Sitting of 4 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading—Revising Barristers* [221].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature [154] —R.P.; Entailed and Settled Estates (Scotland) [130]—R.P.; Infanticide Law Amendment* [42], deferred.
Committee—Report—Highland Schools (Scotland)* [202].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption)* [204]; Black-water Bridge (Composition of Debt)* [177], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS BILL.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. WHALLEYbegged to call the attention of the House to a subject somewhat personal to himself, and in doing so regretted the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), to whom it applied. That hon. and learned Gentleman on a recent occasion, in alluding to him, said that inasmuch as he had been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench for contempt of Court, and in a letter to one of the morning journals commented unfairly on the evidence, and imputed unworthy motives—
MR. BOWRINGrose to Order. The hon. Gentleman introduced topics with which the House had nothing whatever to do.
MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to what had occurred in a debate during the present Session; but it was usual in cases like the present, where personal explanations became necessary, to grant considerable latitude. He must, however, remind the hon. Member that whatever might be the explanation required, the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom reference was made ought to be in his place.

FRANCE—TREATY OF COMMERCE, 1872.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MIALLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, if the Treaty of Commerce with France, signed on the 5th November 1872, is not to be ratified, Her Ma-
  1784
  jesty's Government will urge a permanent most favoured nation article, which shall effectually prevent the state of uncertainty which at present exists, as to the future of our commercial relations with France; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will urge the introduction of such improvements in the management of the French Customs, with reference to expertise and classification of goods, as were agreed upon in Paris between the Commissioners appointed by their respective Governments?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the Treaty of the 5th November last was referred, on the recent change of Government in France, to the Conseil Supérieur du Commerce de I'Agriculture et de I'Industrie, and until the Conseil makes its Report, which is shortly expected, no formal negotiations on the subject of the Treaty can be entered into; but the two Governments are exchanging unofficial communications, which it is to be hoped may facilitate the attainment of an arrangement satisfactory to both countries. It would be premature to state the nature of those communications; but the House may rest assured that the interests of British commerce, both as regards commerce generally and as regards the details of such matters as expertise and classification of goods, will be carefully watched over by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, who has full instructions for his guidance, and by whom the negotiation will be conducted.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CHIPPING NORTON MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his remarks in answer to a question on June 6th, upon the conduct of the two justices of Chipping Norton for sending certain women to prison for an offence which he admitted was fully proved, with no evidence for the defence, under the provisions of an Act quoted, upon what authority he then stated
  "That those justices, instead of sending the women to prison, ought either to have bound them over in their own recognizances to appear and submit to the sentence, when called on, or that it would have been quite competent for the magistrates, on the evidence before them, to convict those who had taken the most active

  1785
  part in the disturbance for an assault, and to fine them, enforcing the fine, if necessary, by imprisonment;"
  and, as he further added,
  "that neither of those courses appeared to have occurred to the magistrates, and the case did seem to show a very grave want of discretion,"
  whether he is prepared to state that either of those courses suggested by him would have been in conformity with the Law?
  MR. COBBETTasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be well to order that the depositions taken before the magistrates and the summonses should be laid before the House, in order that it might form an opinion for itself on the whole merits of the case?
  MR. BRUCE: I believe, Sir, that either of the courses referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet, as also a third course—namely, the absolute dismissal of the case against some of the women charged—would have been within the competency of the magistrates. I did not make my statement on this subject without consulting one of the most eminent and experienced of the London Police Magistrates as to the Law, and as to the practice of the Magistrates in similar cases. Nothing is more common than to dismiss with a warning from the Bench persons charged with slight offences, or even less prominent participators in graver offences, although legally subject to punishment; and the practice of binding prisoners to appear on their own recognizances to receive sentence when called upon to do so is one frequently resorted to in the higher Courts of Justice, and occasionally by justices of the peace. The substitution of the charge of assault for a graver charge would be also within the competency of a magistrate to recommend. But when that is done the prisoner must, of course, be allowed the opportunity of rebutting by evidence the substituted charge. A large power is given to magistrates in the exercise of their functions, and I am bound to say they use it with great discretion and humanity. If they availed themselves of every opportunity they had to punish offenders, the country would require double the number of prisons it now possesses. It is a very serious thing to send a person to prison, and the magis-
  1786
  trates, I am happy to know, exercise a wise and sound discretion in these matters. In reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), I may say that in the Correspondence which has been moved for, the evidence that was taken will be found. Magistrates do not take the evidence in summary cases with the same accuracy with which they take the evidence in cases to be sent for trial, but the Correspondence that took place between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire contains the most correct version of it, and will be very shortly laid on the Table of the House.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONwished to know, If the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to two cases, in which it had been held that the magistrates had no such power of convicting for one offence a person summoned for another, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no doubt those cases perfectly represented the law; but he was informed, on good authority, that it was perfectly legal for the magistrates to dismiss a summons, and then to proceed upon another charge.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONgave Notice that he would bring the subject forward again, for the purpose of having it debated.
  In reply to Mr. BOWRING,
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he should prefer not to say what was the Lord Chancellor's decision upon the case until the Papers were before the House.

  BOSNIA—ALLEGED OUTBREAK OF MOSLEM FANATICISM.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What information has been received by Her Majesty's Government as to outbreaks of Moslem fanaticism in Bosnia; and, whether they contemplate any representations on the subject to the Sublime Porte, in concert with other Christian Powers?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: No information has been received at the Foreign Office, either officially or otherwise, as to outbreaks of Moslem fanaticism in Bosnia, and the latest despatches of Her Majesty's Consul at Bosna Serai make no mention of any such circumstance.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 154.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 18 (Power to transfer jurisdiction of Judicial Committee by Order in Council).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of giving some explanation with respect to a remark of his which had been the subject of some misunderstanding. In moving the second reading of the Bill, a statement of his as to the Judges occasionally reversing each other's decisions in the Court of Exchequer Chamber had given annoyance to some of those learned persons. Though he did not withdraw his statement, he begged to say that when he made it, he did not carry in his mind any living Judge.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in moving as an Amendment, in page 9, line 36, to leave out from "Council," to "thereto," in line 37, said, he wished to bring before the Committee a subject which was of supreme importance, and which well deserved the consideration of the House. It was one upon which a large number of hon. Members on his side of the House took a deep interest, for they were convinced the reform would be one that would be appreciated. By the section now before the Committee it was provided that Her Majesty might direct that all appeals whatever to Her Majesty in Council "except appeals from any Ecclesiastical Court and Petitions relating thereto," should be referred to the tribunal of Final Appeal, which this Bill proposed to constitute. He wished that the words he had quoted should be omitted, and that the great Court of Final Appeal should decide on all the appeals of the country, so that there should be one tribunal for all. At first Ireland and Scotland were excepted, because it was thought desirable not to overweight the Bill, and it was considered doubtful whether this House would accept the proposal to include them. But the House had shown itself willing to include Ireland and Scotland, and he now asked the Committee to include ecclesiastical cases also, and not to leave them to a separate tribunal, which
  1788
  would be weakened by the Bill, and would grow weaker and weaker as business was withdrawn from it. It could not be denied that the questions on which ecclesiastical appeals were raised were questions, not of altering the law of the Church or its doctrines, but of the construction of documents and contracts, and other matters which legal minds were peculiarly calculated to decide upon, and it gave an impression at present that it was rather a Court of Heresy than a Court of Law when there were ecclesiastical persons sitting upon the tribunal, and that cases were decided rather by a theological bias than by a strict interpretation of the documents before it. He had received letters from the clergy urging that the Amendment of which he had given Notice should be carried, and the Lower House of Convocation, which some might not give weight to as such, yet as a body of clergymen of great importance, had signified their desire that the final appeal in ecclesiastical cases should be given to the Final Court of Appeal for all other causes. That showed that those who were most likely to be interested or implicated in the tribunal for dealing with ecclesiastical appeals wished that it should be a purely legal tribunal. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the hon. and learned Attorney General that he did not make this proposal in order to hamper or impede the measure. He had accepted the proposal that there should be one Court of Final Appeal, and it was on that ground that he wished ecclesiastical cases also should be referred to it. The questions to be brought before these tribunals were of a strictly legal character, and ought to be dealt with solely by legal persons. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept the suggestion he had made, for while he knew he could not hope to carry it against them, he knew also that there was a vast number of people both in that House and out-of-doors who would be glad to see the Court of Appeal one and final. He therefore hoped they would give it their most serious consideration, and moved to omit from the clause the words which excepted ecclesiastical cases from the jurisdiction of the new Court of Appeal.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsupported the Amendment. There was great difference of opinion on both sides of the House as to the point of view in which these ecclesiastical questions were to be regarded, but the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) was one upon which persons of different opinions might come to the same conclusion. The questions to be raised wore legal points of status and property established by statutory and legal authority, and they ought to be discussed by a strictly legal tribunal. In the present Appellate Court, the functions of Convocation were mixed up with those of a Court of Common Law, and apart from that, there frequently arose difficulty in constituting a Court under existing circumstances, and these difficulties would be removed and diminished if the whole of the appeals were appointed to be determined by the same tribunal. The existing state of things was extremely inconvenient, for he remembered that in the Voysey case, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was ill, the Archbishop of York unable to sit, and some objection was taken to the Bishop of London being upon the tribunal, that tribunal could not have been constituted at all if the Archbishop of Canterbury had not got better.
  DR. BALLalso supported the Amendment, the operation of which was not analogous to the transfer of the Equity and Common Law Appeals to the Courts proposed to be constituted by the Bill. It was intended that in those cases which had been heretofore heard in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Judges should still continue to report to Her Majesty, and all Orders would be made by Her Majesty in Council. If the Order was made in ecclesiastical cases by the Judges, and not by the Queen, a serious question might be raised as to the supremacy of the law in Church questions, and as to the connection of Church and State; but as the circumstances were so different, and the Judges in such cases merely acted as the advisers of Her Majesty, there was no reason why they should not sit in the New Court of Appeal instead of in a room at the Privy Council Office. The fact of transferring the jurisdiction was entirely separate from the question of the conditions on which the transfer should
  1790
  be made, and the provisions which should be introduced with regard to the jurisdiction of the new tribunal. That was a question with regard to which not merely individual opinion but general opinion was to be considered. But the transfer of jurisdiction would by no means decide the question as to whether any of the Bishops should sit upon the hearing of ecclesiastical appeals. He did not think the jurisdiction of the Privy Council could be kept up; because when all but ecclesiastical cases were taken from it, there would be no object in introducing into the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council men who were eminent for their general knowledge of the law, and for their capacity to deal with legal questions. Seeing that the proposition made met with the approval of the clergy, and that the Lower House of Convocation desired such a tribunal, he should give the Amendment of his right hon. Friend his cordial support.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the Amendment. He was very glad to find that on an ecclesiastical question he was in perfect accordance with the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) a luxury which he could not often allow himself. Nothing could be more imperfect than the present appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs. The only argument he had heard against the Amendment was that lawyers were not theologians; but neither were lawyers merchants or bankers. As well might it be urged that a Judge should not try a case of petty larceny unless he were himself a thief. The yoking together of Bishops and Judges on a judicial tribunal reminded him somewhat of the yoking together of those two useful animals whose acting in concert in that way was forbidden by the Levitical law. Without going so far as the late Mr. Justice Maule who had laid it down that to be a good Judge a man ought to have neither politics nor religion, he thought that many of the qualities which would go to make a good Bishop would make a bad Judge; and, certainly, the last cases that Bishops should be empowered to try were those which affected the clergy. The constitution of the Court would also be even more unsatisfactory for the future, because the four Judges who had recently been appointed to the

  1791
  Privy Council would now be transferred to the Supreme Court.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that it was the birthright of every layman in this country, that the doctrines of the Church were laid down in certain documents which were binding upon the clergy, and the clergy were entitled to have these documents construed according to strict rules of law. He should, therefore, support the Amendment, and he wished to call attention to this—that in making the change it was absolutely necessary that it should be done in such a way that it should be properly done, and that at the same time the clergy should be satisfied. To satisfy the clergy, it should be provided that whilst the interpretation of the documents to which he had referred rested with the Appellate Court, that Court should not have power to pronounce judgment upon what had passed, but that this proceeding should be left to the Ecclesiastical Court below, in order that the latter might pass sentence. He believed that such a mode of proceeding would tend much to smooth the matter over.
  MR BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that the Government would look with favour upon the Amendment; because, from a considerable knowledge of the clergy, he believed that there was a growing feeling in favour of some such an alteration in reference to the Court of Appeal in Church cases. The free way in which the Press and society criticized its judgments, so different from the respectful treatment with which the decisions of other Courts were received, proved that its constitution was defective. The combination of two very different classes of minds in the Judicial Committee was really very injurious both to theology and to law. The qualities that made a good Bishop would not tend to make a good Judge; for the very earnestness of character that formed the good Prelate was alien to the cold, impassive, judicial mind. The present Judicial Committee had many of the vices that characterized the old Court of Delegates which it replaced. Like that it was not a fixed Court, with a fixed number of Judges known beforehand. He hoped that the Government would attempt to define the procedure of the Supreme Court in ecclesiastical matters. When judgment was given, we did not get the whole mind of the members of the Ecclesiastical
  1792
  Court. However divergent their private opinions might be, the report of the Crown assumed that they were unanimous, so that the system might be called a gigantic specimen of "knock out." The Report selected merely the points on which the members of the Court might, by hook or by crook, agree. It was, in fact, a mere residuum left after boiling down the various opinions of the members of the Court, and did not command the immediate and spontaneous respect which other judgments did.
  MR. WHITWELLjoined in the wish that the Amendment might have the assent of the Government, for the question was one which could not be allowed much longer to continue in the condition in which it now was.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that for the reasons which had been given by his two right hon. Friends, it seemed to him that it would be absolutely necessary that they should include among the subjects of appeal to the Supreme Court those which were referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If they continued to refer such questions to an inferior tribunal to that which decided other appeals, the same weight would not be given to decisions in one case as in the other. No doubt, it would be necessary to consider in Church appeals what Court should ultimately be required to act on the sentence or decree, and it might be necessary to refer any such cause back to the Court which was originally constituted to deal with it. He would not argue the matter now, though he believed it to be a matter of very great importance, in reference to the welfare of the country and of the Church itself—first, that the tribunal to decide on appeal should be simply a judicial tribunal; and secondly, that the people of this country should know and feel that it was so. He believed that the decisions of such a tribunal would not lead to that confusion and disappointment in the minds of men which some decisions had lately given rise to, because it was imagined, very erroneously that they had been determining questions of doctrine. He hoped that the Government would take this matter into their careful consideration.
  MR. CAWLEYhoped the Amendment would be adopted. If an Appellate Court of the highest character had to deal with these questions, it would go a

