and the adjacent parts of Wales. As to the legal point, he admitted—and it was only what they had said in their Report—that they did not agree in the opinion of the Law Officers. In fact, his former colleague, Mr. Hob-house, a most enlightened and liberal man, and anything but a Church partizan, looking at the matter as a highly-competent lawyer, said it never occurred to him to consider that, under Clause 17, they were debarred from appointing whoever they pleased as an ex-officio Governor. The marginal heading in the Act was of course no authority, but he quoted it as indicating what seemed the reasonable view—that if a man's social and official position indicated him—as was constantly the case, for instance, with respect to the incumbent of the parish—as a proper ex-officio Governor, his religious opinions should not disqualify him. He much wished that this point might be brought to judicial decision, about which he could not suppose there could be any serious difficulty. At present the Commissioners thought themselves bound to construe the 17th and 19th sections strictly; if they were wrong, they desired to be so informed by superior and competent authority. But he did hope that the House would not on this single and separate point, which might be afterwards dealt with, reject schemes which—especially the Felstead scheme—he believed would be very acceptable in the districts concerned.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he also hoped their Lordships would not adopt a course which would be in the highest degree inexpedient—namely, that of rejecting several schemes proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners upon a point of law arising in the construction of an Act of Parliament, when the House had no power, by mere Resolution, to determine what was the proper construction of the Act. The proper course was to put the point at issue—the appointment of spiritual persons as ex-officio Governors—in train for legal decision, He was not going to ex-
  1862
  press an opinion upon the construction of these two clauses, a point which might be argued by way of appeal before the Privy Council. The case was not clear. It was obvious that the marginal note had operated upon the mind of the right rev. Prelate; but it must be dismissed from consideration, because no Court of Law could take cognizance of a marginal note. The 19th clause simply provided for Church schemes and schemes for other religious denominations, and provided in the interest of religious instruction certain exemptions from the 17th clause, and the 17th section simply meant that, having regard to denominational schools, care should be taken that the religious opinions of a person appointed trustee should in no way affect his qualification. But when they said that a clergyman of the Established Church, a Roman Catholic priest, or a Jewish Rabbi might be ex-officio trustees, was it not thereby meant that they should so act as long as they remained a clergyman, a priest, or a Rabbi, and no longer? Suppose the clergyman were deprived of his incumbency or status in the Church for holding Roman Catholic or Unitarian views, was he to continue to hold the position of trustee, notwithstanding he had ceased to hold the religious opinions which had led to his appointment as trustee? The point was an arguable one, and ought to be decided not by a vote of this House, but by solemn argument and decision.
  LORD CAIRNS, in the first place, desired to call their Lordships' attention to the various and important points before the House. He was not going into local details, with regard to which he had no information; nor was he going to inquire whether it was wise to give facilities for the selling of land left in trust. He was, however, very much in favour of property being sold, and the purchase money invested, as he thought this course would be convenient for the charities. There was one point of the case which affected the present scheme. It was narrow and precise, but still an important and practical point. It was this—Was the Bishop or the incumbent of the parish to be the only person disqualified from filling the office of trustee? He thought the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had troubled himself unnecessarily in supposing that these Motions were directed in any way against the Endowed