  1793
  great way, leading to that reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts of an inferior kind which he was so anxious to see carried out.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was impossible not to be struck by the very remarkable unanimity of opinion which this Amendment had elicited from hon. Gentlemen whom on ordinary occasions he should expect to see down the two columns of a list of pairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) was so kind as to inform him last night that he intended to raise the question, and he then told him that he had every disposition to bring it under the consideration of his Colleagues; but he should be reluctant to introduce any change immediately into the clauses of this Bill, unless there should appear to be very strong grounds for making such a change. He also desired to have an opportunity of making the matter known to those Prelates who were immediately concerned in the decision of the question, and of obtaining their opinions. He attached great weight to the very remarkable concurrence of opinion on both sides of the House—he might almost assume, after what he had heard that day, that there was absolutely no difference of opinion on the subject. He had already taken the opportunity of consulting his own Colleagues, and this was not the first time that the question had come before them. Indeed, his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had stated "in another place," that his reason for being disinclined to assent to the proposal then made was the apprehension of charging the Bill with an excess of materials. He was sorry it was not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to give a longer Notice of his intention; at the same time, he would not give the expression of his regret the form of animadversion. No doubt the acceptance of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had induced the question, and it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University to consider the ground well before he committed himself to any declaration on the subject. He did not think that it would be possible upon the merits to maintain the present Court. It was so framed that there was great difficulty in constituting the tribunal, and
  1794
  it was incessantly shifting its component parts. The same Judges did not always sit to try questions of this kind, and there was the suspicion that theological bias would creep into purely legal questions. And, lastly, the fact that it delivered its judgments collectively, so that we had no knowledge of the opinions of its separate Members, whatever were the merits or demerits of the system, was one which was entirely out of analogy with the rest of our judicial tribunals. The sentences, too, were usually pronounced by the Members of the Court respectively, and not by one member of the Court as an integral body. These were general considerations applicable to the constitution and working of the a Court before this Bill; but as had been observed, the introduction of the present measure virtually altered the position of that Court, and the question was whether they should retain that single rag of an isolated jurisdiction which the Court might not be called upon to exercise once in seven years. Although there had been a considerable crop of ecclesiastical suits and judgments lately, yet the result had not been of such a character as to give great encouragement to the multiplication of such suits hereafter. Therefore, taking a practical view of the matter, it would appear rather hard upon the public, when they had long ago come to the conclusion not to vote one shilling for purposes purely denominational, unless there was something very important beyond that mere consideration, that the paraphernalia of a Court and the charges for its officers should be kept up by funds from the Exchequer, simply on the chance that from time to time some ecclesiastical suit might crop up, with which this semi-animate Court might be called upon to deal. If they could refer the decision of these questions to the Appellate Court they would carry them to a Court which was wholly discharged from all consideration of the religious persuasion of its Judges. To some persons it might be an objection to the transfer of the business of the Ecclesiastical Court to the Court of Final Appeal, that only Judges who had received a peculiar training could deal with religious questions; but his opinion was, that men of honesty and integrity and legal competency, who had not received any peculiar training with reference to re-

  1795
  ligious questions, would be well fitted to deal with ecclesiastical suits. If the Judges were men of perfect, upright minds and legal capacity, they would themselves best know how to define the limits of their own action, and how to mark the point at which they should regard the technical knowledge that was required, and then call in extraneous aid to their relief. He, for one, was ready cheerfully to commit to those Judges of the Appeal Court the decision of those questions, wholly irrespective of any question that might hereafter arise connected with the religious persuasion of this or that particular member of the Court. He thought that they should commit a great error if they were to attempt to secure even a shadow of religious conformity on the part of the Members of the Court, or to attempt anything in the nature of a test which would throw upon those Judges a character other than that of Judges. The question really was, whether it was the desire of the House that they should proceed in the matter by at once accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was before them, and considering the extraordinary concurrence of opinion with which it had been received from so many considerable authorities—from persons of diversified views; and considering also that the Government could not see any serious difficulties in the matter—considering, too, the convenience of business, and that the other House would retain its independent action on the subject—he (Mr. Gladstone) did not feel himself justified in pressing for the withdrawal of the Amendment. He should, therefore, allow himself the satisfaction of concurring in what was so generally thought to be an improvement in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURThoped that, before the clause was passed, the hon. and learned Attorney General would tell the Committee something on a point which had not yet been raised, but which was extremely important with reference to Appellate Jurisdiction. It had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). It had been the habit of the Judicial Committee
  1796
  of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical cases, and, he believed, in all other cases, to give a unanimous judgment—that was to say, the judgment of the majority of the Judicial Committee was given. But the hon. Gentleman suggested that in the ease of a conflict of opinion each of the Judges in the proposed Court of Appeal should give the reasons of his judgment. In that suggestion he (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) did not concur. He thought that in this Court of Final Appeal, the judgments should appear to be the unanimous judgment of the Court, and that it would not be advantageous in the ease of a conflict of opinion between the Judges to have conflicting opinions of the Judges laid before the public. He did not wish to have this question settled now; but before the Bill left that House the question should be settled one way or the other.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that although it was too late to oppose the passing of the clause he could not omit taking that opportunity of entering his protest against the transfer of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council to the New Court of Appeal. It would be a transfer not only to the New Court of Appeal, but a transfer to a Division of that Court; and he believed that the Colonies and India were quite satisfied with the way in which the Judicial Committee dealt with their appeals, and the proposition to transfer their Appeals to the New Court of Final Appeal would cause great dissatisfaction there. The Division of the Court of Appeal would not have the same authority that the Privy Council had, and he warned the Committee that the change would be disadvantageous to the litigants.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he did not think there was any ground for the apprehensions which the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) appeared to entertain with regard to the effect of this part of the Bill on our fellow-subjects in the colonies. The clause was not compulsory or mandatory, but merely permissive; and he felt sure it would never be put in force when either colonial or Indian appellants objected to the transfer of the jurisdiction.
  MR. WHALLEYobserved that our system of law was essentially a system based, not on technical rules, but on common sense, and considered that it would be a fatal step to subvert the

  1797
  jurisdiction of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, by which that system was so well represented.
  MR. GORDONjoined with the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) in protesting against the transfer of Privy Council cases to the High Court of Appeal.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Transfer of pending business); and Clause 20 (Rules as to exercise of jurisdiction) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Law and equity to be concurrently administered).
  On the Motion of Sir FRANCIS GOLDSMID, Amendment made, by inserting in page 12, line 29, before "in," the words "relating to or connected with the original subject of the cause or matter, and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Rules of law upon certain points).
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALproposed an Amendment whereby the proposed alterations of the law would not be confined to the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal respectively, but would be extended to all England, stating that if it was thought necessary words could be introduced, on the recommitment of the Bill, applying it to Ireland.
  DR. BALL,in opposing the Amendment, called the attention of the Committee to the state of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in pointing out how differently it operated, said it was a strange thing that in two countries, separated only by a sail of four hours, viâ Holyhead, the lines of administration of the law relating to Admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of collisions between foreign vessels, were not governed by the same rules. In illustration of that, he mentioned a case of collision in the Pacific Ocean between a Swedish and an American vessel. One of those vessels arrived in Cork, which gave jurisdiction to the Irish Court of Admiralty. The Court pronounced its decision, after having heard the arguments of counsel, awarding damages; but had the ship arrived in an English port instead of an Irish one, the English Court of Admiralty would have divided the damages, in its decision, between the litigating
  1798
  parties. Should the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General be adopted, he hoped steps would be taken on the next stage of the Bill to extend its operation to Ireland, so that the administration of the law should be the same in the two countries.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MATTHEWSmoved, in page 14, line 34, to leave out sub-section 2, providing that no claim of a cestui que trust against his trustee for any property held on an express trust shall be held to be barred by any Statute of Limitations. The sub-section imperfectly stated the doctrine of the Court of Equity, and it spoiled it in stating it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the sub-section made no alteration in the law. The words, which were not his, had been very carefully considered, and were designed merely to express the law as it stood.
  DR. BALLsaid, he accepted the view of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the clause did not make any change, and, therefore, he had not put down an Amendment; but the law worked great injustice in some cases of express trusts on mere incumbrances, which ought to be excepted from the rule that interest might be recovered on demand.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANaccepted the clause as declaring the law, but thought the specific mention of special trusts weakened the general clause at the end of the Bill. If his hon. and learned Friend who moved that the clause he struck out went to a division he would give his vote in support of the Motion. He doubted, however, the advantage of doing so, for on a division the opinions of hon. Members who understood the subject were swamped by the votes of Gentlemen who had not heard a word of the discussion, and knew no more of the merits of the Amendment than the most ordinary persons who might be called in out of the streets.
  MR. HINDE PALMERthought it useful to have a distinct point of law specifically laid down, notwithstanding the general clause at the end; but he thought the interpretation clause ought to define an express trust. The position of trustees was by no means an enviable one. If the clause was intended to make trustees more indefinitely liable than at present, he would propose its omission;

  1799
  but its object appeared to be to leave the law much where it was at present.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the clause would be prejudicial in its operation.
  MR. T. HUGHESthought that the wording of the sub-section was open to misconstruction, and that the sub-section was unnecessary.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Bill now before the Committee was a measure brought forward by the Government professedly to establish a Supreme Court of Judicature; yet it was a Bill that would not only alter the law, but would alter it in the most absurd and unsatisfactory manner. No more dangerous course than Her Majesty's Government were now trying to establish could possibly be. Where, he asked, did their authority for introducing such a Bill come from? They had abolished the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal; and with regard to the clause under discussion, no lawyer could understand it, and he was sure he could not understand a word of it. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said truly that large bodies of hon. Members voted on Amendments about which they knew no more than the most ordinary persons in the streets, and in that he (Mr. Whalley) entirely agreed. Those hon. Members, when divisions were called for in the evening, rushed in from the dining-room and voted with their party. Not since the 14th century had so bold an attempt been made to supersede the Common Law of England. They abolished the House of Lords, and now they were aiming to supersede the Common Law—the greatest protection of the rights and liberties of the people; and in all matters of difference between it and equity to rule that equity should prevail. He felt in a state of trepidation, alarm, and anxiety on the objects of the proposal.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTopposed the sub-section as wholly unnecessary. It reminded him of the old story of making a large hole for the cat and a small one for the kitten. If there was no alteration of the law intended to be made by the sub-section, it was embraced in the general proposition that equity should prevail.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALheld that the sub-section was necessary not to change, but to preserve the law. The question had been carefully considered
  1800
  by the highest authorities, and it was thought desirable to put in a special clause to declare that the abolition of Courts of Equity should not have the effect of depriving the administration of Equity of the valuable rule with reference to the Statute of Limitations not applying to express trusts.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsuggested that the sub-section should be omitted, and reliance placed on the general provisions of the 10th subsection, as the former would probably give rise to doubts.
  MR. AMPHLETThoped the Government would not give them the trouble of dividing against the sub-section.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought the omission of the sub-section might be mischievous. It was sanctioned by a Committee which included men of the highest authority in the profession, and amongst them he would mention the names of Lord Hatherley and Lord Cairns, both of whom filled with distinction the high judicial office of Lord Chancellor.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GREGORYproposed, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 22, to leave out "Courts of Common Law," and insert "Court of Admiralty;" and in line 23, to leave out "High Court of Admiralty," and insert "Courts of Common Law." He thought the rule of the Admiralty should prevail especially as the same was the rule in all foreign Courts.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsupported the Amendment, as they ought, he thought, to guard against a conflict of law in respect to international matters.
  DR. BALLthought neither rule ought to be retained, but that the Judge ought to be vested with a discretionary power to apportion the damage between them. He, however, preferred the Admiralty to the Common Law rule, and as it had been adopted by other countries, a power should be given to the Court to enforce it.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he would vote for the Amendment, on the ground that it was desirable to maintain a rule of law which was well known to other countries.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSopposed the Amendment, as he preferred the Common Law rule to the proposed alteration.
  MR. GORDONexplained that the Scotch Courts acted on the Admiralty rule.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had been all along in favour of the Admiralty rule, but had yielded to the Lord Chancellor on the point. His own private opinion had always been in favour of the Admiralty rule; and as every member of the legal professsion who had spoken, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), had also expressed themselves in favour of it, he could not but assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. HINDE PALMER, Amendment made in page 16, line 26, after "infants," by leaving out to and and including "matter" in line 29.
  On the Motion of Mr. HINDE PALMER, the remainder of the sub-section was created into a separate sub-section.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Abolition of terms) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Vacations.)
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT,in moving, as an Amendment, in line 10, to leave out, "upon any," to "hereinafter mentioned," in line 15, said, he had to bring before the Committee an unpopular subject, upon which he should probably have arrayed against him every member of his own profession in that House. But if the Bill were only to be framed in the interest and for the benefit of the lawyers, it would do extremely little for the cause of law re. form. Up to the present moment, the Bill had done very little for the public, and everything that had been done had been accomplished for the lawyers. It had done very little to remove the long delays and the great expense of getting business transacted, which was the great object of having any Bill at all. One of the greatest difficulties of getting the law administered in that country, was the block of business, and the loss of judicial power consequent upon the fact that with reference to a great proportion of the business, it was altogether suspended for a third or fourth of the whole year. The judicial and administrative staff of
  1802
  the country was more expensive than all the public Departments of the State put together; and yet they kept all that plant and capital doing nothing for the period he had mentioned. When last he called attention to this subject his table was covered with letters from solicitors stating the hardships produced to individuals by the suspension of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery during the long vacation. These were some of the evils of the law which the Bill, in its present form, did nothing whatever to remedy, and he could not reconcile his mind to allowing it to pass without asking the House of Commons not to spend £1,500,000 on one of the most costly judicial systems in the world, and yet, practically speaking, to close the Courts against the public for so large a portion of the year. Therefore his Amendment was to leave out those words which made the alteration of the vacation dependent on the will of the Judges. He could see no fair excuse for the present system; and he thought it would be for the advantage of the public if it were put an end to. If there was to be no alteration in the vacation, except upon the report or recommendation of the Judges, it would never be shortened by a single day or hour. The clause authorized the alteration of the vacation, and that in itself amounted to an admission that the present system was not satisfactory. Of course, the Judges must have holidays; but surely, they might be worked in "shifts," like miners, so as to obviate the necessity of suspending the whole administration of the law for a considerable portion of the year. Perhaps it might be asked how the barristers could take their holidays if the Courts were constantly sitting. Well, barristers could easily take their holidays; but the truth was, that those who had control of the business were afraid lest in their absence other men should slip into their places. He had always noticed that somewhat inferior men who attended to business, did it almost as well as very superior men who did attend to it; and, considering that there were as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it, he thought the public would gain by the change. The clause permitted the vacation to be modified, but it contained a Proviso, that that should only be done on the report or recommendation of the Judges,