  1863
  Schools Commissioners, who took the view that it was a hardship that they should be debarred by the restriction of the Act from appointing a Bishop or incumbent to be an ex-officio trustee. As he understood their meaning, it was that the Endowed Schools Commissioners should not be debarred from appointing a Bishop or rector as ex-officio trustee. What he maintained was this—that the Endowed Schools Commissioners might really feel that, irrespective of his opinions, the Bishop of a diocese or the rector of a parish was a fit and proper person for such appointment, and he should say the same in the like case of a Roman Catholic Bishop or parish priest. These were generally the most fitting persons in point of position, dignity, and permanency to be the trustees of these schools. The 17th clause had been referred to, but that clause said that in every scheme the Commissioners should provide that the religious opinions of any person should not in any way affect his qualification as one of the Governing Body. But was it not on the ground of his religious opinions that the Bishop was now excluded? Then, the result of the construction put upon the clause was that the Bishop was now one of the persons prevented from being a trustee of the school upon the ground of his religious opinions. He would not have said so much if he were sure that the question would be brought to a legal decision. His right rev. Friend knew very well from experience that the wording of the 39th clause was very peculiar and somewhat narrow. If, however, the Endowed School Commissioners appointed a Bishop, and somebody challenged the appointment on the ground of its illegality, the question might be tried. But if the Endowed School Commissioners felt themselves debarred from appointing a Bishop, he did not see how the question could be raised in a Court of Law. That being the state of the case, he trusted their Lordships would agree to the Address moved by the right rev. Prelate.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he should be sorry if the idea should go forth to the public that there had been any disrespect shown on the part of the Education Department to either that or the other House of Parliament. The scheme in this case was laid before this House on the very first day on which it
  1864
  could possibly be done. The scheme was sent into the Department on the 17th of April; a fortnight was usually given by the Department in order that representations might be made by parties concerned, but in this case there were two days less. The scheme was approved on the 29th of April, it was advertised on the 4th of May, and after the lapse of two months, upon the 4th of July, it was laid before the House.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 50: Majority 14.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SCHOOL AT FELSTEAD.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Felstead in the county of Essex,—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
  Objected to; and, on question, agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SCHOOL AT TIDESWELL.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Tideswell in the county of Derby—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Objected to; and, on question, agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)

(NO. 238.) REPORT OF AMENDMENT.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read.
Moved, That the said Report be now received.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in moving that the Report be received on that day three months, said, he did so on the ground that the Bill was an invasion of the rights of property in the case of lords of the manors.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that when the Bill was before the House on previous occasions, lords of manors jumped up right and left and declared that it would confiscate their rights. He (Lord Kinnaird), however, could not for the life of him make out what those rights were. The lords of manors were something like the dog in the manger; they could not inclose commons themselves, and they wished to prevent other people from inclosing. The poor, however, had extensive common rights, and, in his opinion, every exertion possible ought to be made to preserve those rights in a legitimate manner. Instead of that, he thought this Bill did not go far enough in the protection of those rights, but that it went too far in favour of the interests of lords of manors. After the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had endeavoured to meet the objections of noble Lords opposite, he was rather surprised that the noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland), who, he supposed, was one of the lords of manors, should rise up to oppose the reception of the Report.
EARL NELSONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) had shown that he knew nothing of lords of manors or of their rights. Political economists said that all these inclosures were for the benefit of landlords, and not for the benefit of the people; but that, to say the least of it, was a great exaggeration. He believed these inclosures were greatly for the benefit of the people. These inclosures had brought more land into cultivation, and in that way tended to raise both the price of labour throughout the country and the productive power of the land. At present he had two parishes—one where everything had been inclosed, and the other about five miles off where there was a large common; and he was quite certain that the people in the inclosed parish were better off than the people in the other parish. Lords of the manor were willing to give sites for churches, chapels, and burial grounds, schools, recreation, and allotment grounds where they were required; but they objected to this being made a general rule, applicable to cases where such grants would serve no useful purpose. Instead of passing that crude Bill it would be better to refer the matter to a Select Committee next Session.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not deny that legislation on the subject might be desirable, but must urge that the Bill could not be properly considered by the House of Commons, which had more pressing business before it, and that Amendments made by that House could not be adequately discussed here, at the very end of the Session. The noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird), who had come forward as the advocate of donkeys and geese, might rest assured that their interests would be better served by the defeat of the Bill than by its passing.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that while he did not wish to complain of the opposition offered to the Bill at that stage, he thought the course pursued by noble Lords opposite somewhat illogical; for if they disapproved of the principle of the Bill, it should have been opposed on the second reading; and if they disapproved of its details they might have amended them in Committee. He denied that the Bill was crude; that it had been carelessly considered, or that it was carelessly drawn and a measure of confiscation, sanctioning the levying of black mail. The subject had been under the consideration of the other House during three years; it had been discussed by two Select Committees; and the fact that commons had remained uninclosed must have made known to those interested that legislation was pending, so that they could not complain of being taken by surprise. The Bill, moreover, had been severely criticised on six different occasion in that House; but, notwithstanding the severity of the ordeal to which it had been subjected, the portion of the Bill referring to suburban commons had hardly been touched upon, no substantial Amendment being made; and though as to rural commons, Amendments had been made, the main features of the measure had not been injured, remaining practically the same as when introduced into that House. It proceeded upon no new principle as alleged; but was, in fact, a supplementary measure to the Act of 1845, and if it was a measure of confiscation, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland), to be consistent, would have to move the repeal of previous Acts upon the subject. The fact was, Parliament did not wish to inclose commons; it merely facilitated inclosures when they were desired, and in return exacted certain,