  1803
  by whose advice Her Majesty was authorized to make the rule. Now, to pass the clause in that form would be tantamount to doing nothing at all; for, if the Judges themselves were willing to make the change, the influence of the Bar would prevent them from doing so. Parliament, in his opinion, ought to take the matter into its own hands, and, therefore, the first Amendment of which he had given Notice was to omit those words which would make the alteration of the vacation dependent on the recommendation of the Judges. It would not be unreasonable to ask that our system of judicature should be made constantly available to the country; but his request was only that there should always be sitting at least one Judge to administer Equity and another to administer Law in one Divisional Court. He believed a single Judge might constitute a Divisional Court. ["No, no!"] There was a distinction between what were called Divisions and Divisional Courts. A Divisional Court, as he understood, was a section of a Division. All he asked was, that there be always sitting in London a Court competent to administer the remedies which belonged to Equity, and another those which belonged to the Common Law, as the two were effectually severed by subsequent clauses of the Bill. He was not satisfied with a Vice Chancellor administering justice perfunctorily, by coming into town occasionally during the vacation, or disposing of litigious business in Wales, or in the Lake district. In entering his protest against the existing system, he appealed to the lay Members against the legal Members, and with the view of moving afterwards a provision to the effect that there should be two Courts permanently accessible, he would now move the omission of the words requiring a report from the Judges to guide the Queen in Council in fixing terms and vacations.
  MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, that the subject should be treated not only as a lawyer's, but as a suitor's question. The real point was, would the work be better done under the system proposed? He thought not. As to the chief clerks of Chancery, there were no more able, overworked, or unpaid public servants, and he believed the only inducement to men of high standing and great professional emoluments to accept the position
  1804
  of Chief Clerk was that they would have a considerable part of the year to refresh their jaded intellects and weakened bodies. It was also questionable whether more work would be got out of the Judges and the Bar if they sat continuously, than was done by them in nine months.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTexplained that he never intended to work them continuously; but only to introduce such arrangements that, while all the Judges had as long holidays as now in the course of the year, the metropolis should never be left without two accessible Courts.
  MR. C. E. LEWIScontended that it was not an unmixed evil for suitors, society, or the country that the Courts should be now and then shut, and that it really encouraged unnecessary litigation by making the Courts too readily accessible at all times. He did not deny that the vacation might be shortened, but that there were others besides lawyers who were interested in the cessation of litigious business for a time.
  MR. WESTsaid, he should support the first Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), not because he thought the vacation should be altogether destroyed, but because the Government of the day and not the Judges were the proper persons to suggest what alterations in it should be made. In his opinion, the vacation was too long. He could not support the hon. and learned Member's second Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANdoubted very much whether the public interest would be served if the Judicial Bench were made intolerable. It was all very well for men whose professional life was one continued long vacation to grudge Judges their hardly-earned vacation. The effect of the Amendment would be that two out of four Chancellor Judges must be sitting the whole year. We must treat Judges as human beings, and not attempt to get out of them more work than they were capable of.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS,in supporting the Amendment, said, he should do so not with the idea of depriving any Judge or barrister of a single holiday he now enjoyed, but in order that there might be continually sitting throughout the year, a certain portion of the High Court to dispose of urgent

  1805
  business or getting through arrears. The present total suspension of legal business was a great inconvenience.
  MR. LOCKEopposed the Amendment, being unwilling to leave Judges at the mercy of Governments who might dislike them, and try to treat them unfairly. He did not know why the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) wished to take this power from the Judges—they had not done him much harm, if they had not done him much good—or why he should think that every member of the Bar would oppose him. He thought that the proposal merely involved a waste of time, and should have been submitted to the Committee in a more clear and definite shape.
  MR. RYLANDShoped the Committee would not come to a decision on the Amendment until it had been further discussed. The hon. Member was proceeding, but was stopped, in accordance with the rules of the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  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."

CASE OF THE IRISH CIVIL SERVANTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. PLUNKET,in rising to call attention to the case of the Irish Civil servants; and to move—
  "That the 'Civil Service (in Ireland) Commissioners' having reported that the dissatisfaction on the ground of the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase which has taken place in latter years in the cost of living,' is well founded; and that there is no reason, based on local considerations, for giving salaries to Civil Servants stationed in Dublin less in amount than those assigned to persons in London performing analogous duties,' this House is of opinion that such general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries of the Civil Servants serving in Ireland should as soon as possible he redressed, and that
  1806
  they should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those performing duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility."
  said, the question was one which did not involve the expenditure of a large amount of money, but was nevertheless of great interest to those whose position he wished to lay before the House. Last year he stated in dealing with the subject, that the salaries of the Irish Civil servants had been fixed a long time ago, when the cost of living was very low; but that since then the cost had risen with extraordinary rapidity, while the salaries of those officers had not correspondingly increased. That was felt by them to be a great hardship, especially as Civil servants performing corresponding duties in England were paid on a much higher scale. The proposal which he had made received very general support from the Irish Members, and it was met on the part of the Government by a suggestion that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the matter. A Commission had been appointed to which nobody could have any objection, presided over by Lord Monck, and they proposed to inquire—first, into the complaints of the Irish metropolitan police; next, into the complaints of the Irish constabulary; and of the Irish stipendiary magistrates. Having finished those inquiries, they proceeded to consider the cases of the Local Government Board, and of the office of the Registrar General, and finally the general grievances of the Irish Civil servants. The investigation had been a complete and exhaustive one, and he had now to submit to the House the result of that inquiry. The Commissioners reported that the causes of the dissatisfaction existing among members of the Civil Service in Ireland were mainly divisible under two heads—firstly, the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase in latter years in the cost of living, and, secondly, the disparity between the rates of pay assigned to officers performing analogous duties in London and in Dublin. With regard to the first point, the Commissioners said that abundant evidence had been given to prove, that the rise in the price of all articles of primary necessity had been very great within the last 20 years, that the salaries

  1807
  of the present day represented a lower amount of remuneration than in former times, and that the dissatisfaction felt on that ground was well founded. Under those circumstances, they recommended an increase in the present salaries. On the second point, the Commissioners were of opinion that in former times there existed good grounds for fixing the salaries in Dublin at the amount at which they then stood; but that, there was now sufficient evidence to show that even in the matter of house accommodation, the rents paid by persons in the same rank of life as the Civil servants were not higher in London than in Dublin. The Commissioners therefore came to the conclusion that there was no reason based on local considerations for giving to Civil servants in Dublin lower salaries than were paid to officers performing analogous duties in London. That was the Report of the majority of the Commissioners. Mr. Blackwood, one of the three Commissioners, an officer of the Treasury, did not feel himself justified in agreeing to the Report. He had made a separate statement on the subject, but in doing so, he said that his reason for not agreeing to the Report was not so much that he differed from the other Commissioners as to the conclusions at which they had arrived, as that, having regard to the orders from the Treasury, he did not feel himself entitled to report such general conclusions. Therefore, he (Mr. Plunket) submitted that, so far as the proceedings of that Commission were concerned, his case was proved. The statement he made last year had been entirely borne out by the facts. The Commissioners had found distinctly in favour of the two propositions for which he contended—that there had been an extraordinarily rapid increase in the cost of living in Dublin, and that the effect had been an absolute deterioration of the position of the Civil servants there, as well as relatively when compared with the position of those serving in England. Another objection raised last year to the case he had sought to establish was that, although the cost of provisions might be as dear in Dublin as in London, the household expenses otherwise were less; but that too had been entirely disposed of. The Commissioners had also inquired into some other matters. They attempted to draw a comparison between the posi-
  1808
  tion of commercial employés and that of the Civil servants; but they failed to find any close analogy between the two on which they could confidently rely, with the single exception of the Bank of Ireland—a quasi-national institution. The Commissioners were informed that within the last few years, the salaries paid by the Bank of Ireland to its servants had increased £7,000 per annum; that within the last few weeks there bad been a dearth of well-qualified candidates for vacant clerkships, and that a further increase in the scale of salaries was impending. But it was argued that, after all, if they could get the work well done by the Civil servants in Dublin for the present rate of remuneration the Treasury ought not to pay more. The Commission found that there was now no lack of candidates for the Civil Service; that there was some tendency—though not to any great extent—among some of the Civil servants to leave Government employ in order to better their position elsewhere; but that, notwithstanding the existing complaint as to the inadequacy of the salaries, the work in the public offices at Dublin was well done for the present scale of pay. He would not now discuss the question as to whether there ought or ought not to be an increase of the salaries of the Civil servants throughout the three kingdoms; nor would he enter into the question of the general increase of the prices of all the necessaries of life further than to express his own belief that, unless some concession was made in consequence of the greater cost of living, and the greater hardships of the position of the Civil servants, even in England, the standard of these men's qualities, their abilities, and usefulness to the State could not long be maintained at the high point it had hitherto reached, and the necessary effect must be that the prestige of the service would suffer. He was now dealing especially with the ease of the Civil servants in Ireland, and he prayed the House to consider the position in which they were placed —a position which was felt to be an anomaly, and, to a certain extent, an ignominy. The Commissioners said in their Report that the Irish Civil servants were appointed by the Crown in former times, and that Irishmen were generally appointed to Irish offices; but the competitive examination changed all

  1809
  that, and now if a candidate went up for examination and succeeded, he might, no doubt, go to any part of the United Kingdom to perform his duties. But how would this be found to work? Owing to the peculiar disadvantages of the service in Ireland it was only the worst of the candidates—those, in fact, who had no choice in the matter—who would go there. Now, that in his opinion, was a very anomalous position for men to be placed in, and he added that it affected the interest of the Irish public generally. They had no right to call on a young Irishman to leave his country and go elsewhere, and it was felt to be an indignity that there should be thus a kind of Pariah class in the service of Ireland. Such was the case since the application of the system of competitive examinations for entering into the service, and such would be the case for the future. But it was for the interests of the old Civil servants that he wished especially to plead. Theirs was no sentimental grievance, it had the misfortune of being a real one. They were exposed to the greatest hardship. They had accepted a certain office with certain expectations, but owing to circumstances over which they had no control, their position had become greatly altered. What had been worth £300 a-year a short time ago was now practically only worth about £200; so that, instead of advancing in respect of income, they had been receding, and were daily less able to carry on the struggle of life. These Civil servants were obliged to keep up a certain position. He did not know whether it was the ease in England or Scotland; but in Ireland they had been generally men of great respectability, some of them gentlemen moving in good society, and it was a hard thing that they should find themselves continually on the verge, he would not say of insolvency, but of getting into debt. Their position was becoming every day more intolerable; and many of them, he knew, were only waiting the result of the efforts that had been carried on now for several years in their behalf, to see whether it would not be better for them to throw up that line of life altogether, to forego the superannuation to which they had looked forward as the fruit of their long service, and try to begin life anew in some other occupation. With regard to the method of redress, the
  1810
  Commissioners suggested a classification of various offices of the service all over the Empire. As to whether that proposal was good or bad, he would not offer an opinion, and the Civil servants in Ireland did not pretend to suggest—much less insist—as to the means by which their grievances might be redressed. If the recommendations of the Commissioners to remedy the inadequacy of the present salaries, and to remove the inequalities which existed, were honestly carried out, the Civil servants would be perfectly satisfied. They submitted that they had a pressing and a painful grievance, which, indeed, had been fully established by the Commission issued by the Government, and they prayed that it might be redressed. 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 'Civil Service (in Ireland) Commissioners' having reported that the dissatisfaction on the ground of the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase which has taken place in latter years in the cost of living,' is well founded; and that there is no reason, based on local considerations, for giving salaries to Civil Servants stationed in Dublin less in amount than those assigned to persons in London performing analogous duties,' this House is of opinion that such general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries of the Civil Servants serving in Ireland should as soon as possible be redressed, and that they should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those performing duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility," —(Mr. Plunket,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to point out, in the first instance, that the words "general inadequacy," as used in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), did not mean what they would appear to imply when taken by themselves, but referred to the Report of the Commissioners, in which they said there was a general inadequacy, having regard to the great increase that had taken place in the cost of living. There was no finding in the Report of a general inadequacy of salaries, except in reference to that

  1811
  particular matter. He did not say that there was any ambiguity in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but still it was as well that the fact should be borne in mind. Strictly speaking, that was not an Irish grievance at all, as things were now managed, although Irish Members had been specially appealed to in reference to it. The Commissioners stated that in former days the offices in question were uniformly given to Irishmen, implying that it was reasonable they should therefore have been content to receive lower salaries. In that view he could not acquiesce, as he could see no reason why an Irishman should receive a lower salary than an Englishman or a Scotchman of the same attainments and ability. But it was not an Irish grievance, for the simple reason that those offices were no longer necessarily filled up either from Ireland or by Irishmen. It did not follow that because a man took a place in Ireland he should be an Irishman, and therefore Irishmen did not suffer any greater hardship in the case under the notice of the House than Englishmen or Scotch-men who were employed in the Civil Service in Dublin. He would observe, further, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted from his speech and Motion one matter which was of some consequence—namely, that the salaries which were enjoyed by the Civil servants of the Crown were matters of contract. There was a contract between them and the Government, as representing the people, by which the Government was bound to the very letter to pay the Civil servant so much salary, increasing at a certain rate, and at the end of his service to pay him a certain pension for the remainder of his life. No circumstances whatever would justify a Government in attempting to deviate from that contract; they were absolutely and completely bound by it. Supposing the prices of provisions and necessaries of life had fallen ever so low, nobody would dream for a moment of taking advantage of that in order to lower the salaries of the Civil servants; and yet it was assumed that it was not only justifiable, but absolutely essential, that if this contract turned out in respect of the prices of provisions at all against the Civil servants they should set aside all that portion of the contract which seemed to press hardly upon them, and should ob-
  1812
  tain all the benefits of that portion which was in their favour. He maintained, however, that the people of this country, who paid the Civil servants, were as much entitled to consideration in that House as were the Civil servants themselves; and that, as a genera rule, they ought to adhere to contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into rather than assume that they might be set aside at any moment when the interested persons complained that they pressed hardly upon them. The hon. and learned Gentleman relied upon two grounds—first, the prices of provisions; and secondly, that the Irish Civil servants did not consider themselves paid at a rate equivalent to that paid to their brother Civil servants in England. With regard to the first, there was no doubt that there had been a considerable rise in the prices of provisions and the necessaries of life, and that that pressed the harder upon a man in proportion to his poverty. That was assumed to be a sufficient reason for altering these contracts and re-adjusting the salaries; but, as he had said, there was no such agreement or arrangement ever entered into, and what was now asked was a matter of pure grace, and it ought to be carefully considered whether it could be entertained at all. They could not wholly put the principles of economic science out of the question in such a matter. It was tacitly assumed that the price of work of any kind was regulated by the price of provisions; but there was no greater fallacy than that. The price of labour was regulated by the number of persons seeking employment of a particular description, and the amount of employment available for them. At the present moment the price of physical labour was very much on the increase, whilst the price of intellectual labour—at least of that species—was very much on the decline, and these two things were happening coincidentally with a very large rise in the prices of provisions. How, then, could it be said that the price of labour should depend upon the price of provisions? There was a tendency not to a rise, but to a fall in the labour of clerks and persons of that kind, and for the simple reason that the country had by a large expenditure of public money forced the education of the people, and had consequently raised up a large number of competitors for that

  1813
  species of intellectual work. What the hon. and learned Gentleman asked was, that on account of the rise in the prices of provisions and necessaries of life, they should offer higher prices for labour when the labour market was actually falling. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that, upon whatever grounds the House might accede to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition, it would not be on the ground of the rise in the prices of provisions. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a sort of symmetry that he seemed to require; he wished to have the payments made in England and in Ireland adjusted with reference to each other. The hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Motion, that the Irish Civil servants ought to be placed on an equality as regarded remuneration with those performing corresponding duties in England; but there were two ways of obtaining that equality. They might either raise the salaries of the Irish Civil servants to those of the English servants, or lower those of the English servants down to the level of the former. The latter course would satisfy not the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps, but certainly the words of his Motion, and the portion of his argument that related to symmetry. If it were once attempted to regulate the salaries in Ireland, not in reference to the wants and the position of Ireland, but in reference to what was done in England, and to symmetry and equality of that kind, where did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that they should stop? If the Government once began that process, they could not stop; they must go through the whole Civil Service, and must consider everybody's salary with reference to that of everybody else, and strike a mean. That would be perfectly symmetrical, but that it would be fair he did not believe. The question really was, however, what was to be done upon this subject. He had shown that they could not lay down the ludicrously false principle of basing salaries upon the price of provisions and necessaries of life, nor yet could they rely upon the speculative principle of equalizing or comparing all salaries, and striking an equality between them, which would prevent any Civil servant receiving a shilling until the whole service was put in the same position. But
  1814
  what they could do, and what he was sure would satisfy the hon and learned Gentleman was this—they could not go into the question of a general rise of salaries, calculated on the price of provisions, for that would involve a perpetual fluctuation and change, because if a rise in the price of provisions must be followed by a rise in salaries, a fall in provisions would entitle the Government to claim a reduction of salaries; nor could they go into the question of comparing salaries, for there was a great diversity in the salaries of different offices. England was an old country, and it was a long time since she began to pay salaries. In earlier days people were not so particular about public money, and consequently the salaries of the older offices were high. Things had improved a little of late, and the salaries of new offices had been lowered. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked that they should be all put on a level, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said no; let them leave matters as they stood, and not attempt to make any sweeping change, which would only saddle the country with an enormous burden which was unnecessary and unjustifiable, for if they attempted to equalize, they must take the highest salaries and level up to them. He would say take the Departments as they stood; take the Irish Departments, for instance, and look carefully into them, not in reference to what there was in England, but to see what duties particular persons had to perform; and, above all, never attempt to raise salaries or to deal with Departments without carefully looking into all the circumstances, and the organization of each Department. They would look to the number of persons employed, and to the character and manner in which their labours were discharged, and when they had done those things they would consider the merits of each Department by itself, and deal with it in as liberal a spirit as they could. Into such a scheme the Government were ready to enter in regard to the Civil servants in Ireland, as they had already entered into with regard to England, and make use of the valuable information which they had received from the Commission. The Government were ready, either by the reduction of the numbers employed, or by better organization, to benefit the

  1815
  position of those Civil servants. There was one Department in Ireland—namely, the Registration Department—in which he admitted that the salaries were too low. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Resolution would assent to that case, the Government would be willing to meet him, but they strongly objected to entering into such a speculative inquiry as he had pointed out, an inquiry which would rather retard than promote the objects which they had in view. He thought that in that manner the hon. and learned Gentleman would gain all he could expect to gain by his Motion, and he hoped, therefore, that he would see that this was the best course to be pursued, and not press the matter to a division.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that on entering the House, he was under the impression that the Government would at once accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) because it was only carrying out the recommendations of their own Commission. He was, however, much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make such a speech in opposition to the Resolution. Anyone would imagine from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the question had never been debated before. The simple question was, whether the Irish Civil servants ought to be paid in the same proportion as in England for the same work. When the subject had been brought forward in April of last year, it had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same singular way, and in almost the same language, as he had just used. The right hon. Gentleman then expressed a hope that the matter would not be pressed in its then shape, and he had said the same that evening. He (Mr. Downing) at least expected that the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what would be done; instead of which, he had left them in exactly the same position as that they were in last April twelvemonths. Well, then, the House might naturally ask him why was the Commission issued at all? If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was to be considered as a mere matter of contract between the Government and the Irish Civil servants, why did the right hon. Gentleman assent to the appointment of this Commission?
  1816
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer now laid stress upon the stability of a contract; but the right hon. Gentleman did not always stand by his own contract, as, for example, the Zanzibar contract, under which the right hon. Gentleman consented to giving £16,000, although an offer had been made to the Government to execute their requirements for about £11,000. The right hon. Gentleman, with that generosity which always distinguished him, consented to give the larger sum, because he said the parties to it had already suffered a considerable pecuniary loss in anticipation of receiving the contract. He, now, however, took his stand on political economy, and, notwithstanding the fact that he was himself a party to the Irish Civil Service Commission, he now told the House it was not worth the paper it was written on, because the subject was simply one of contract. What the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin asked was, that Civil servants in Ireland should be paid at the same rate as Civil servants in England when they performed similar duties. It was no doubt true that under the competitive system young men might select either England, Ireland, or Scotland; but that was not the case with the older men who had grown grey in the Civil Service in Ireland, and whose claims he was now advocating. The Commissioners were called upon to examine into the differences between the rates of pay of English and Irish merchants' and solicitors' clerks, and, to their surprise, they found the rates of pay in Ireland were higher than those in England. The truth was, that the same amount of money would not purchase in Ireland what it would purchase in England. He had not expected that the Motion, founded as it was on the Reports of the Commissioners appointed by themselves, would have been met in this way by Her Majesty's Government. Why had a Commission been issued at all respecting the subject, if its recommendations were to be disregarded? The matter had been before the House since 1869, when a deputation waited upon Mr. Fortescue, then the Chief Secretary. Then an inquiry was promised, but faith had not been kept with the Civil servants of Ireland. The Gentlemen who reported on the subject were entitled to the fullest consideration of the Government, and he

  1817
  trusted their recommendations would have some weight in that House, and that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would be carried.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that in these matters the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his own evidence given yesterday before the Select Committee on the Civil Service Expenditure, was a dictator. When asked by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) whether the Treasury, as holding the purse-strings of the nation, had a controlling power over all the Departments of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied—"No; but the Treasury has control in this way—if they come to me for an increase of expenditure, I can refuse it." He objected to the matter being treated on the "hard-and-fast line" of a simple contract, into which the Civil servants entered at the commencement of their employment, and considered that those in Ireland were placed in a position of degradation by being placed on a footing of inferiority. All that the Irish Civil servants asked was, that they should be placed on a footing of equality with those holding similar offices in England. The right hon. Gentleman's argument that the salaries of the Civil servants in Ireland must be regulated by the labour market, must lead to this result, that qualification would be no longer a test of efficiency, but that all offices must be put up to a sort of Dutch auction, and the man must be selected who was willing to supply a vacancy for the least amount of remuneration.
  MR. PIM,in supporting the Motion, said, the Report of the Commissioners showed that a lower rate of remuneration was paid to the Irish than to the English Civil servants, and nothing which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer went in the slightest degree to show that such an exceptional scale of payment could with any degree of reason be maintained. What might have been fair enough 30 years ago, when the cost of living was less in Ireland than in England was not fair now, and a very good case for the increase of payment had been fully made out. The Directors of the Bank of Ireland had had to increase the salaries of the clerks, and would have to go much further in that
  1818
  direction. He considered the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very unsatisfactory.
  MR. OTWAY,in supporting the Motion, said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had, in his opinion, completely proved his case, and he should certainly vote in favour of his Motion. He wished however, before he sat clown, to advert to one or two fallacies which were to be found in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were fallacies which were calculated to have a most mischievous tendency, and greatly to deteriorate, if not, in time, to destroy, the character of the Civil Service. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that the price of provisions ought to have no effect on the salaries of those who were thus employed. A more pedantic theory when dealing with a practical grievance he had never heard propounded. He might quote in reply to the right lion. Gentleman the action of an authority which he would be likely to respect. The present Government itself had given in that very Session, the increased cost of living as a reason for increasing the pay of those engaged in our Dockyards. He might add that the Prussian Government, which was one of the most frugal in Europe, had increased the salaries of its Civil servants for the same reason 25 per cent; while the Government of Belgium had raised the salaries of the same class from 25 to 35 per cent. If the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adopted, they would have a discontented Civil Service, with all the mischievous consequences thence arising. The right hon. Gentleman further contended, that as long as they found men ready to accept the service at the present rates of remuneration they ought not to give any better pay. The result, however, of that would be, that they would have an inferior class of persons in those employments who were not bound by those principles of honour which guided the men now engaged in that Service. Then they would see what had been seen during the last few months—namely, men who had been long employed in the Civil Service of the country called upon to perform exceptional and responsible duties, and applying for adequate remuneration, and on being refused justice, disregarding honour and honesty, and

  1819
  disclosing to the public matters which they had learnt confidentially in their office. The theories of political economy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward on those occasions were, he maintained, utterly inapplicable to a practical grievance like that, and if persisted in must produce most serious mischief.
  MR. O'REILLY,as a Member of the Committee which sat upon the subject, denied that that Committee had reported that because the offices in Ireland were filled exclusively by Irishmen, that might be considered a fitting reason for giving them a lower remuneration. He agreed that the State ought not to pay more than it could get good adequate and fitting service for, but the increased cost of living had necessitated higher salaries; and it should be remembered that though at one time the cost of living in Ireland was lower than the cost of living in London, and that, therefore, a lower salary meant an equal remuneration, that was no longer the case. In answer to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that was not an Irish grievance, because Irishmen did not fill those particular offices in Ireland, but held appointments throughout the Empire, he maintained that it was, nevertheless, an Irish grievance, and a serious one too, because if the present state of things continued unchanged, it would lead to those offices in Ireland being filled by the very worst class of men admitted under the system of competitive examination. The result of the inquiry he had made was, that the salaries were extremely unequal, and some of the best men were the worst paid.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that seven or eight hon. Gentlemen had advocated the cause of a class, and only his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that of the nation, and therefore the House would not grudge him the opportunity of stating his view of the subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) was remarkable. He did not confine himself to the specialities of the Irish case; without any hesitation, with great decision, and with something like contempt, he flung over the whole argument of what he called political economy—that argument which maintained that public servants were to receive for serving the
  1820
  public the rate of remuneration for which they were willing to enter into the public service. That, he said, had done enormous mischief and ought to be entirely rejected, and he dealt very severely with the right hon. Gentleman, because the right hon. Gentleman expressed his adhesion to that principle. The hon. Member seemed to go upon the principle of making things pleasant all round, which was a delightful thing for Members of Parliament who sat for certain constituencies. ["Oh, Oh"] He begged pardon of those who said "Oh," but he repeated that it was a particularly pleasant method for hon. Gentlemen to recommend, when a large portion of their constituents happened to be public servants. It increased the pressure upon them. That, however, was not the principle on which the Government, as the representatives of the people, were to act. The Resolution of the House of Commons did not absolve the Government from the duty of asking the House of Commons so to regulate the public charge that the people should be served on the most moderate terms which would secure efficient servants. That was the principle on which the Government had stood, and intended to stand; and if the House disapproved it, the remedy was in their hands. Those wore the views with which they approached every question of the kind. His hon. Friend did not condescend to found himself on the specialities of the Irish case, the whole tenor of his speech leading to this result—that there must be a general rise in the pay of the Civil servants of the United Kingdom, because there was a general rise in the price of provisions. The question that was now being debated was the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. If on account of the rise in prices in Ireland, they were to vote an increase in pay, by parity of reasoning there must be a corresponding rise of salaries throughout the three kingdoms. No doubt, it was perfectly true that there had been a rise of certain prices in Ireland of late years, as there had also been a fall of other prices; but the real question that was raised was, that of the general rise of the salaries of the Civil servants of the State, based on the fact that there had been a rise in the price of certain commodities in a portion of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) appeared not to have