1867
conditions. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) admitted that the State had a right to take a certain amount of land in return for the privileges which it granted; and the question in dispute between them was merely one of degree. The noble Marquess said one-tenth was too much; he (the Earl of Morley) said that the proportion settled by the Act of 1845—namely, 1 per cent, was obviously insufficient, and that the minimum of 10 per cent fixed by the Bill was a great improvement, and far from excessive. The question of facilitating the inclosure of commons was one of State policy; but he would remind their Lordships that there was a great and influential party in the country, not merely of one political complexion—and who, moreover, were constantly increasing in strength—who desired that commons should be kept open for public use. He ventured to ask their Lordships whether they, like the noble Marquess, trusted to the mutability of the human mind, in the hope of securing a better bargain than that offered by the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say, on the occasion referred to, the mutability of the human mind, but the mutability of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, however that might be, many persons regarded the terms offered by the Bill as being far more favourable than they should be; and he would ask those who wished to keep open the commons to consider whether it would be wise to refuse that offer in the hope, based upon the mutability of the House of Commons, that at some future time they would obtain better terms. In conclusion, he must say he hoped the House would not accede to the proposal of the noble Duke.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, his reason for opposing the further progress of the Bill was the time of the Session. They ought, on no account, to send down a Bill to the other House when that House had already more business than they knew what to do with, and had slaughtered a great number of important Bills which they were unable to pass. If this measure were sent down to the House of Commons at so late a period of the Session, it would, on account of the Government having been defeated on some
1868
clauses and provisions of the Bill which they wished to retain, be returned to them with Amendments which they had already discussed and rejected. In the interests of legislation, therefore, their Lordships should not set the example of sending measures down to the other House at a period of the Session when it was impossible they could be properly discussed, and especially when they considered that they had a right to expect that measures would come up to them at a proper period of the Session. He wished to know why this Bill had not been introduced earlier. The subject had been under the consideration of two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and yet the noble Lord, having the whole matter fully before him before the commencement of the Session, had not thought proper to introduce this measure until the 21st of June, with the result that their Lordships were discussing in the fourth week in July the propriety of sending it down to the House of Commons. He thought that circumstance alone was sufficient to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but would tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale) why the Bill had not been introduced sooner. He (Earl Granville) had always done his best to get Bills introduced into the House at an early period, notwithstanding the great inconvenience and disadvantage which was generally acknowledged—and especially by Lord Grey—to be attendant upon bringing Bills first into that House. That objection, however, was felt to apply so strongly to this and other Bills, that he was not able to give their Lordships an opportunity of considering the measure at the beginning of the Session. He should not relax his efforts in future; but he was not sure that he should be strengthened by the course taken by their Lordships with regard to the Bill under discussion. They were asked on various grounds to reject the Bill. It was said that it would not be courteous to send down the Bill at so late a period; but he believed the other House would be glad to receive a Bill which retained in the main the provisions recommended by a Select Committee of their own House. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland) said the Bill interfered with

1869
the rights of property, and other arguments were urged against it; but it appeared to him that the course proposed to be pursued in rejecting it was most illogical. In the first Committee on the Bill, unexpectedly, there was a majority in favour of certain clauses; and he could understand the normal majority saying that as those clauses had been agreed to because they were away, they must stop the Bill in some other manner. But that was not done. The majority insisted that the Bill should be re-committed; and when it was re-committed, the majority carried out their views with regard to every point of the Bill; yet now they said that, as they had been so successful, they were bound to reject the Bill at this stage. A more unreasonable course he had never seen taken.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 65: Majority 12.
Resolved in the Negative; and Report to be received this day three months.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)

(NO. 224.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Preliminary.
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