  1821
  heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he said that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to do anything. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in most distinct form, and with that lucidity of statement which never failed him, sot out the two methods of proceeding which were before them. The Government did not deny that the salaries in Ireland required to be revised, but this process of revision, they thought, ought to go on from time to time all through the public service. He joined issue with the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) when they said they would not be satisfied with this examination in detail. Those hon. Members were determined on an heroic operation—upon something which should impress the minds of the Civil servants with a sense of the magnificence of the manner in which they performed their duties. It was to that wholesale operation the Government objected. For 20 years they had been beneficially pursuing the course of revision which was now going on specifically in Ireland in several important Departments; and therefore the question was, whether the Government were to be driven from that method of operation, by which they could combine augmentation of salary with redistribution of duty, and by which they could frequently reconcile an economical result with an increase of remuneration to those employed, or were they to adhere to it in Ireland as they had done and meant to in England and Scotland? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) founded himself upon two main allegations; and in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion those two allegations he had not made good. His hon. and learned Friend founded himself on the recommendation of the Commission, and came to the conclusion, that it was right the Civil servants in Ireland should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those who performed duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility. What he (Mr. Gladstone) contended was, that there was no such proposition in the Report of the Commission. They had reported that which to his mind, implied the contrary. The Commission reported that there had been an increase of prices in Ireland; and on
  1822
  that account there was a well-founded feeling of discontent at the amount of remuneration. But he (Mr. Gladstone) did not agree that because the Commissioners had so reported, the salaries should be raised. He would point out what was the immediate consequence of this doctrine. It would amount to this—that when there was an augmentation of prices, the life contracts which the public had made with its servants, and which they had accepted willingly and sought after eagerly, were to be altered in their favour. If they were contracts, they must be observed on both sides; if they were not, they must be observed on neither. If salaries were to be augmented because there was an increase of prices, even although it was shown there were plenty of efficient men still seeking and desiring employment, it followed that in the case of a fall of prices the salaries of Civil servants ought to be reduced; and there were those in the House who would remember a Motion was once made that on account of the reduction in prices there should be a diminution of 10 per cent in Civil service salaries all round. The contention on the other side was, that these salaries were to move up and down, according to the rise and fall of commodities. The Government contended, on the contrary, that the contract made with the Civil servants was altogether irrespective of the prices of commodities, and that the Civil servants were not entitled to ask for any increase of salary on the ground of any increase in the price of commodities. The hon. and learned Gentleman had founded his Motion on a sentence of the Report which implied that the Commissioners had reported that persons performing duties in England and Ireland of equal responsibilty did not receive equal remuneration. The Committee, however, said nothing of the kind. They stated in the 24th paragraph of their Report, that in fixing the relative scale of salaries, the primary consideration was the comparative amount and importance of the business to be transacted, and the responsibility thereby incurred. They added, in another paragraph, that, according to that comparative importance and responsibility, the scale of salaries in Dublin would not rise as high as in London. If the exact contrary of the assertion of the hon. and learned

  1823
  Gentleman were not thus directly stated, he (Mr. Gladstone) affirmed, moreover, that it was expressed in the proposition to which the evidence they had taken conducted them. But there was a second allegation which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a touching picture of the condition of the Civil service in Ireland. He said that the service was losing its prestige. Well, he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped that everybody who had got any prestige would lose it. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry to shock the sensitive feelings of hon. Gentlemen, but had they considered the meaning of the word? It meant "false and unreal reputation." ["Oh, oh" and laughter.] If they would trace the word to its root they would find it simply meant "juggling"; but that, however, was a verbal digression, and he asked upon what evidence it was alleged that the credit of the Civil service had diminished in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the pressure upon the Civil service was becoming worse and worse, and was now almost intolerable, and that the time was fast approaching when we should not have a sufficient number of qualified candidates for the various offices, while it had already arrived when the best members of the Service were quitting it to better themselves elsewhere. He (Mr. Gladstone) challenged that statement on the evidence appealed to by the hon. Member for Cork. The fact was, that the very best members of the public service were not adequately paid, and could not be, and hence many of them had quitted it to better themselves elsewhere. That had been the case, for example, with the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), who left the public service to occupy a high position in connection with one of the large railway companies. He (Mr. Gladstone) had often expressed that opinion, because if they were paid according to the scale they deserved, a crowd of average men would rush in to enjoy it. The real question was, whether that grievance, which was inherent in the Public Service, prevailed to a greater extent in Ireland than it did elsewhere, and, above all, was it increasing? Because that was the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that the pressure of circumstances in the service was becoming
  1824
  "intolerable." He (Mr. Gladstone) said, on the contrary, that it was a diminishing, and not an increasing evil, and he could show that from page 46 of the Report, to which he had been referred by the hon. Member for Cork, who, he thought, had not very carefully studied that portion of it. It contained the Returns from the year 1845 down to the year 1871. Calling that a period of 26 years, he (Mr. Gladstone) had divided it into two portions of 13 years each. During the whole period of 26 years there were 61 cases of Civil servants who had left the Service to take better positions elsewhere; and out of the 61 cases he found that 56 belonged to the first period of 13 years, and the remainder to the second period of 13 years. Thus, because 20 years ago, men were quitting the Service at a great rate, and because that movement had now ceased, the hon. and learned Member said it would be necessary to have, not a careful revision, but a wholesale augmentation of salaries in Ireland. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman's revolutionary proposition, as it might be called, was not borne out by the figures. The House had also been told that these gentlemen had grown gray in the public service. Was their's a very hard case? They were those who came into the public service at a time when their friends and adherents and Members of Parliament "wore the knockers" of the public offices by the assiduity of the process of solicitation in obtaining interest for situations in the public service for these gentlemen which was afterwards to be converted into an ingenious allegation of grievance. He had great respect for those gentlemen certainly, but he could not say that he thought their case was a strong one. It was not a case as between England and Ireland, or between Ireland and Scotland. The fact was that the duties of the Civil servants were more concentrated and arduous in England than in Scotland; and in Scotland, though less arduous and complicated than in England, they were, still, more so than in Ireland. Such work must be paid for in proportion as it was arduous and difficult, and if an average were struck, the pay would be highest in the country where, on the average, the work was most arduous. If it were shown, for instance, that in some poor district of England—say the South-western

  1825
  Counties—public servants were paid lower rates than in London and the most populous parts of the country, exactly the same remark would apply: their pay would be lower because the duties they performed were less arduous and less responsible. It was very well for hon. Members to indulge their natural feelings of kindness and bring pressure to bear upon the Government for an increase of public expenditure in this direction. But other considerations must be borne in mind. What was the state of things in the City of London at this moment? His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was doubtful whether the price of intellectual labour was not falling rather than rising. His right hon. Friend meant that as an opinion only, and was not proposing a reduction of salaries based on that opinion. There was, at any rate, much to show that if the price of clerical labour was rising at all, the movement was a very slow and insensible one. If the clerks of a merchant in the City of London struck work, would he find any difficulty in replacing them? At that moment 4,000 qualified clerks were seeking employment there and unable to obtain it. With what justice to those men were measures proposed—not for inquiry, because inquiry was disregarded and almost despised—but wholesale and sweeping measures for augmenting the rates of remuneration for public servants, when there were multitudes of respectable and competent men who would gladly, if they could, take the places of the very worst paid of such servants? He trusted the House would not be led into any such snare as that which had been laid for them. They must not be misled by the case of the Bank of Ireland. Why had that Bank raised its rates of pay? Because they were insufficient to attract a sufficient supply of qualified candidates; but in the case of the Civil Service, the Commissioners had reported that the rates now paid were sufficient for the purpose. And what was the use of a reference to Prussia, notoriously the most economical country in Europe, in which the salaries of public servants had been insufficient to keep body and soul together? [Mr. OTWAY: Not in proportion to expenses.] He joined issue with his hon. Friend on that point. The salaries of Prussian officials had been
  1826
  notoriously insufficient, and were connected with the want of a free organization in Prussian society, but for which such salaries never could have existed. When greater political freedom prevailed, and there arose a greater choice of employment, it was an absolute necessity to increase these salaries; and when a fair case could be shown, if the House would, by all means let the same course be taken here. By all means, even without distinct proof of that kind, let the Government be spurred and stimulated in the career of cautious and careful examination into duties and remuneration with a view to a better distribution of service—changes which resulted frequently in larger salaries, and in more efficient work done at less cost to the public. But let not the House ask the Government to do that which they could not honestly do—namely, adopt what he had called heroic measures, applicable to great masses of public servants at once—measures which, even if they conveyed momentary satisfaction to some of those whom they affected would before long lead to great financial difficulties, forfeit the title of the House to the approval of the public, and be found to constitute a great public misfortune.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN,who spoke amid continued interruption, said, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Pluuket) would not withdraw his Motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister had in their speeches contradicted the principles of political economy with reference to this question. He knew by experience that the more salaries were reduced the greater was the number of applicants for situations, for the lower the remuneration the greater would be the number to whom it would be an object, and he did not understand why the members of the Civil Service in Ireland should be treated in the way they were. He wished the House to recollect that if this was not an Irish question in the way of putting it in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was certainly a question affecting the Civil Service in Ireland, and he could not recognize the airy distinction of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had applied the phrase "ludicrous" to the idea of taking into account the price

  1827
  of provisions as an element in regulating salaries. He should be glad to know a more substantial or applicable test in regulating salaries. He added there was another mode of equalizing salaries in the Civil Service—namely, by reduction. Let him try it in England and see how he would fare. He now submitted for the attention of the House a few instances of the relative salaries for the same offices in England and Ireland in the General Register Office in each Kingdom—

  In London per Annum.

  In Dublin per Annum.

  £

  £

  Secretary

  800

  500

  Medical Superintendent

  700

  600

  Superintendent

  700

  400

  Superintendent 2nd Class

  550

  300

  Senior Clerk

  420

  200

  Assistant Clerk

  280

  150

  Messenger, 1st Class

  110

  75

  Messenger 2nd Class

  90

  60

  In conclusion, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin not to withdraw his Motion. If they were to expect equal loyalty they must have not only equal rights and privileges, but they must have equal pay in the two countries.
  MAJOR TRENCHsupported the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in addressing the House and describing the salaries of the Civil servants in Prussia before their recent increase, spoke of them as "insufficient to keep body and soul together," and said that their increase was therefore a necessity. That accurately described the position of a large class of Civil servants in Ireland, and especially applied to the National schoolmasters. [The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER: They are not Civil servants.] If they were not Civil servants he did not know what they were. They were a large and respectable body of men, civilians who performed an important public duty, and who were paid out of the sums annually voted by Parliament. Their pay was wholly inadequate, and so was that of many other classes of Civil servants in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the price of physical labour was on the increase, while that of intellectual labour was on the decline. That was true, but the increase in the former had been brought about through
  1828
  strikes and combinations. In Ireland the Civil servants had not struck or used illegal means to improve their situation. It might be said that his hon. and learned Friend who moved the Resolution had been deputed by them to lay their case before the powers that were. He had done so ably, and in his opinion he had not been answered. It had been stated that the rate of pay had nothing to do with the price of provisions. When those rates were first established, they were undoubtedly based on the cost of living of that day; but anyone who knew Ireland, knew that whereas everything was cheap 18 or 20 years ago, the prices of everything had now risen to nearly the English level. His own experience enabled him to attest that fact. He was stationed in Ireland 18 years ago and could compare the difference. The Prime Minister said that because Ireland was not so prosperous as England, her Civil servants should not be so highly paid. That was no argument. If she was not prosperous, it was that her resources had not been developed, or facilities given for their development. Her Civil servants were efficient, and if, with the improvement of the country more work should be thrown upon them they would not be found wanting; but take them as they were, they ought, as expressed in the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend, to be placed on an equality as to remuneration with their brethren in England performing duties of corresponding difficulty and responsibility. The terms of the Resolution were just and right and he hoped and believed that it would be affirmed by the House.
  MR. J. MARTINthought the position taken on that question by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was established by all the arguments—statistical, commercial, moral, and political—on the theory which was held in that House that they were an United Kingdom. He had been curious to hear what arguments the Government could put forward in opposition to that hon. and learned Member's Motion, because the Government also held the position that that was an United Kingdom; and all he would say as to the arguments they had adduced was that he had been very much amused by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and very

  1829
  greatly amazed by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 130: Majority 13.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That the "Civil Service (in Ireland) Commissioners" having reported that the dissatisfaction on the ground of "the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase which has taken place in latter years in the cost of living," is well founded; and that "there is no reason, based on local considerations, for giving salaries to Civil Servants stationed in Dublin less in amount than those assigned to persons in London performing analogous duties," this House is of opinion that such general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries of the Civil Servants serving in Ireland should as soon as possible be redressed, and that they should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those performing duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility.

  AYES

  Anderson, G.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Dundas, J. C.

  Antrobus, Sir E.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Armitstead, G.

  Erskine, Admiral J. E.

  Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Eykyn, R.

  Backhouse, E.

  Fawcett, H.

  Barclay, J. W.

  FitzGerald, right hon.

  Bass, A.

  Lord O. A.

  Bassett, F.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  W. W.

  Biddulph, M.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Foster, W. H.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Brinckman, Captain

  Goldsmid, Sir F.

  Brogden, A.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Brown, A. H.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord E.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Graham, W.

  Buckley, N.

  Greville, hon. Captain

  Cadogan, hon. F. W.

  Grosvenor, hon. N.

  Campbell-Bannerman,

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  H.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Candlish, J.

  Hardy, J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Hartington, Marq. Of

  Carter, R. M.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Childers, rt. hon. H.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G

  Cholmeley, Captain

  Hughes, T.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Johnston, A.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Davies, R.

  Kensington, Lord

  Dickinson, S. S.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Dixon, G.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  1830

  Knatchbull-Hugessen,

  Philips, R. N.

  right hon. E.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Lea, T.

  Reed, C.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Leeman, G.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Shaw, R.

  Leith, J. F.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Storks, rt. hn. Sir H. K.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Strutt, hon. H.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Lusk, A.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Macfie, R A.

  Walter, J.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  West, H. W.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Whitwell, J.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Young, rt. hon. G.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Palmer, J. H.

  TELLERS.

  Parry, L. Jones-

  Adam, W. P.

  Peel, A. W.

  Glyn, hon. G. G.

  Pender, J.

  NOES

  Adderley, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Agnew, R. V.

  French, hon. C.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Galway, Viscount

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Gavin, Major

  Arbuthnot, Major G.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Archdale, Captain M.

  Grant, Col. hon. J.

  Assheton, R.

  Gray, Sir J.

  Ball, rt. hon. J. T.

  Greville-Nugent, hon.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  G. F.

  Bates, E.

  Grey de Wilton, Visc.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Blennerhassett, R. P.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Hardy, J. S.

  Browne, G. E.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Henry, M.

  Bruen, H.

  Heron, D. C.

  Bryan, G. L.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Callan, P.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Cameron, D.

  Hick, J.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Charley, W. T.

  Holt, J. M.

  Clowes, S. W.

  Hood, Captain hon. A.

  Corbett. J. M.

  W. A. N.

  Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Collins, T.

  Hutton, J.

  Corbett, Colonel

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Corrigan, Sir D.

  Jones, J.

  Corry, hon. H. W. L.

  Knight, F. W.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Knox, hon. Colonel S.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Langton, W. G.

  Dalway, M. R.

  Learmonth, A.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Leigh, Lt.-Col. E.

  Dease, E.

  Leslie, J.

  Delahunty, J.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Dick, F.

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  Digby, K. T.

  Lowther, J.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Mahon, Viscount

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Matthews, H.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Maxwell, W. H.