PART I.
Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 21, to leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve"), said, it had not been his intention to move any Amendments in the Bill, having been prepared to accept it as it was, however imperfect he thought it; but yesterday he received, to his astonishment—and he might almost say to his dismay—a Paper entitled "Amendments suggested by Coal owners and Coal Mine proprietors," which seemed to him to strike at some of the main provisions of the measure. He confessed that he had hardly believed that there could be gentlemen in posses-
1870
sion of coal mines who were prepared to resist a measure of that character coming from the House of Commons. Nevertheless, he was determined to take the advice once given to him by the late Duke of Wellington, who said—"Depend upon it that no point is good for defence, unless it is equally good for attack;" and therefore, under the circumstances he had stated, he now meant to propose some Amendments of his own in the Bill, with a view to make it more after his own heart. He had not, however really believed that there was any serious intention of introducing such Amendments on the part of the coal owners as he had referred to; but he found from the Notice Paper that morning that an Amendment was to be proposed and supported by no less a person than the noble Duke the leader of the Conservative party in that House. Therefore, he now desired to substitute in clause under notice the words "12 years" for "10 years" in regard to the age of boys working in coal mines. When the Factory Acts were passed, children under 13 years of age were not to be exposed to a greater amount of labour than 5, or at most 5½ hours, under what was called the half-time system. In the present Bill, a principle totally the reverse of that was adopted; and children of the tender age of 10 years were to be called upon to sustain the amount of labour that was imposed on adults. The clause, indeed, said that no boy under the age of 10 should be employed, or allowed to be employed, belowground in any mine; he (the Earl of Shaftesbury), however, wished to raise the limit from 10 to 12, so that no boy under 12 should be allowed to descend a mine and be subjected to 54 hours in in the course of a week. He repeated that the half-time system under the Factory Acts applied to children under 13; but in this Bill there was no provision at all of that sort, and children between 10 and 12 years of age, if they descended the mine, were to be subjected to the same period of labour as adults. There was no doubt that the employment of children in factories was very arduous, because it required constant attention, was carried on in a heated atmosphere, and the children had to be continually on their legs; but let them contrast that with the labour they were going to impose on children of 10 years

1871
of age, and upwards, in coal mines. They were to descend at 7 o'clock in the morning into the solitude and darkness of the mine, and to remain in an atmosphere which was in most cases exceedingly oppressive; indeed, the children themselves described it as half-suffocating—and there was no doubt it was productive of great injury to their health. It would seem that no one had read the evidence taken on that subject in 1842 by the body of Commissioners sent out under a Royal Warrant. Mr. Austin, the Commissioner in North Lancashire, gave a most deplorable account of the children employed in mines—
"'I wish,' said one of the mothers, 'you could see them come in, tired as dogs, and throw themselves on the ground like dogs. We cannot get them to bed."
Mr. Franks, Commissioner for the East of Scotland, wrote—
"George Wright, aged 12, says—'Works with father, place wet; water comes up to my knees; work very distressing, being 300 fathoms from coal to pit bottom; makes me very sick.' Poor miserable object,"
says the Commissioner. Hundreds of similar instances might be quoted. [Earl GRANVILLE: That was 30 years ago.] But the system still prevailed exactly as it was then. True, they had removed the women and the girls; but the work now carried on by the boys was precisely what it was in former years, and the condition of the children was now precisely what it was in 1842. He only mentioned these things to show the kind of labour to which they were dooming children of tender age, and that it was the duty of Parliament not to suffer that children of tender years should be subjected to such heavy toil, until their strength enabled them better to bear it. It was pretended, as he understood, that in some mines the seams were so thin that they must have children only 10 years old to work them. That was just the old story that was urged in 1842; and he maintained that it was not a valid argument. Things might easily, he believed, be so managed as to admit of the seams being worked by persons of larger growth; but the coal owners would not do that, and left the thin seams as they were, saying they must be worked by these very young children. He had himself been down into some of those mines, and could tell their Lordships that nothing more
1872
miserable could be conceived than the conditions under which the children worked there. They never stood upright—everything was done on all-fours, or else lying on their backs. Was that a state of things to which they were to reduce boys of 10 years of age, and keep them 54 hour a-week at such intolerable labour? The Commisssoners in their Report in 1842 said—
"There is, however, one case of peculiar difficulty—namely, that in which all the subterranean roadways, and especially the side passages, are below a certain height. By the evidence collected under this Commission, it is proved that there are coal mines at present in which these passages are so small that even the youngest children cannot move along them without crawling on their hands and feet, in which unnatural and constrained posture they drag the loaded carriages after them; and yet, as it is impossible by any outlay compatible with a profitable return to render such coal mines—happily not numerous nor of great extent—fit for human beings to work in, they never will be placed in such a condition, and consequently they never can be worked without inflicting great and irreparable injury on the health of the children."
There were many things to be considered in that matter; but he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) maintained that the grand and paramount consideration was the lives, the health, the morality, and the welfare of those children; and if the mines could not be worked except by exposing such young children to such enormous suffering, the mines ought to be shut up. But let the law forbid the working of those children in that manner, and the employers would find some other means of working the mines. The desire for profit was so strong in the human heart that it would be easy to devise a hundred other modes of working those mines, other than by imposing such cruel tasks on boys of 10 years of age. But they were going further, and requiring that those children should have 20 hours of education per week, in addition to their intolerable toil. With regard to that he would give them the opinion of an Inspector of Schools. He said in one pit 27 collier boys attended night school out of 80—the whole number at school. Could they wonder if, after toiling so long during the day, under circumstances so disadvantageous, they had no spirit or strength left for receiving their education? And what were the comments of the Inspector in reference to the remarks of teachers as to the causes of ignorance and irregular attendance at school? In one case, he said the mining