  Dyott, Col. R.

  Miller, J.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Monckton, hon. G.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Monk, C. J.

  Ewing, A. Orr-

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Munster, W. F.

  1831

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Straight, D.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Talbot, J. G.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Otway, A. J.

  Tipping, W.

  Pakington,rt. hn. Sir J.

  Tollemache, Maj. W. F.

  Percy, Earl

  Trench,hn.Maj.W.le P.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Turner, C.

  Pim, J.

  Vance, J.

  Powell, F. S.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Powell, W.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Power, J. T.

  Walpole, hon. F.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Watney, J.

  Ronayne, J. P.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Round, J.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Salt, T.

  Winn, R.

  Sherlock, D.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Shirley, S. E.

  Yarmouth, Earl of

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Smith, R.

  Smith, W. H.

  TELLERS.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Downing, M'C.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Plunket, hon. D. R.

  ENTAILED AND SETTLED ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 130.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Adam.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. GORDONsaid, he had received an assurance that as that was a Bill that involved the laws of settlement in England as well as in Scotland, it would not be proceeded with until it had been further discussed. Not only that, but he had been given to understand there was to be a morning sitting for that and the kindred English Bill upon the same subject, as the two ought to be taken together. He had received a distinct assurance to that effect, and he regretted it had not been kept.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should be sorry if there was any misapprehension upon the subject. He was not conscious of having entered into any engagement reserving the Bill for a morning sitting, and all that was said was that the Bill would not be proceeded with at a very late hour, but the last discussion which engaged the House closed considerably before 12. If the Bill was kept for a morning sitting, great inconvenience would result, and they were anxious to get on not only from the fact that they were pressed by Scotch opinion, but that they were anxious to get the opinion of the House on the Bill. He must, therefore, en-
  1832
  courage the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to proceed.
  MR. GORDONsaid, the Bill involved interests of the greatest importance to the two countries, and the Government ought to let the House clearly understand what it intended doing with regard to England. It struck him that if the proposals in the Bill with regard to the law of settlement were good for Scotland, they ought to be good for England also; and his own view was that legislation on the subject for Scotland ought not to take place until inquiry by means of a Select Committee should be made into the whole subject with the view of legislating for England as well. Do not let them interfere with vested rights, unless they could do so on just and clear grounds, common to both countries. The public had a deep interest in the Bill, especially in one provision of it, and in regard to that provision he wished to ask should there not be the greatest liberty given to heirs in entail to borrow money to improve their property at the ordinary rates of interest? Then, as to the law of mort-main. By a clause of the Bill it was proposed to get up a sort of law of this kind for the whole of Scotland. He had presented numerous Petitions against the Bill on behalf of numerous educational and other institutions. Many of those institutions were charitable, and they were excellently managed. Were they not to be allowed to hold real property? Was that the principle on which they were to proceed? He strongly objected to the 11th clause, which would extinguish the law of entail—a system which was well understood and prized in Scotland. Then they had introduced the law of settlement in England. Well, they had that already, and what was the benefit the Government expected would be derived from it? He altogether denied that he expected the House would go into Committee that night, and he hoped no steps would be taken until they considered the law of settlement in England, and resolved to put both countries on an equal footing.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEdoubted if he quite understood the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As far as he understood the views of the Scotch Members, they considered the Bill did not go far enough, and while they approved of it as far as it went, they hoped

  1833
  it would yet go farther. He did not, therefore, think that the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend with reference to the measure were likely to meet with much favour in Scotland. He maintained that the laws in both countries had been placed on an equal footing in that matter a considerable time ago, although there were things which might be done in England which could not be done in Scotland. A father, for instance, was tied up during the whole of his lifetime by the entail, and he could not move even with the consent of his son. This was done in order to benefit the unborn grandchild. He should propose, if it would please Parliament to pass the Bill, to enable any father, with the consent of his son, to deal with the estate in such a way as they agreed upon. The Bill, moreover, was not intended to prevent people being charitable to public institutions, but it was intended to prevent them from conveying part of the soil of the country to trustees to hold in perpetuity for charitable purposes.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, hon. Members had not the least opportunity of considering the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had placed on the Table that night.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not going to ask the House to proceed with those Amendments that night.
  SIR JOHN HAYsuggested that the Bill should be committed pro formâ for the purpose of inserting these Amendments, and then reprinted in its amended form.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not accede to that course.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir John Hay.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 65: Majority 45.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved that the House do now adjourn, as it was twenty minutes past 1 o'clock, and it was impossible to go on with the discussion of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. James Lowther.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Session was so far advanced that he must lose no opportunity of making progress with it. If they got into Committee, Progress should at once be reported.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. GORDONexpressed a hope that the Bill would not be proceeded with again for some days, in order that the people of Scotland might have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had laid on the Table that night.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, full opportunity should be afforded, and he would accordingly not take the Bill again until Thursday in next week.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the appointment of Revising Barristers and the holding of Revision Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLEY and Mr. HOLKER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Blackwater Bridge*(197).
Second Reading—Law Agents (Scotland) (163).
Report—Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property* (140).
Third Reading—Thames Embankment (Land)* (179), and passed.

JUDICIAL PEERAGES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD REDESDALE,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that for the advantage of this House and of the suitors thereto, and for the honour of the legal profession, Her Majesty will be pleased to sanction the erection of the offices of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice of

  1759
  the Queen's Bench, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer of England into Baronies which shall entitle the holders of those offices to writs of summons to Parliament by tenure thereof under such titles as Her Majesty shall in each case be pleased to summon them; and that such writs of summons as aforesaid shall make the persons receiving the same, although they may not continue to hold the said offices, Peers of Parliament for life, without remainder to the heirs of their bodies; and that in the event of Her Majesty being pleased at any time after such writ shall have been issued to create the person sitting under the same a baron by patent under the same title, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, the barony so created may, if Her Majesty shall be so pleased, take precedence from the date of the first writ of summons directed to such person,"
  said, he would remind their Lordships that 22 years ago—namely on the 15th of June 1851—he gave Notice of a Motion of a precisely similar nature to that which he was now submitting to their Lordships; but meeting with no encouragement at the time he had abstained from bringing it forward. He made that observation for the purpose of making their Lordships aware of the fact of his having entertained his present opinions on the subject for so long a time, and because he thought it ought not to be treated as a party question. From that time forward he had always held a decided opinion upon the subject, which was that he strongly objected to life Peerages. What he always advocated, and what he now advocated, was official Peerages—Peerages which would be granted on account of the high office a person might hold, and on the consideration that the presence of such a person in their Lordships' House would be a matter of great advantage to them. He believed that those Peerages could be created quite irrespective of party consideration, and the result would be a deserved honour on the Gentlemen whom his Motion included, and a great gain to the legislative resources of that House. They were no novelty, for the Church had from the earliest period been represented in the House in that way, and the Church being no more closely allied to the State than to the Law, it would be equally advantageous for the Law also to be represented. In 1856, the question of life Peerages was for the first time brought under their Lordships' consideration in the case of Lord Wensleydale, and their Lordships very properly resisted the attempt that was
  1760
  made to introduce life Peerages. He approved that decision, for an unlimited introduction of life Peers would have been fatal to their Lordships' independence. Lord Russell's Bill four years ago sought to avoid that objection by restrictions on the number and modes of creation. The Select Committee on the Appellate Jurisdiction which was appointed after that decision recommended the strengthening of the legal element by the appointment of Deputy Speakers, paid officers of high character with life Peerages; but the Bill founded thereon, after passing through that House and passing a second reading in the other, with the support of Lord Palmerston and the present Lord Chancellor, fell through, owing to the lateness of the Session, and to objections to the creation of new paid officers of that House. The official Peerages which he now proposed would be held by men with salaries enabling them to sustain the position, and he had included the Lord Chancellor; for in many instances persons who had accepted the office with an hereditary Peerage would have preferred on their appointment, in consideration of a large family and small means, a Peerage for life. Life Peerages unconnected with office would give no security that the House would be benefited, and were therefore objectionable. It might be asked whether he would have any objection to an extension of the principle upon which his proposition was based. He was prepared to do so to some extent. For instance, he should be willing to extend his Motion to the holder of any high office in Scotland whose attendance in Parliament would not be incompatible with his other duties; for the House had derived much assistance from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay); who was conversant with Scotch matters; but the office of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal in Scotland was at present not connected with the Law. Men qualified by holding high legal offices would be a valuable addition to the House, and that the more so from the fact that it was proposed to include Scotch and Irish Appeals in the operation of the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill. As to colonial Governors, whom Lord Russell's Bill proposed to admit, nobody denied the advantage of their being Members of that House, and giving information on

  1761
  colonial subjects; but the number of the Peerage rendered it easy to find Peers willing to accept colonial Governorships, and it would be undesirable both for the colonies and for that House that there should be any notion of sending out Commoners in order to qualify them for Peerages. It might lead to persons equally qualified, but already Peers, being passed over. The Bill also proposed the admission of persons who had sat 10 years in the other House; but many hon. Gentlemen sat there on account merely of their wealth and desire for social position, and it was not ordinary men whose admission here was desirable. He attached no weight to the objection that the Chief Judges would have no time to assist in Parliamentary business, especially as, if the Judicature Bill passed, they would become Appellate Judges exclusively. After the charges preferred from the Bench against Parliament of careless legislation, it might bean advantage to have the Chief Judges in the House, responsible in some degree for what was done, and there could be no constitutional objection, for Chief Justices had always been deemed eligible for Peerages, and lead sometimes held them. He was anxious to keep such Peerages free from any stamp of inferiority, and he proposed that the wives and children of such Peers should have the same rank as those of hereditary Peers; as, also, that if an hereditary Peerage with the same title was afterwards granted, it should date from the patent of life Peerage. Above all, the honour should he in the office and not in the Peerage, as was the ease with members of the Episcopal bench. In conclusion, believing that what he proposed would add great weight and value to the deliberations and decisions of that House, and that the plan he had hit upon for carrying that proposition out was the best that could be adopted, he recommended it to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that for the advantage of this House and of the suitors thereto, and for the honour of the legal profession, Her Majesty will be pleased to sanction the erection of the offices of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer of England into Baronies which shall entitle the holders of those offices to
  1762
  writs of summons to Parliament by tenure thereof under such titles as Her Majesty shall in each case be pleased to summon them; and that such writs of summons as aforesaid shall make the persons receiving the same, although they may not continue to hold the said offices, Peers of Parliament for life, without remainder to the heirs of their bodies; and that in the event of Her Majesty being pleased at any time after such writ shall have been issued to create the person sitting under the same a baron by patent under the same title, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, the barony so created may, if Her Majesty shall be so pleased, take precedence from the date of the first writ of summons directed to such person.—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he could not concur in the proposals of the noble Lord. He thought it was not the time for such a change, and that whatever advantages it might confer upon the House could be just as well obtained without it. The Judges were always ready to assist in the appellate jurisdiction of the House; and in his opinion it would be a very equivocal honour to confer upon them to place them in a social position which they did not covet, and which in many instances might be beyond their means. He hoped the Motion would not be adopted. It was inopportune to submit it when the Judicature Bill was altering everything, and itself being daily altered. Lord Hatherley, in 1856, declined a Peerage, and it would be awkward if, after the Motion was adopted, Judges declined, for want of time or other reasons, to accept these Peerages, which could not be considered any very great honour to receive.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I stated the other day that I thought at the time, and that subsequent reflection had confirmed my opinion—that it was a great misfortune for the House that the question of life Peerages was decided adversely. I have always felt the Resolution in Lord Wensleydale's case a great blow to this House, and I am glad to find from the Motion of the noble Lord, that the subject is still in your Lordships' minds, and that it may possibly bear fruit. At the same time, I feel some hesitation upon the subject, for although, considering the position in which the question was left by your Lordships' decision, I think the noble Lord's Motion is perfectly correct in point of form, and there is no doubt that—supposing the proposal to be accepted—the most appropriate mode of pro-

  1763
  ceeding in the matter would be by means of an Address to the Crown, yet I see great objections to it. One thing we ought to consider is not only how far any proposal of the sort is sufficiently mature and in itself defensible, but whether it has a reasonable chance of success in the other House; for it is undesirable, and a harmful thing, that anything affecting the character and constitution of this House should be discussed and canvassed there, if there is no likelihood of any practical result. We should therefore well consider the steps we are taking, before we recommend the Government to bring the matter in a legislative shape before Parliament. With regard to the statement of the noble Lord in his Motion, that the carrying out of the proposal will be of advantage to suitors, there seems to be a slight anachronism in that, inasmuch as your Lordships have already passed a Bill depriving yourselves of your judicial functions to a certain extent, and that Bill has been amended in "another place," by striking out all the remaining judicial functions of this House; therefore if the measure passes in that shape, suitors will not derive much benefit from the creation of those legal life Peers, inasmuch as there will be no suitors appealing to the House. Moreover, there is no provision in the Motion for insuring a Law Peer from Scotland or Ireland. The noble Lord appears inclined to meet that by the somewhat clumsy expedient of adding, not an actual Scotch Judgeship, but an office held at this moment by a layman, a Member of this House. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) when he says that it is not an honour to be created a life Peer of this House. It was argued in Lord Wensleydale's case, though I always scouted the idea, that there would be some feeling of superiority on the part of hereditary Peers towards eminent men entering this House in virtue of high qualifications. With regard to the honours of the legal profession, it stands deservedly high; and it is no reason for making an alteration to represent it as "for the honour of the legal profession." One objection to the proposal is, that it passes by other professions whose representation here would be an undoubted advantage. The noble Lord thinks it would be unwise to take any step lessening the in-
  1764
  ducement to select Peers from colonial Governors. That may be very well for us to say; but it is certainly not a reason which will recommend the exclusive character of his proposal to the House of Commons. This Session we have had few debates of any interest; but we have had debates in which late colonial Governors have contributed very much to the information of the House. If we have some eminent colonial Governor—even a man pre-eminent among Governors—who happens not to be a Peer, owing to a large family, or to not having large savings—and it is difficult for a Governor to have large savings—it is surely undesirable that he should be excluded any more than an eminent lawyer. Take another case. The noble Lord (Lord Blachford) made a speech the other day, and was followed by Peers on both sides, who not only praised its admirable character, but said that he from his accurate knowledge of the subject, was the only man in the kingdom by whom it could have been made. I do not, therefore, understand why we should adopt a system by which we exclude persons of these qualifications who have a large family, or an insufficient landed estate. The scheme, moreover, would not have applied to Lord Kingsdown, whose assistance in appeals was an inestimable advantage. I have no doubt life Peers would be an advantage to the House, but I think the best way would be to leave the Prerogative of the Crown undisturbed. I do not remember that in Lord Wensleydale's case anybody ventured to deny that it was in the Prerogative of the Crown to make life Peers. I believe it would be very much controlled, as stated the other day by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), by public opinion. As Lord Lansdowne said, the Prerogative of the Crown might be safely trusted in matters of the sort to a control by the new prerogative of public opinion. I know the jealousy which your Lordships then entertained, and the feeling which actuated legal Members. Lord Campbell asked what the legal profession had done that it was to be humiliated in that way? I believe your Lordships feared that life Peerages would make it easier for a Minister to ask, and more difficult for the Sovereign to refuse, an enormous and unwarrantable creation of Peers for the purpose of swamping the House at any