1873
parents were regardless of the welfare of their children; and that the boys themselves had no relish for school after being confined as they were in the mines. In another case, the Inspector of Schools, in his Return, said—
"The boys attend badly; they are so drowsy after their work that it is difficult to gain their attention. When at school they are anxious to improve."
Why were these children to be treated differently from others employed in factories? He could conceive of no reason, and should therefore move the substitution of 12 for 10, merely surmising that if their Lordships resisted the Amendment, they would be standing in the way of the claims of humanity, and acting inconsistently with the spirit of modern legislation.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the noble Earl opposite had referred to legislation which took place 30 years ago; but the state of things in 1842 was very different from what it was at present. He deprecated the personal allusions which the noble Earl had made to him and to the Amendments which were to be moved; and he thought it would have been well if the noble Earl had made himself more acquainted with them, for if he (the Duke of Richmond) understood the speech of the noble Earl aright, it was to the effect that the noble Earl moved his Amendment not because of anything contained in the Bill, but because of certain other Amendments given Notice of by the noble Duke himself dealing with other parts of the Bill. The reason was extraordinary, for the noble Earl seemed to infer that if these Amendments had not been placed on the Paper, he would not have concerned himself for the welfare of the children. As regards the Amendment, he (the Duke of Richmond) would refer to the assertion of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who had had great experience in mining property, that the children employed in thin seam mines were not less developed than children employed in factories, and that the falls of coal were light and easily managed by children.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, no one would fail to sympathize with the object the noble Earl had in view, but he had utterly misunderstood the drift of the Bill. It was a mistake to suppose the Bill would allow 10 hours' work a-day and give 20 hours' instruction in the week beside.
1874
The noble Earl appeared to have taken no notice of Clause 5, which should be read with Clause 4; and, so read, provided that no child under 12 should be employed in mines, except under certain circumstances prescribed, by Clause 5, and subject to certain provisions for their education laid down in Clause 8. The exceptions referred to thin seam mines, which were few in number, in which the fall of coal was light, and where the work was not continuous. The subject had been much discussed in the other House; it had been the subject of a compromise between those interested; and he hoped the settlement come to would not be disturbed by the pressure of the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYprotested against the assumption made by the noble Lord opposite and noble Earl, that this was merely a question between the employers and the children. There was another important question which related to the consumers of coal. He had been informed by the manager of one of the largest collieries in the country, that the effect of this Bill would be to diminish the output of coal by 18 per cent—that was, it would increase the cost of coal by 18 per cent; and coal being now at 35 s. per ton the price would be raised to 42 s. when the Bill was passed. Surely, that was a sufficient reason for not weighting coal with any heavier weight, such as the restriction of the noble Earl would put upon it. He was afraid the noble Earl, in his wide philanthropy, had not sufficiently considered the probable sufferings of a large class—the poor people who would suffer from the high price of coal during the coming winter—a far larger class than the one he desired to benefit. It was desirable to impose reasonable limits on the labour of children, but such an end must be reached gradually, and we must not show a cruel kindness which would do more harm than good.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that the rise in the wages of miners recently had been only 10 d. per ton, but the masters had raised the price 5s.; and he observed that a large coal owner had declared—and he had heard it with some surprise—that the Bill would add to the expense of working coal, and the owners would take care that the consumers were made to pay for it. He hoped that the noble

1875
Earl would withdraw the Amendment. As the Bill was altogether a compromise between the employers of labour and the miners, he trusted no serious Amendment would be made upon it, though he did think it would be very desirable to raise the age from 12 to 13 years.
LORD DUNSANYreminded their Lordships that, though the rise of wages might have had little direct effect upon prices, it had a large indirect share in that increase, because it had made the colliers idle, many of them working eight days in a fortnight, instead of eleven.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, in reply to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), that his Amendment would have hardly any effect upon the quantity of coal raised, the number of thin seam mines being very few. However anxious their Lordships might be to attend to the interests of the consumer, yet if it could be shown that the mental, moral, and physical welfare of children depended on a certain restriction, that restriction must be made, even though the mines were thereby closed altogether. He was confident, however, that means would in any case be found by the owners to work the mines. As the Bill was a tentative one, he would, however, withdraw his Amendment, merely premising that their Lordships would not expect him to pursue the same course with his other one.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
"A boy under the age of thirteen shall not be employed or be allowed to be for the purposes of employment in any mine to which this Act applies below ground, unless a surgical certificate has been given by a person qualified to give surgical certificates for the purposes of the Factory Acts, to the effect that the boy has the ordinary strength and appearance of a boy of the age required under this Act, in the case of such mine, and that he is not incapacitated by disease or bodily infirmity from working for the times allowed under the provisions of this Act.
"The provisions of this Act as to the registration of school certificates, and as to the forging or counterfeiting of and other offences relating to school certificates, shall apply to a surgical certificate under this section."
1876
The noble Earl said, the provision would be some protection to the child, though it might be but a scanty one.
THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the proportion of boys employed under 12 would be infinitesimally small, and that there was no machinery in the Bill for carrying out the system of examination; and the certificates, even if obtained, were not very valuable.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYreplied that, though the certificates might be at fault in respect to the age, they would show whether there was any bodily infirmity to incapacitate a boy for going down into the mine.
Clause negatived.
Clause 6 (Employment of male young persons in mines).
THE EARL OF MORLEYin moving in page 2, line 11, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); in line 12, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); and in line 13, after ("shall"), to insert the word ("no"), said, the object was to make the lauguage of the clause as nearly as possible the same as that of a similar provision in the Metalliferous Mines Bill.
Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 2, line 15, to leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-six"), as the maximum number of hours during which youths under the age of 16 should be allowed to work underground per week. He claimed the support of noble Lords opposite, on the ground that it was the original proposition of Her Majesty's Government. If 54 was retained this difficulty would arise—The number of hours per day was restricted to 10, which for five days would give 50 hours. Four hours, therefore, only would remain, and he was advised that it would be impossible to work a mine for so short a period. Thus the sixth day would be altogether lost. He therefore thought it right that 56 should be inserted in place of 54.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it would be impossible for the Government to guarantee the acceptance of the Amendment by the other House of Parliament. Fifty-four hours a-week were nine hours a-day for six days, and it was notorious that now a great many men throughout England were working for that time. The clause, moreover, re-