  1765
  particular moment, and thus obtaining a majority on any particular question of the hour. I think that fear an unreasonable one. Exactly the same weight of responsibility would exist with regard to creating life Peers as hereditary Peers, and that feeling would restrain the Sovereign as much in one case as in the other. It would be infinitely better even to restrict the number, and prevent the exercise of the power in an unwarrantable and unconstitutional manner, than to confine the Peerages to four legal offices. Lord Russell's Bill restricted the whole number and the number of annual creations, and that would be better than the noble Lord's proposal. He proposes that the wives of these Peers should be Peeresses, and their children have titles of courtesy. That takes them out of the category of the Episcopal Bench, which is the only analogy the noble Lord tried to make out. Bishops, moreover, represent property, which would not be the case with the Judges, who would represent nothing but stipends. The noble Lord thinks hon. Members of the other House of great wealth and desirous of social position would exercise great pressure on the Government to make them Peers. Is that pressure at all diminished, however, by its being open to the Government to make them hereditary Peers? One advantage of life Peerages is, that it prevents persons who themselves have every claim to a seat here from transmitting their Peerages to persons who maybe excellent in their way, but may not have the eminent qualities of their fathers, and lack the means of keeping up in any proper degree the dignity of the Peerage. I should much prefer to life Peerages attached to offices some restriction on the number of life Peers at one time, or on the annual creations. There are advantages about life Peerages which are patent to view; but the subject involves many difficulties so grave that I cannot give my support to the proposals of the noble Lord, and I do not think it desirable that legislation should take place in the direction they recommend. Under all the circumstances, therefore, I do not think it advisable that the noble Lord should press his Motion for an Address.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the objections which the noble Earl has offered to the Motion show very little zeal for a measure he
  1766
  professes to support; or else it suggests the idea that he has in the background some more revolutionary proposal of his own. The noble Earl seems to object to one proposal, because the time is not propitious; and another does not suit him, because it does not go far enough. One of his objections to this scheme is, that we ought to have it in a shape likely to pass the House of Commons, and that this scheme would not pass there. Now, the House of Commons is a very favourite bugbear, which the Government keep for the purpose of frightening us. Some time ago I proposed a certain alteration in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Appeal, when I was told it would certainly wreck the Bill in the House of Commons; that though the principle was quite right, the Bill so weighted would never pass. This evening I hear that that very proposal has been passed by the other House with perfect unanimity. The noble Earl does not sufficiently appreciate the difficulties which surround the question, and the reasons which induce the advocates of life Peerages to support the limited proposal of the noble Lord. No, doubt, the real fear is, that if the principle should be more extended, the independence of this House may be seriously tampered with. This House has always looked with great jealousy on giving Ministers the power of advising the creation of an unlimited number of Peers. Every Sovereign has naturally a deep aversion to loading the Peerage unnecessarily for all time with Peers created to meet some present emergency. That makes the Sovereign very jealous of allowing the Prime Minister of the day—himself a merely temporary phenomenon—the power, for a temporary object, to mortgage to all futurity the honours in the gift of the Crown. It is a very serious responsibility, and every Minister feels it. It is to the weight arising from the perpetuity of the Peerage that we owe the fact that the power of creating Peers, apparently so unlimited, has in reality been so seldom used for influencing our deliberations. If, however, the Sovereign knew that the results of the Act would not last for ever; that it would not be stamped in indelible characters on the history of the country, but that a few short years would dispose of some few aged men; would bury in oblivion his own facility in conceding the temporary demands of the

  1767
  Minister, and that the mode by which the crisis was surmounted and the crisis itself would be alike forgotten by posterity, the responsibility would be much lighter. The advocates of life Peerages have to satisfy the House that the power will not be used for the purpose of controlling it, and I am convinced that the House will never recede from its decision in 1856—that it will never trust an unscrupulous Minister, backed by some transient popular agitation, with the power of humiliating this House. I should have been very glad had Lord Russell's Bill passed, though I felt at the time there were objections, the force of which reflection and experience have not diminished. The temptation of the Minister to confer Peerages on those whom he does not like to put in a responsible office is now considerable. If he knew, and the Sovereign knew also, that he was not thereby pledging the future interests of the country, do you imagine life Peerages would not be habitually created as a means of securing influence? Bribery, it is said, has passed away—namely, money passing from hand to hand—but has it entirely disappeared from our institutions in the form of a mark of distinction for political support? Unless the standard by which Ministers are habitually governed is raised higher than it is now, it would be dangerous to give a Minister an unlimited power, which might be used for stocking these benches with some of the most incompetent Members of the House of Commons. The noble Earl quoted me, as saying that no Minister would be so lost to his duty, or his reputation, as to appoint men to high judicial offices for mere party purposes. I think we have got beyond that. The interests concerned are so large and the injury and the injustice would be so cruel, that no Minister would dare to appoint incompetent men to administer justice. But in this case, the injury would not be so apparent, and a Minister who would shrink from appointing a Judge from party motives, might not shrink from rewarding the steady votes of a worn-out partizan. The noble Earl asks the reason for confining the measure to lawyers. The reason is that half-a-loaf is better than no bread. Supposing the paramount object of bringing men of proved ability is secured, I have no objection to go beyond
  1768
  the limits of the law; but let us try this proposition, and admit eminent Judges, and go further hereafter, if it proves advantageous. We should thus decide the vexed question, whether life Peers would diminish the influence of the hereditary Peers, which I believe to be a bugbear. After all, we have those who may be considered life Peers—namely, men who come here by their own merit and not by hereditary descent; and, as one of the caste who, according to that hypothesis, would be injured, I have never found hereditary Peers depreciated. In point of fact, this House within its walls, is the most democratic Assembly in the world. As to colonial Governors, let us wait awhile and try this experiment. If it answers, we can go further; if not, we shall have done no harm. This is not the time when we should be wise in rejecting such a proposal. I cannot help feeling that had Lord Russell's Bill passed in 1869, we should not now have lost the appellate jurisdiction. In the long run in England, whatever traditional rights or powers may be, jurisdiction will ultimately be fitted to the strength of the back that has to bear it, and in proportion as we are strong to do our work, we shall get more work to do, and in proportion as we are strong to exercise the power, we shall have power to exercise. I cannot feel altogether satisfied with the present state of things. Nobody impeaches the capacity or ability of this House; but as to the extent to which, in comparison to our numbers, attention is shown to our work, I fear no candid critic would say we are wholly above reflection. While the attendance year by year diminishes, the work we have to do seems to diminish too, and I sometimes think there is a race for extinction between the two, and that it is an even bet which will disappear first, the work which the Assembly has to do, or the Assembly which does the work. I am satisfied, however, that there might be abundance of work for us to do, and that should this proposal result in fresh talent being introduced into this House, we shall have ample opportunity afforded us for availing ourselves of its assistance. I am afraid that the change that appears to be impending over us through the operation of the Judicature Bill will tend largely to diminish the number of legal Peers in this House, because

  1769
  lawyers of eminence will not have the same inducements as before to accept Peerages, and the consequent result to the reputation of the House as a Legislative Assembly will be most injurious. That prospective evil may, however, in some degree be met by the noble Lord's proposal being carried into effect. I trust, therefore, that we shall not, by rejecting the proposition, indicate to the country that we value our privileges more than our usefulness; but that we shall rather show an intention on our part to welcome, with the utmost earnestness, any change in our constitution which will strengthen our voice as a deliberative, revising, and legislative body, and so increase our usefulness to the country and the probability of the permanence of the House. In conclusion I beg to express an earnest hope that the House will agree to the proposal of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that having had the misfortune to be the principal means of rejecting the Bill of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) in 1869, he wished to make a few observations upon the subject. He did not think that that was the proper opportunity to discuss the proposal to create life Peerages generally, inasmuch as the terms of the noble Lord's Motion were strictly limited. He must, however, enter his protest against the statement made by the noble Marquess that the House of Lords as at present constituted did not and could not do its duty.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I said was, not that the House was not competent to do its duty, but that its Members did not attend to it.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that having been a Member of that House for a much longer period than his noble Friend, he thought he was justified in taking objection to the statement made. He was prepared to prove, from the Papers which had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, that the House had attended to its duty more assiduously during the last three or four years than had been the case during the previous 20 years.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYremarked that the proposal concerned most nearly those noble Lords who in the course of nature might expect to remain in that House the longest time. He thought that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess
  1770
  of Salisbury) had been more than severe in the strictures he had passed upon the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who had shown his attachment to the principle of the proposal on more than one occasion. His objection to the proposal was that it admitted a principle without carrying it to its legitimate conclusion, for it admitted the principle, he would not say of life or official Peers, but of personal as opposed to hereditary Peers, but did little or nothing to carry it out. Then while it admitted English Judges it did nothing for Scotch. Yet on no one point was the evidence before the Select Committee of last year more unanimous than on the necessity of some Scotch legal representative in this House, not for judicial purposes so much as to conduct legal measures. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Colonsay) was only a happy accident. As regarded personal Peers the present proposal did not go so far as that of 1869. That Bill met with almost universal acceptance; it had hardly any enemy, it could hardly be said to have fallen in battle, it was stifled under the cold embraces of its friends. Its debates consisted in haggling over the number of Peers to be admitted, whether 14, 21, or 28 in seven years. The importance of that point seemed to him always over-rated, when it was remembered that Mr. Pitt had in two years created 35 hereditary Peers, and he supposed, though he heard the phrase with surprise, that Mr. Pitt was the revolutionary statesman alluded to by the noble Marquess opposite. However, the present proposal was not revolutionary. It was strictly speaking a return to what were commonly called the ancient lines of the Constitution—a return to the old alliance between office and title which was the origin of the very nomenclature of our titles. However, that was a small point. He should vote with the noble Chairman of Committees not for his reason that the present proposal was distinctly not one for life Peerages, but for the directly opposite one, that it was voluntarily or involuntarily an admission and affirmation of the principle of personal Peerages.
  LORD CAIRNS,in making a few observations on the subject, said, he should endeavour as far as possible to avoid introducing any matters likely to give rise to professional controversy. He was anxious to correct the statement that

  1771
  had fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) with reference to the course that was pursued with regard to the Bill of 1869. That Bill, having passed through Committee, stood for its third reading, when, notwithstanding the fact that Her Majesty's Government had always professed themselves favourable to the measure, a letter from one of the then Members of the Government was published in certain of the public journals, in which he ridiculed the measure as a "mere tinkering of the constitution of that House," and the result was, that the Bill was lost. A measure of that kind was, however, he thought, desirable, and he should be' very glad to see one introduced to their Lordships' House, carefully considered, and with all the restrictions which attached to the former Bill. But the question which he had on the present occasion to ask himself was, whether he could support the Motion of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. With the Motion he agreed to a great extent, so far as it went. He was at the same time unwilling to vote for it, because it only touched the mere fringe of the question; and in dealing simply with one point of it, might create the impression that the rest ought not to be dealt with. He was therefore unable to vote for the Motion, while he was prepared to consider the principle that some mode of introducing official persons, such as those named in it, into the House ought to be adopted. Under those circumstances, the best course, in his opinion, which he could pursue was to move the Previous Question, for voting on the question "Aye" or "No" would be likely to give rise to misapprehension. He should, therefore, conclude by moving the Previous Question.
  LORD COLCHESTER,in supporting the Motion, said, he had in the year 1869 voted against the Bill of Earl Russell for the creation of life Peers, and should a measure of the same kind again be brought forward, he should still be prepared to oppose it. He could not but consider the creation of life Peerages at the discretion of the Minister of the day an invidious task in the hands of a scrupulous and conscientious Minister, and a dangerous power in the hands of a Minister less conscientious and less constitutional, who might use it with detriment to their
  1772
  Lordships' House. They rejoiced to see the right rev. Bench sitting among them by virtue of their office; but it might be regarded in a different light if a power existed in the Minister of the Crown to decide whether each right rev. Prelate should or should not sit for life in that House. He regarded, however, the proposal of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees connecting the life or official Peerage indissolubly with appointment to high and responsible functions, to great and important individual as well as collective duty, as resting on an entirely different basis, and if it could be practically done, maintaining the principle that the Peerage should necessarily—not at the option of the Executive—be united to office, he should be glad to see it extended to other professions than the legal. He should be glad to see the Governors of our great colonies necessarily sit in that House on their return, though it might be very objectionable to give a power of selection for creation as life Peers among all Governors of colonies, great or small, at the pleasure of an Administration. Therefore, while holding that a Chamber mainly or wholly composed of life Members, as in some foreign countries, was not only an undesirable, but one of the least desirable forms of an Upper Chamber, as being a mere reflex of the Executive—while deprecating the introduction of a life element as such into that House, he was prepared to support the plan of an ex officio Peerage as proposed, and should have great satisfaction in voting in its favour.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the House would do well to accede to the suggestion which had been made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) who moved the Previous Question. For his own part, he should be very glad to see persons holding the high offices named in the proposal under discussion occupying seats in that House, and he should therefore be very reluctant to vote against any Motion having that object. But he was, on the other hand, very strongly impressed with the feeling that it would be wholly impossible to stop at so limited an extension as was proposed of Peerages to persons not sitting as hereditary Peers, and he must say that frequent and repeated tentative legislation as to the constitution of that House would be a serious