1877
ferred to young persons under 16 working underground.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the great mass of the mining population were very anxious that 54 hours should be distributed over the six days of the week, which was nine hours a-day. The House of Commons had sent up to their Lordships a great remedial measure, and, beating the Government, had declared that 54 hours ought to be the limit of toil imposed upon children under 16. Would it be becoming, therefore, that their Lordships should stand out in opposition to the humane feeling of the House of Commons? Their Lordships would do more to create disaffection in the mining population by such a course than by any other which they could adopt. Two hours of toil, more or less, was a thing that should not be talked of lightly. He would say that the moral effect of this House declaring that it would go beyond the House of Commons in imposing an amount of toil upon the people of this country would be the worst possible.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that this was not a question either of humanity or popularity, but simply of justice. It was not for noble Lords to urge upon their Lordships to take a popular view in a case in which the Members neither of that nor of the other House had the slightest interest. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) went on to talk of this House imposing two additional hours of work on the mining population. But that was not the way to look at the matter. The fact was, that their Lordships were asked to prevent these poor men from earning two additional hours' wages by means of their children's labour. By doing so they imposed a law upon the country which destroyed trade, and was subversive of liberty.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that this was not a question of the Members of their Lordships' House seeking to impose a maximum of work on the mining population; but that it was the duty of this House to do what was right. He doubted very much whether any of their Lordships had any personal interest in the matter, and thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was fond of assuming that he stood alone in the cause of humanity, and unless everyone agreed with him the moment he proposed any-
1878
thing, that they were oppressors, and that he was the sole guardian of the interests of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] It was no doubt right that young people should have as light a task as could possibly be assigned to them. But the case was this—They were giving the power of working these young persons for 10 a-day during the first part of the week, and it was stated that it was not worth while to open the pits for four hours' work. In fact, the pits could not be opened for the adults unless they were attended by the younger persons. Therefore, by retaining 54 hours their Lordships ran the risk of throwing impediments in the way of opening the mine at all on the sixth day of the week. He thought, however, his noble Friend would do well by not going to a division on this point, as the subject had not probably been so fully considered by their Lordships as it had by the other House.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had charged him with arrogating to himself a monopoly of humanity in that House, and he believed the noble and learned Lord said elsewhere also. He was sorry to hear that statement of the noble and learned Lord received with cheers by their Lordships. But the noble Lord was a lawyer, and he believed that a lawyer was entitled to say anything he liked, whether founded or unfounded. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) most solemnly declared that he had not arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity either in that House or elsewhere. He had seen a great deal that caused much suffering, and, by God's blessing, he had done his best to remove it; and he did not think that at the close of his life he should be told in the House of Lords by a distinguished Member of it that he arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that no person admired more than himself the great efforts which had been made by the noble Earl on behalf of humanity. As to the charge which the noble Earl had made against lawyers, he did not think it necessary to make any defence.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 22, after ("of") to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys"); and in line 23, after ("of") to insert ("a signal, to be defined by the special rules of the mine, being given for"); and in same line after ("surface") insert ("after which signal the whole of the said group or shift shall cease work, and shall return to the surface without delay.") The noble Duke observed that by the Bill boys could be employed only a certain number of hours in the day; and by the clause, if a boy on returning to the surface from the pit should be delayed beyond the allotted time through coming up last the owner would be liable to a penalty. In some mines the distance from the bottom to the surface was very considerable. He therefore proposed, with the view of relieving the owner of a mine from penalties in the case of boys being detained in a mine beyond the time designated by the Bill during which they should be employed, that the boys employed in a mine should be counted in groups, so that the last who arrived in a group should, for the purpose of avoiding the penalties in question, be deemed to have arrived at the surface as early as the first of that group. He was decidedly of opinion that it would be impossible to carry out the clause as it stood.
Amendment moved, after ("of") line 22, to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that in many mines there were no means of giving any such signal as that proposed in the Amendment. He admitted that the clause was not perfect. The average time should be taken; and mine owners would be protected by this—that proceedings could be taken against them only by Inspectors, with the sanction of the Home Secretary, so that proceedings would not be taken in any trivial case.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that it was not right that mine owners should be exposed to the consequences of this highly penal clause at the option of a Secretary of State and the Inspector in a case where, perhaps, there was no real fault.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONurged that the clause was sufficiently guarded.
LORD CAIRNSalso thought it objectionable to make a regulation which could not be strictly complied with, leaving it to the Home Secretary and Inspector to enforce the penalty or not. He suggested that the time might be reckoned from the hour of the first shift leaving the surface to the hour of the first shift returning to the surface, and that all the other shifts should stop work when the first shift was sent up.
THE EARL OF MORLEYcould not accept the suggestion, for it would not compel the manager to bring up all the shifts, and there would be no security for work being stopped.
On Question, Whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 30: Majority 6.
Resolved in the Negative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving in line 36, to leave out ("six") and insert ("eight") said, he objected to the rule that women and children employed aboveground should be allowed one and a-half hours for refreshment during every period of labour exceeding six hours. The effect would be that in case of six and a-half hours' labour one and a-half hours would be deducted for meals, leaving only five hours' actual work. Such a rule could not be essential to health with regard to work aboveground.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwas willing to accept the Amendment modified, so as to afford to any woman and child half-an-hour's interval during every period of five hours' work, and one and a-half hours' interval for every period of eight hours' work.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved in page 7, line 5, after ("agent") to leave out ("and") and insert ("or"); in line 6, to leave out ("each"); in line 7, after ("if") to insert ("he shall");