  1773
  evil, not to say a serious danger. It seemed to him that there was no slight concurrence of opinion in favour of the introduction of life Peers under such restrictions as might prevent abuse; but it was manifestly a different proposal to create a certain number of ex officio Peers; and it was impossible to deny that there were beyond the lines of the legal profession classes of persons to whom reference had been already made, such as Governors of Colonies, or Ambassadors and high diplomatic servants of the Crown, to whom it might fairly be contended that the proposal of the noble Lord might with advantage be applied. Fit persons to occupy seats in their Lordships' House on a similar footing might be selected from all those categories, and also from the naval and military professions, and he was quite prepared to say that the legal profession had already, and was likely to have, its full share of the honours of the State, as compared with other professions. It would be a somewhat invidious thing therefore, to make an exceptional rule in its favour as was now suggested. If, however, they travelled beyond the legal profession, it would be found an exceedingly hard thing to find other offices held with that permanency of tenure and that independence which their Lordships would wish to see if life Peerages were to be attached to them. It would be a great mistake, he might add, to suppose that in adopting the Motion the House would be following the analogy of the case of the right rev. Bench, the historical origin of whose title to sit in that House was not ex officio but as Barons by tenure, because, like the mitred Abbots, who, before the suppression of Monasteries, also sat in Parliament, they held great ecclesiastical fiefs from the Crown. There was indeed, a variety of questions which would require consideration before the question could be dealt with in the limited form now proposed, and the House would, therefore, he thought, act wisely in adopting the course which his noble and learned Friend had suggested.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was also in favour of putting the Previous Question. He fully agreed that it would not be wise to divide on the Motion. The question was a very important one, and the more they considered it, the more they must see the necessity there was for a measure of the kind. He fully recognized
  1774
  the danger indicated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the power of creating life Peerages, unless it was carefully guarded, would be liable to abuse; but, on the other hand, there was no slight danger—and perhaps even a more formidable danger—of an abuse of the power of making hereditary Peerages. In the course of the present century, he thought that latter power had been abused with great detriment to that House. There was, he felt persuaded, a manifest deterioration in that Assembly as regarded the disposition to attend to business, and that evil might be traced in a great degree to the fact that the House had become much more numerous. That House, owing to its peculiar character, was not fitted to be a very numerous Assembly, and a state of things had been produced by the cause he had described, in which after a certain period of the evening, it was often almost impossible to discuss interesting questions as they ought to be discussed there. He believed the tendency to abuse the power of creating hereditary Peerages since the commencement of the century had been gradually increasing. Lord Palmerston, however, had shown a greater abstinence on that point than the Ministers by whom he had been followed, whether they sat on the one side or the other of the Houses of Parliament. Probably the best remedy against the abuse of the power of making hereditary Peers would be found in the adoption under proper safeguards of the principle of life Peerages. The decision at which their Lordships' House arrived in 1856 on that subject had been referred to. In his opinion, looking at the nature of our Constitution and Government, no Minister was entitled to advise the Crown, as was done in 1856, to bring forth from antiquity a Prerogative which had not been used for 300 years. The fact that that Prerogative had been so long in abeyance was, he maintained, an insurmountable bar to its being used without consulting Parliament; and it, instead of creating Lord Wensleydale a life Peer, the Government of the day had taken that House into its counsels, and had pointed out how great was the object to be attained, how useful it would be for the character and dignity of the House, and how much it would conduce to the convenience of the public—if the subject

  1775
  had been dealt with in that manner, and if an angry feeling had not been raised by what was thought an unwarrantable invasion of the rights and privileges of that House, he was persuaded there would have been no difficulty in arriving at an amicable solution of the question, and the ancient practice of creating life Peerages might have been revived under such conditions as would guard against abuse. But although mistakes were made in 1856, it was not too late to deal with the matter; and he hoped that both the Government and those who sat opposite to them, would take it into their consideration and endeavour to arrive at some mode of attaining an object which from the discussion of that evening it appeared they all desired.
  LORD REDESDALE,in reply, said, that it was difficult to raise the question in any other way than that which he had suggested; and in any proposition for creating life Peerages which might be made, the high legal offices referred to in his Motion ought to be clearly provided for. His proposal was free from any objection, and was an entirely constitutional mode of treating the subject. He had carefully avoided making that a party question, resting his Motion solely on the ground of what was best for the interests of that House and of the public. He had heard with considerable regret the remark of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary to the effect that if the Motion for an Address to the Crown were adopted it would receive an unfavourable answer. That, he thought, was not a proper method of meeting such a proposal. If the House expressed an opinion that it was desirable that Prerogative should be exercised in a particular manner, it would be most unfortunate if the answer of the Crown should be one which amounted in fact to telling the House to mind its own business. He was now very much in the hands of the House; but he thought their Lordships need not fear that it would meet with a response distasteful to them, although it might convey little or nothing to the House. He regretted that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had suggested that the Question should not be put. It was to be regretted, he thought, that when a question of this sort had been brought before their Lordships, they should not express an opinion upon it. He was,
  1776
  however, entirely in the hands of the House, and if their Lordships thought they should go to a division, he should certainly prefer that course.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in explanation, said, that the noble Lord had misinterpreted a portion of his (Earl Granville's) speech to which reference had been made in the noble Lord's reply.
  A Question being stated thereupon, the Previous Question was put, "Whether the said Question shall be now put?"
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had not called for a division lest the question might appear to have assumed a party character. He believed a considerable number of noble Lords would have voted with him; but under the circumstances their Lordships would probably think that he was exercising a wise discretion in refraining from asking the House to divide.

  ALKALI ACT (1863)—PETITION FOR AMENDMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD RAVENSWORTH,in rising to call attention to the defective provisions of the Alkali Act, and to present a Petition, numerously signed, upon the subject, said, that the Act was passed in the year 1863, and that its object was to diminish the quantity of noxious vapours passing from chemical works into the atmosphere, and especially to cause an effectual condensation of muriatic acid gas. This subject was one of very great importance; it affected the comfort and the health of a large portion of the community. Although there had been no public demonstration respecting the question, and no great public meeting had given expression to the grievances which those he represented complained of; yet he could inform their Lordships that within eight or ten days a Petition on the subject had received the signatures of some 500 gentlemen of high standing. Those parties complained of the defective provisions of the Alkali Act, and of the destructive effects upon public health and property which had been the result. They complained that the Act was not alone inadequate, but that matters were even worse than they were before its passing in 1863. Indeed, it appeared from the Reports of the Inspector appointed by the Board of

  1777
  Trade, and also from the result of an inquiry conducted with the sanction of the Board on the subject, that the mischief resulting to vegetation, and, consequently, to the health of the people, from the noxious gases generated in alkali and other works, had not been at all lessened since the passing of the Act. Of his own knowledge, speaking of the district of Tyneside between Newcastle and Shields he could say that so far from relief being afforded by the provisions of the Act, the mischief created was now ten times greater than it was before the Act passed. No one could read the last Report of the Inspector, that for 1871, which had been presented to Parliament, without arriving at the conclusion that the statute was inadequate to meet the existing evil. It appeared that the acids of sulphur, the most injurious of all, were totally untouched by the present Act, and the Inspector gave it as his opinion that it would be desirable to have a special inquiry into that subject. The Inspector stated that many complaints had been made to him of continued injury from deleterious vapours; but he believed that a great part of the injury was not done by muriatic acid, but by the sulphurous acids evolved from some of those works. Those acids were given out in great abundance, they were destructive to health and vegetation; and for a mile or two, and often more if the wind set in a particular direction, much damage was done, and the neighbourhood rendered almost uninhabitable. The sulphuric acid gas infected all the moisture in the air, and the most deleterious effect to health was the result. When the Government Inspector pronounced the present law to be defective, surely it was not too much to ask for the attention and assistance of the Government in supplying the defects of the existing Act. With regard to the nature of the remedy he would say that having, when in the other House, represented the two northern counties, he was not in favour of violent measures. The question was not one without difficulty; but the parties who suffered from these noxious vapours ought to have the power of obtaining redress. He appealed, therefore, to the Government to take into consideration what these remedial measures should be; but some means of diminishing the amount of sulphuric acids
  1778
  evolved from these works might certainly be devised without injury to the manufacturer. One suggestion was, that the Poor Law officers should give relief to sufferers from such works, and that they should have power to compel the offending parties to refund the money. He trusted that he had said enough to call the attention of the Government and the country to the evils that existed and the necessity of supplementing the existing law, so as to enable the Inspectors to deal with them.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could bear testimony to the general accuracy of the statements of his noble Friend. In the neighbourhood of alkali works, trees were killed or stunted, and crops and vegetation generally were injured. With regard to the residents in the neighbourhood these vapours were destructive to comfort, and, as he believed, injurious to health. All this inconvenience was at a maximum within a radius of two or three miles of such works; but it was within his own knowledge that near St, Helens, in the direction in which the wind habitually blew, residences were made untenable at a greater distance—say four miles when the wind set directly in that direction. He by no means wished to be understood as saying that the Inspectors under the Act passed ten years ago had failed in their duty. He believed that the Inspectors did the utmost that the law enabled them to do, and the only means of meeting the evil pointed out was by increasing the powers with which they were armed. The Act only enabled them to deal with one particular noxious vapour—muriatic acid—and there was not only reason to believe that a good deal more of that gas escaped than was contemplated when the Act passed, but that other and still more destructive vapours were also set free to the injury of the neighbourhood. It might be asked why they did not prosecute for these nuisances. If these offensive gases came from one work there would be no difficulty in the matter, but where there were a number of works, by reason of their very number it was impossible to fix the responsibility on any one of them. Speaking as a resident in a part of the country which was subject to these annoyances, and whose health not un-frequently suffered from them, he ventured to say that a case had been made

  1779
  out which deserved the attention of the Government.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYremarked that in the north of Cheshire sulphuric acid was usually allowed to escape only in the night time. He would join in the desire for urgency in the preparation of a remedial measure upon the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the late Lord Derby brought this subject under the consideration of the House in 1862, the consequence being that the Bill of 1863 was passed. That measure, as the noble Lord had explained, dealt only with the case of muriatic acid gas, but it undoubtedly appeared from the reports of the Inspector appointed under the Act that there were a number of other gases of a deleterious character which were deliberately excluded from the operation of the Act. It was necessary to legislate on this subject with extreme caution. The attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had been already directed to the subject, and he had given instructions for an inquiry into it. At present it would be premature to say what might be the best mode of remedying the evil, but he confessed that, speaking for himself alone, he entertained considerable doubt as to the advisability of carrying out the proposal made by Earl Grey to the Select Committee of 1862. The subject would, however, receive careful consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess.

SCOTCH AND IRISH PEERAGE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD INCHIQUINin moving, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Returns of the present state of the Irish and Scotch Peerage, showing what Peerages have become extinct since the union of those countries with England, and what extinct peerages are now represented by inferior titles; the number of Scotch and Irish Peers without seats in Parliament; and the roll of English, United Kingdom, Scotch, and Irish Peerages at the respective dates of union, and at the present time; also, the number of Irish Peerages created since the Union, and the number of British Peerages conferred on Irish and Scotch Peers, and the years in which they were
  1780
  granted, said, he was induced to make his Motion in order that he might be able, at an early period next Session, to bring under their Lordships' notice the exceedingly anomalous and unsatisfactory position of the Scotch and Irish Peers, with a view to the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured.
  Motion agreed to.

  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 163.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that as it had already passed through the other House he did not suppose it was necessary for him to enter into the subject at any great length. As probably some of their Lordships were aware, the Bill was framed mainly upon the recommendations of the Law Commission of Scotland of 1868. At the present moment there were many peculiarities connected with the office of law agents, and their qualifications were not set down as clearly and as satisfactorily as they might be. The Commissioners accordingly recommended that whereas there then existed in Scotland various monopolies and special privileges of different corporations admitting law agents to practise, such monopolies should be abolished; that there should be one general examination and system of admission for the whole of Scotland; that anyone passing such examination should be entitled to practise in all the inferior Courts; and that anyone who passed a further examination should be admitted in the Supreme Courts. This Bill proposed to follow these recommendations, and, so far as related to the admission of law agents to practise, it would abolish all exclusive privileges. The simple object of the Bill was to create a uniform system of law agency all over Scotland. There might possibly be some matters of detail in the Bill which would give rise to discussion; but he did not know that the principle and main object involved would cause any difference of opinion. It had, in the main, received the approval of the legal profession in Scotland, although, as might have been expected, some of

  1781
  the privileged corporations objected to it.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, that various representations had been made to him respecting the measure. Some of them were to a great extent favourable; but many of them were quite the reverse. The object of the Bill he himself fully approved; but he feared that the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the object would not be fair to existing interests, and particularly to existing law societies. The recommendations of the Law Commission were very good, but, if he mistook not, they were exceeded in the Bill. He considered that in any alteration in the law which might be considered desirable, existing interests should be respected as far as possible. He did not see that that was done in the present Bill, and he should therefore reserve to himself the right to propose any Amendment which he thought proper. The last clause of the Bill—that which proposed to repeal the Procurators (Scotland) Act of 1865—was, he considered, open to much objection. However, in the present stage of the Bill, he should throw no obstruction in its way.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he concurred with all that had been said by the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. He believed he was right in saying that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland with regard to the Bill—not with regard to its object, but with regard to the manner it was proposed to deal with some of the legal bodies most deeply interested in the subject. So far as the general principle of the Bill was concerned it was well enough. A gentleman well competent to speak on behalf of the legal opinion of Scotland, had sent him a letter in which he said that the passing of the Bill in its present form would be, in the opinion both of the Bench and the Bar of Scotland, highly injurious to those legal societies to which the noble and learned Lord had referred. It was an important question whether the Bill would benefit or injure such a body of persons as, for instance, the Writers to the Signet. If the Bill only lowered the status of those persons, it would, of course, be an injury to them, and it
  1782
  would also, he believed, be an injury to the public. It would be well to see, then, what was really proposed before agreeing to such a measure as that. He therefore was ready to support any Amendments which his noble and learned Friend thought would preserve the position and the character of those persons. Then there was the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the procurators. He considered that that was open to much question. There was, besides, the question of the Incorporated Societies. He believed that dealing with them was an after-thought. Such a clause was not in the Bill of 1872. If it was not thought proper to make such a proposition in 1872, he should like to know why it was proposed now. He considered that the clause should be as follows:—
  "From and after the first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, the Procurators (Scotland) Act (1865) shall be and the same is hereby repealed, but such repeal shall not prevent societies formed under the said Act from continuing to act as incorporated societies, and electing such office-bearers as they please, and admitting members on such terms as they see fit, provided always that it shall not be necessary for any agent admitted under this Act to become a member of any such society."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that all these things were matters of detail, which he hoped could be satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. The framers of the Bill were between two fires, because while one side urged that special interests should be respected, others urged that no privileges should be given to one body over another. He did not, however, think that these conflicting views need in any way interfere with the passing of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.