1881
and in line 8, after ("had") to leave out ("taken all reasonable means by publication and enforcement of") and insert ("published and taken all reasonable means to enforce"). The noble Duke said, it seemed to him that the provisions therein embodied were of the most extraordinary character. He had always understood that every man was assumed to be innocent till it was proved before a competent tribunal that he was guilty; but in the clause the owner, agent, and the manager of the mine were selected for prosecution as guilty of an offence which somebody else might have committed. That was a subversion of the usual course of legislation, and rather a violent innovation. The possibility of making three different persons responsible was conferring too much latitude. If the noble Earl would turn to the Factory Acts he would find that the occupier was the only person proceeded against criminally.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the language objected to by the noble Duke had been introduced into the clause on the Motion of a former Colleague of the noble Lord. An accident might arise from the negligence, in different degrees, of the owner, the agent, and the manager; and it would be a great error if only one of those parties was held liable. He trusted that their Lordships would maintain the clause as it stood.
LORD CAIRNSsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that if the owner, agent, or manager were not found guilty constructively, they might go scot free. Their responsibility should be better defined. If an accident should take place from the violation or neglect of these rules, was the owner to be responsible if he found that the rules had been frustrated? Or how was he to prove that all reasonable precautions had been taken? In what method was the proof to be established? He would move the addition of certain words in order to remove difficulties that might otherwise occur in the working of the clause.
THE EARL OF MORLEYaccepted the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, on the understanding that they should be subject, if necessary, to revision on the report.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.

PART II.—RULES.
General Rules.
Clause 52 (General rules).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 28, line 5, after ("same") add—
("and the said report shall be kept according to the form in the Schedule annexed to this Act; and the owner or agent of every coal mine shall transmit to the inspector of the district at the beginning of each month a report for the preceding month in the above-named form.")
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the perusal of the Reports suggested by the noble Duke would impose an immense amount of additional work upon the Inspectors, and the Reports themselves would be of very little practical utility.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that some such Reports should be furnished, at a reasonable interval, say four times a-year, and these would impose no unreasonable amount of labour upon the Inspectors. Perhaps the noble Earl would think over the matter, and see whether he could not adopt the suggestion in some shape upon the Report.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwould be happy to consider the suggestion, but doubted whether it could be adopted.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
Special Rules.
Clause 53 (Special rules).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out that the clause exempted from penalties owners, agents, and managers who had taken all reasonable precautions against explosions, while the Proviso prevented the operation of the exemption. He moved the omission of such Proviso.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the managers of a railway company might lay down stringent rules with reference to the working of points and signals, but those rules might not be enforced, and a serious accident might happen in consequence; and yet, in any inquiry that followed, the railway company might try to shield themselves from responsibility by appealing to the stringent rules they had laid down. It was to prevent such a course of action as that that the provision had been inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the rules must not only be pub-

1883
listed but enforced in order to secure the advantage of the exemption.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was still of opinion that the words ought not to remain, and expressed his intention to adhere to his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwould not press his objection.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 57 (Neglect to make special rules).
THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved the omission of the word "manager" from the exempting Proviso of the clause. The object of the clause was to make provision for special rules, and the manager ought to be rendered absolutely liable if these rules were not made.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the Amendment. All through the Bill the three persons dealt with were the owner, agent, and manager, and none of them were held liable if they proved that they had taken all reasonable means for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Why, then, should the manager be struck out of this exempting Proviso?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.

PART III.—SUPPLEMENTAL.
Penalties.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 (Imprisonment for wilful neglect endangering life or limb).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 37, line 18, after ("section") insert—
("or by which conviction the sum adjudged to be paid amounts to or exceeds half the maximum penalty.")
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 255.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

(NO. 248.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not understand why some wild birds were put in the Schedule of this Bill while others were excluded.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the swallow, marten, swift, and skylark should be protected. He also favoured protecting the barn owl. He understood thrushes and blackbirds had been excluded on account of their being destructive to fruit.
LORD CAIRNSprotested against unnecessary legislation. He did not believe there was any wholesale destruction of swallows.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsuggested the postponement of the Bill till next Session.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdid not believe there was a single insectivorous bird which was not useful to man. He did not see why all birds should not be protected during the breeding season.
THE LORD CHANCELLORfeared that many persons would incur penalties through ignorance, cockney sportsmen not knowing what birds they destroyed.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock