Sitting of 7 July 1873

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. Henry Windsor Villiers Stuart, for Waterford County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Juries (Ireland) [No. 283].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Medical Act Amendment (University of London) * [224]; Ulster Tenant Right * [225]; Railways Amalgamation * [227]; Prisoners on Remand * [226]; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment (Application for School Board) * [228].
First Reading—Crown Private Estates * [222]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* [229].
Second Reading—Military Manœuvres * [215]; Conspiracy Law Amendment [190]; Public Meetings (Ireland) [157], negatived.
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature [154]—R.P.; Public Records (Ireland) Act (1867) Amendment * [217]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Militia (Service, &c.) * [216]; Seduction Laws Amendment [10–223].
Considered as amended—Highland Schools (Scotland) * [202].
Withdrawn—Trade Marks Registration * [133]; Prevention of Crime * [36]; Bank of England Notes * [191]; Building Societies (No. 3) * [195]; Fisheries (Ireland) * [181]; Public Prosecutors * [173]; Consolidated Rate * [148]; Minors Protection * [69]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland) * [45]; Building Societies* [109].

CHURCH DISCIPLINE—LETTERS OF THE PRIMATES.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT SANDONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the public admission by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York that there is "a real danger" of "a considerable minority of the clergy and laity of the Church of England desiring to subvert the principles of the Reformation," and to their
1852
assertion in the same document that "the very existence of our national institutions for the maintenance of religion is imperilled;" and further to the fact, that 480 clergymen of the Church of England have petitioned Convocation in favour of the revival in the Established Church of Sacramental Confession, of an order of Confessors, and of many other services and ceremonies abolished at the Reformation; and, whether he will be prepared to introduce a Bill next Session, in accordance with the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, passed by a large majority of the Commissioners, whereby "a speedy and inexpensive remedy shall be provided for parishioners," against the introduction into their parish churches of certain practices at variance with the usages and principles of the Established Church, and "the bishop shall be bound to inquire into" the formal complaints of parishioners, and "to enforce summarily the discontinuance" of all such illegal practices?
MR. GLADSTONE:Of course, Sir, the Government has obtained the same information en the subject referred to as has the rest of the public, through the medium of the public journals. But we have obtained officially no information, and we do not think that the subject conies before us in a manner connected with our public responsibilities. In regard to the noble Lord's second Question, which no doubt refers to the Report of the Commissioners on Ritual, dated in the year 1868, in that Report the Commissioners offered certain recommendations in regard to the relations of the Church, and the regulations in respect to the introduction of vestments, lights, and incense. As I understand, I do not imagine that that particular question has any connection with the subject-matter of the noble Lord's first inquiry. But when the noble Lord asks me whether the Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill next Session, in accordance with the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, I am bound to say that the Government have not taken into their consideration what Bills they may or may not introduce next Session. In respect to the subject itself—namely, that of protecting members of the congregation of the Church of England against any alteration in regard to matters of ceremonial

1853
—that, I admit, is a sound principle. That is the principle on which I understand the recommendations of the Commissioners were based. Probably the noble Lord's information is as good as mine when I state that neither the present nor any former Government has ever moved to bring in any Bill on the subject. As I understand, the reason given for not doing so was that it was supposed that the questions which were pending in the Ecclesiastical Courts would lead to a settlement of these matters; but upon neither of the subject-matters of these Questions has the Government received any communication from the leading Prelates or heads of the Church.
VISCOUNT SANDON:Sir, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which has just been made by the First Minister of the Crown, I beg to give Notice that, unless at the opening of next Session a Bill on this subject is brought forward, either by the Government or by some hon. Member who is more experienced than myself, I shall, at the very beginning of the Session, move for leave to introduce a Bill to give a speedy and inexpensive remedy against the introduction and continuance of practices contrary to law in churches belonging to the Church of England as by law established.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the attention of the Government had not been drawn to this subject. ["Order!"] It would, however, be in the recollection of the House that he himself introduced a Bill for that very purpose. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Gentleman, although he might make an explanation, if he thought it necessary, could not say anything which might give rise to a debate.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he only wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if the Bill were again brought forward, he would give it his support? Its object was to restore to the laity the power of prosecuting, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Bishops.
MR. GLADSTONE:I am sorry, Sir, to be obliged to state that my attention was never drawn to the hon. Member's Bill. The Question of the hon. Gentleman appears to be quite different from that of the noble Lord opposite. I con-
1854
fined my reply to the matters to which the noble Lord directed my attention, and if the hon. Gentleman will place on the Paper, in such a manner as I can understand it, any Question he may wish to put to me, I will take care to answer it.

ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE MILITIA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL CORBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the counties in which it is proposed to raise fresh regiments of Militia have been selected on account of an unusual increase in their population; and, if not, whether that will be carefully considered, so as to avoid the hardship which would be inflicted on those districts if they should be at any time called upon to provide the extra quota by ballot; and, whether the quota can be legally altered in some counties only, and not over the whole Country?
MR. CARDWELL:Sir, The recruiting proposed is entirely voluntary, and the increase of existing regiments, or the creation of second battalions in any county, will depend upon its recruiting capacity, as tested by voluntary enrolment. No change is intended in the liability of any county to supply men by ballot, while we can obtain enough under the present system.

THE CHOLERA—QUESTION.
MR. DENTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will issue without delay, to Sanitary Authorities, plain directions as to the precautions to be taken for preventing the spread of Cholera, and also instructions as to the treatment of the disease, should it unfortunately reach this Country?
MR. STANSFELD:Sir, Plain directions as to the precautions to be taken for preventing the spread of Cholera have been prepared; but we do not propose to do what has never been done before to my knowledge—namely, to give directions to the medical men in the various localities as to the treatment of Cholera.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—CONVERSION OF CAST—IRON GUNS.—QUESTION.
MR. OSBORNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it be true that the

1855
conversion upon Palliser's plan of cast-iron 32-pounders had proved so successful as to have induced the Ordnance Authorities to order the heavy 68-pounder smooth-bore cast-iron guns to be converted upon the same system into rifled 80-pounders; Whether he would state what number of cast-iron guns had been converted up to the present time, and also in round numbers how many cast-irons guns there are in the various fortifications, arsenals, and dockyards at home and abroad which are available for conversion into 80-pounders, 64-pounders, and 56-pounders; Whether the old smooth-bores are not quite useless, and the converted guns thoroughly efficient in every repect; And, if Sir William Palliser had perfected the construction of the converted gun to such an extent by experiments made at his own expense that no alteration or improvement had been made in his plans?
SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the conversion of cast-iron guns into rifled ordnance has been going on since 1868, in accordance with the recommendations of the late Ordnance Select Committee, whose Report, dated the 29th of January, 1868, was presented to the House of Commons by command. The conversion into 64-pounders commenced in 1868, and the order for proceeding with the heavier 80-pounder guns was given in 1870. 1,146 guns have been converted up to the present time, and there are, in round numbers, between 8,000 and 9,000 cast-irons guns at home and abroad which are available for conversion, if required. The converted guns are efficient weapons, but smooth-bores are not quite useless. Extensive experiments were made with converted guns at the public expense before they were adopted into the service; other experiments were made at the cost of Sir William Palliser, and the grant awarded to him was accepted by him in full discharge of all claims.

THE CIVIL SERVICE—NEW APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill in accordance with the last recommendation of the Second Report of the Civil Services Expenditure Com-
1856
mittee, enacting that no vacancy in a salaried office in any of the establishments therein referred to, be permanently filled up without the previous consent, in writing, of the First Lord of the Treasury for the time being; and that every person so appointed shall take his office, subject to such alteration as to its salary or pension (whether on superannuation or abolition) as may be determined by Parliament, and laying down a Rule as to rate of compensation on the abolition hereafter of offices in judicial establishments?
MR. GLADSTONEin reply, said, that the Report of the Committee made certain recommendations as to the measures to be adopted until the establishments in question had been revised. This matter would be carefully considered by the Government, who sympathized entirely with the Committee as to the purposes they had in view; but, on looking closely at the subject, he had found there would be very considerable difficulty in framing a Bill with an expectation of passing it with general satisfaction at that late period of the year. He did not say the Government would not take that course; but they had deemed it right to consider whether the objects in view could not be attained by an arrangement between the Lord Chancellor and the Judges in whose hands the matter was placed. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was at present, therefore, in communication with those Judges on the subject, and he hoped to be able in a short time to state whether they had succeeded in effecting an arrangement.

SUNDAY TRADING PROSECUTIONS—SUNDAY OBSERVATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1872.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of William Garner, who has been sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for selling a penny bottle of gingerbeer in the parish of St. Pancras, in default of payment of seven shillings fine and costs; whether his attention has been called to the numerous prosecutions in three London parishes against the humbler class of Sunday traders; whether he intends to propose any modification of the existing Law

1857
and, whether he intends to propose the renewal of the Sunday Observation Amendment Act of 1871, which expires this year?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, William Garner was prosecuted with the sanction of the Chief Commissioner of Police by the parochial authorities of St. Pancras, and sentenced to pay a fine of 5s. and 2s. costs, or, in default of payment, to seven days' imprisonment, not for selling a bottle of ginger-beer, but for exercising his trade as a bird-seller on Sunday, the 23rd of June. He had been three times previously convicted. On the first occasion he was let off with a fine of ls., and each of the other occasions 5s., the full penalty, which was paid. On the occasion referred to it was proved that his shop was full of customers, and as he would not pay the fine he was sent to prison, from which he was released in the course of three days on paying the fine. I have communicated with the magistrates acting for the districts in which Sunday trading is most rife, and with the Chief Commissioner of Police as to the working of the Act of 1871. All concur in stating that the Act has been enforced with moderation, and that, while it does not interfere with the legitimate wants of the working population, a very considerable improvement has been made in the order and decency of the streets after half-past 10 o'clock on Sunday mornings. The following is an extract from the Report of one of the police magistrates acting for South-wark—
"When it is remembered that less than two years since 'The Cut' was a notorious Sunday market and fair, the resort of from 20,000 to 30,000 people collected from all parts of London, where costermongers, sham auctioneers, toy-sellers, quack medicine vendors, and dog and bird dealers vied with each other in noisy clamour, when the streets were impassable to vehicles, and blocked against foot-passengers resorting to their several places of worship, I consider the contrast which the same thoroughfare now presents of comparative freedom and quietude after half-past 10 in the morning is a sufficient compensation for the trouble and anxiety which have undoubtedly been occasioned to all the authorities concerned."
I believe that these results have not been obtained without numerous prosecutions; but the result has been a general acquiescence on the part of the costermongers and the large majority of the shopkeepers with the law as enforced in these districts. I do not, therefore,
1858
propose to make any modification of the existing Law, and I do propose to renew the Sunday Observation Amendment Act, 1871.
MR. P. A. TAYLORgave Notice that he should oppose any renewal of the Act.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1872—HEALTH OF THE PORT OF LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CADOGANasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can inform the House what steps, if any, the Corporation of the city of London have taken in fulfilment of their duties as the sanitary authority of the Port of London under the Public Health Act of 1872?
  MR. STANSFELDin reply, said, there had no doubt been some delay on the part of the Corporation, who were the sanitary authority of the port of London, in fulfilling their duties under the Public Health Act of 1872. But some arrangements had now been made by the sanitary authority. One of Her Majesty's ships had been placed at the disposal of the Corporation by the Admiralty, for the purpose of a hospital ship, and would be moored off Gravesend. A duly qualified medical practitioner had been appointed to take charge of that ship, with authority to appoint an assistant medical officer if necessary, and two ship-keepers would reside on board with their wives, who would act as nurses when required. Every precaution had been taken, and in cases of emergency the Directors of the Seamen's Hospital at Greenwich were prepared to receive a limited number of cholera cases. Arrangements had also been made for the treatment of dangerous infectious diseases.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—BILLS WITHDRAWN.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is the intention of Government to proceed with the Bank of England Notes Bill this Session; and, if so, when it will be put upon the Order Sheet in such a position as to give reasonable chance of its coming on?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I

  1859
  am sorry to say that we do not see any probability of being able to obtain from the House during the present Session the degree of attention which this measure deserves and would require; and that being so, we do not intend to proceed with it. The Question seems to afford a suitable opportunity of referring to several other Bills, as it will be a matter of convenience to hon. Members that their attention should not be claimed by subjects which there is no intention of carrying to a practical issue. The first Bill to which I will refer is No. 7, on the list for second reading—the Trade Marks Registration Bill. That is a measure with respect to which the President of the Board of Trade is of opinion that it will not be in his power to pass it during the present Session, and his intention therefore is to withdraw it. The Prevention of Crime Bill stands No. 15 on to-day's list for Committee; and upon that subject my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary observed the state of opinion in the House on the occasion of the Second Reading. He has accordingly been considering the expediency of consolidating the Law upon that and upon cognate subjects connected with the Prevention of Crime Acts—the Penal Servitude Act and the Convicted Prisoners Acts. Bills are now in operation for the purpose of consolidating the law on these subjects; but it will not be practicable to introduce them, at least not to prosecute them, during the present Session, and therefore he looks to endeavour to deal with them during the coming Session. No. 16 is the Bank of England Notes Bill. No. 17 is the Building Societies (No. 3) Bill. It is not intended to proceed with that Bill during the present Session. Nor with the next on the list, the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill. No. 20 is the Public Prosecutors Bill. That is a subject of great importance, but requiring much attention, and probably more time for discussion than can be given to it in the present Session. We do not, therefore, propose to proceed with it. That makes in all six Government Bills, now upon the list, which we propose to remove from the list, and which will not appear in it after to-night. As I am upon the procedure of the House, I have to state, with reference to the Vote of the House on Friday night, upon the salaries of the Civil Service in Ireland that, in redemption
  1860
  of the pledge we gave, it is our intention to appoint a Departmental Committee, which will examine into the position, emoluments, and conditions of service of the Civil Service in Ireland, and will go through such of the different establishments as may apply for examination into their cases.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that owing to the reply just given respecting the Bank of England Notes Bill, he would give Notice that, early next Session, if they had another, he should call attention to the subject of the Currency and again move for a Committee to inquire into the subject.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked the right hon. Gentleman to state, What wore the intentions of the Government with respect to the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) (Judges) Bill? Most Irish Members were about to go off to the Assizes, and surely it was not intended to proceed with a Bill of that importance in their absence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is considering the subject of the Bill, and will be prepared very shortly to state his intentions.
  MR. DISRAELI: There is another Bill, No. 22 on the Orders, the Consolidated Rate Bill, and I think we understood from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that it would be withdrawn.
  MR. STANSFELD: Yes, it will not be proceeded with.
  MR. DISRAELI: It will be convenient to the House to know what Business will be taken at the morning sitting to-morrow.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Judicature Bill.
  In reply to Mr. DILLWYN,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he intended to withdraw the Building Societies Bill which stood in his name; but should on the first day of next Session introduce a measure drawn on the same lines.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1872—THE THAMES PILOTS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any provision has been made to provide compensation to the River Thames Pilots in consequence of the late

  1861
  influx of a class of men empowered by a recent Trinity House by-law to underbid them in pilotage charges; whether it is is true that the change complained of was petitioned against by the Shipowners of the Port of London, and that the new men themselves have been systematically and notoriously breaking the law for years past; whether any inquiry has been made into the fate of the "Chillingham Castle," which vessel was lost in or about the month of February last, with all hands (twenty-six persons in number); and, further, if any inquiry is intended to be made into this case?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUESir, by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1872, the Trinity House were empowered, with the consent of the Queen in Council, to relax within the whole or part of their district the then existing law which compelled every pilot to demand, and every shipmaster to pay, a fixed rate for pilotage services. The Trinity House have, accordingly, within a part of their district—namely, between Gravesend and London Bridge—relaxed that rule, but only with respect to ships exempted from compulsory pilotage. The Trinity House have also obtained by Order in Council powers to licence a qualified class of men who are to be available for that particular service only; but the other licensed Thames pilots are not debarred from being also employed on that particular service, and are now, under the Act of 1872, enabled to pilot exempted ships at the same reduced rates. These men can consequently, if they wish, prevent themselves being underbid by the new class of men, and no provision has been made for compensating them. Nor was any compensation thought due under the circumstances. Generally speaking, the newly-licensed men have been for a long time employed in piloting ships above Gravesend without being licensed, and the trade of the Thames could not get on without them. It was for the purpose of bringing these men within the law and under the control of the duly constituted pilotage authority, that the law was altered. Certain shipowners and underwriters of the City and Port of London appear to have petitioned the House of Commons in 1871 against the change; but Parliament thought fit to pass the Merchant Shipping Act, 1872, which gave to the Trinity House the
  1862
  powers they have recently exercised, and no objection appears to have since been made by shipowners. The Correspondence on the subject will be found in Parliamentary Paper, No. 349, of last Session, and in another Paper of the previous Session. An inquiry has been ordered into the loss of the Chillingham Castle, and the matter is now in the hands of the Solicitor to the Board; but, unfortunately, the vessel disappeared with all hands.

SCOTLAND—SHERIFF SUBSTITUTES (SCOTLAND) SALARIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Committee on Civil Services Expenditure have now reported, it is the intention of the Treasury to resume consideration of any applications for increase of salary which may have been made by sheriff-substitutes, in accordance with the assurance recently given in this House, that such applications would be considered on their individual merits.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, we are quite ready to consider these applications when they are made.

  BALLOT ACT—UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, seeing that the Ballot Act does not apply to University Elections, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to regulate the time for holding Elections for the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, such time being not now regulated by any Act of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the hon. Gentleman was quite right in believing that the Ballot Act did not affect the University Elections except as regarded the personation of electors. The Government did not think there was any reason to regulate the time of holding Elections for the Universities in consequence of the passing of the Ballot Act.

SANITARY STATUTES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENasked the President of the Local Government Board for Ireland,

  1863
  Whether he will cause to be prepared and will lay upon the Table of this House, Digests of the Statutes in force in Ireland relating to urban and rural sanitary authorities, similar to the Digests of Statutes on these subjects in force in England which have lately been presented to Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONin reply, said, that the Act now in operation did not apply to Ireland. It was therefore thought better to postpone the consideration of preparing the Digests of the Statutes in force in Ireland until the necessary Act was passed, which he hoped would take place before long.

FRANCE—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROCKLEHURSTasked the Tinder Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence and Papers adverted to in the Queen's Speech between the English and French Governments relative to the termination of the Commercial Treaty of 1860; and, the Correspondence and details of the communications that have passed between the two Governments upon the compensatory and other duties under the Treaty of Commerce with France, signed on the 5th of November, 1872; together with the negotiations and proceedings of the Commissioners appointed thereon at Paris?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, a great deal of the Correspondence relating to the termination of the Treaty of 1860 has become superseded by the recent course of events in France. Her Majesty's Government will, however, lay before the House before the end of the Session, the Reports of the proceedings of the Tariff Commission at Paris, and such other Papers as may be of interest and can properly be communicated to the House without interference with the negotiations now being undertaken at Paris.

EDUCATION—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When his Report for this year will be delivered; whether
  1864
  in future years it could be presented before the Education Estimates are discussed; and, whether the Evidence taken by the Endowed Schools Committee will be circulated before the Bill is brought on for a Second Reading.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERin reply, said, that the Education Report for that year was now being printed, and he believed it would be delivered in a day or two. He was exceedingly anxious that the Report should be delivered at an earlier period of the Session, and before the Education Estimates came on for discussion. That course, however, had been found to be impossible that year; but he trusted to be able to make arrangements with Sir Francis Sandford by which he hoped the Report would be presented in future in May. He was told the evidence taken by the Endowed Schools Committee would be in circulation by Thursday. The second reading of the Bill dealing with the question was down for that night, and unless he was urged to the contrary he would ask for a second reading, on the understanding that nothing more would be conceded by it than that the Reform should be continued, and that ample opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of the measure on some future occasion. If such an arrangement as that were not acceptable to the House he was afraid the second reading must be postponed. In any case, however, the time at which the Elementary Education Act Amendment Bill would be brought in must depend upon the progress made with the Judicature Bill.

INDIA—THE 28TH REGIMENT—THE INDIAN MUTINY MEDAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office to grant the Indian medal to the wing of the 28th Regiment engaged in the operations in the Gulf of Cutch, against the towns of Beyt and Dwaka, in the month of October, 1859, in accordance with the terms of the General Order headed Bombay Castle, and bearing date the 26th of June, 1867 (No. 412 of 1867)?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that it is not intended to grant the Indian Mutiny medal for the Dwaka and Beyt

  1865
  operations, because the Government of Bombay and the Commander-in-Chief in India have reported that these operations were quite unconnected with the Indian Mutiny.

SCOTLAND—CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked, Whether the Committee charged with the consideration of the salaries paid to the Civil Servants in Ireland would also consider those paid to the Civil Servants in Scotland?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, all those things must come in succession, and that, undoubtedly, the claim of Scotland would be quite as strong as the claim of Ireland.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 24 (Vacations).
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 10, to leave out from the words "upon any" to the words "hereinafter mentioned," all inclusive, in line 15:—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RYLANDS,in supporting the Amendment, said, that Parliament had a right to ask that the vacations of the Judges, who were public servants, and who as such were paid for their services, should not depend upon their own absolute decision. If the Amendment were carried, he believed it would tend to satisfy the demands of the public, who had a right to complain that the Courts were so long closed to suitors.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONprotested against the low view which the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had taken of the subject. He had spoken of the Judges as he might have spoken of clerks behind a counter. The hon. Member's tone was, that because we paid the Judges they ought not to be trusted with a voice as to the vacations. But their salaries, he would observe, were by no means the entire compensa-
  1866
  tion for their labours and services. The honour and dignity of the Bench were important items and one part of the remuneration which attracted men of eminence to fill Judicial offices. At the same time, he thought that the Courts of Law might make such arrangements that suitors should no longer be kept waiting for three months for the decision of their causes. To leave the Ministers to fix the vacation of the Judges would be to leave these arrangements to those who had not the requisite knowledge, and who, as Ministers of the Crown, ought not to have the smallest control over the independence of the Bench. He should have no objection, however, that Parliament should legislate on the subject.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was informed that of the two Vacation Judges, while the Common Law Judge sat in London, the Chancery Judge did not, so that persons who had to make application to the latter had to go to Carlisle, or wherever he might appoint. That was a glaring fault; and he held that during the Vacation the Chancery Judge should be bound to sit in London.
  MR. HINDE PALMERthought the hon. and learned Attorney General might virtually accede to the Amendment by allowing it to stand thus—"Her Majesty in Council may make rules." Of course, Her Majesty would not make rules without consulting proper persons.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was nothing very serious in the Amendment, and there were some Amendments which he intended to propose, which he hoped would meet all the reasonable requirements of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt). It was, however, due to the profession and the Judges that the accurate state of the case should be known. At present, the vacations were fixed by Act of Parliament, and everybody took his situation, and everything was conducted on the footing which the Act of Parliament had fixed. He was not, therefore, disposed to allow that a change of that kind should be made by any authority short of Parliament, or some authority to which Parliament had delegated the power. His hon. and learned Friend had told an amusing story about Vice Chancellor Shadwell administering equity in.

  1867
  his bath; but the truth was, that the Vice Chancellor while taking a bath was once called on to grant an injunction, and having finished his bath he did so. His hon. and learned Friend had remarked that thus far the Bill had done everything for the profession, and nothing for the public. That statement did not accurately describe the effect of the first 24 clauses of the Bill. If, however, the professsion suffered, it would have to get on as best it could; and as he had full confidence in the pugnacity of Englishmen, he thought the profession would get on very well. Neither did he think it at all fair or accurate to say that the vacations had all been regulated, with a view to keep the business in the hands of a few people, and disregarding the general mass of the profession. His hon. and learned Friend did not like to see the Judges trusted with fixing the vacations; but the only alternative which had been suggested was, to place the matter in the hands of the Government, which in that case really meant the Lord Chancellor, for the Lord Chancellor was the man to whom the Government would naturally look for advice, and the Lord Chancellor would never act without consulting the Judges. It was far better to say what was really meant, and the clause was therefore drawn in plain terms; for if the Committee meant that those at the head of the profession should have charge of the arrangements, it was better that they should say so. Some rather strong and extravagant statements had been made by his hon. and learned Friend. It was not correct to say that there was a terrible collapse of business, and, in fact, that nothing was done during the Long Vacation. A great many very important Courts were going on until the middle of September. The circuits were going on, and many important avenues of business were open up to that time. His hon. and learned Friend had forgotten that in Chancery, the Accountant General no longer existed, and that the Paymaster General's office was always open, and there was no longer any difficulty in getting out large sums of money. Then there was a Vacation Judge who sat and attended to all pressing business. About the Vice Chancellors he had not the same individual knowledge; but he felt sure if it was the Vice Chancellors' duty to sit during the vacation,
  1868
  they did their duty. He had heard distinguished Equity lawyers say that the Court of Chancery was always open, and that if you wanted any real damage remedied or wrong prevented you could always get it done in the Long Vacation. But the Courts of Common Law were governed by ancient and obsolete rules which could scarcely admit of justification now, and he saw no reason why those Courts should not be as accessible during the Long Vacation as the Equity Courts. It was right, therefore, to say that something more should be done, and that Law should not cease any more than Equity. But what did the Bill propose to do? Why in the very next section it said—
  "Provision shall be made by Rules of Court for the hearing during vacation by the Judges of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal respectively of all such applications as may require to be immediately or promptly heard."
  And the 36th section provided that any Judge of the said High Court of Justice might, subject to any rules of Court exercise in Court or in Chambers all or any part of the jurisdiction vested in the said High Court in all such causes and matters, and in all such proceedings in any causes or matters as before the passing of the Act might have been heard in Court or in Chambers respectively, by a single Judge of any of the Courts whose jurisdiction is hereby transferred to the said High Court, or as might be directed or authorized to be so heard by any Rules of Court to be hereafter made. In all such cases, any Judge sitting in Court shall be deemed to constitute a Court. If what his hon. and learned Friend wanted was that there should be no period during the Long Vacation when either at Law or in Equity wrongs should remain unredressed, he was prepared to agree with him; that was perfectly reasonable, and it was provided for in the Bill. But if his hon. and learned Friend wanted that there should be no difference between the Long Vacation and the rest of the year; that there should be no break, but a permanently sitting Court, only with a relay of Judges and counsel, he was utterly opposed to him. It was an unreasonable request, and he could give no countenance to it. He frankly admitted that there was an objection to the present state of things,

  1869
  and that it was only reasonable it should be removed if possible, so far as it was not already removed by the Bill as it stood. He did not think the vacations were unreasonably long, and felt satisfied, that it was true economy to keep matters as they were at present in that respect, as he did not see that we should be a bit the better for killing off all our Judges by working them too continuously. Every country with which he was acquainted found vacations necessary; and he believed they were true economy. He was quite willing, however, to make certain alterations in the clause, so as to provide that the consent of the Lord Chancellor would be required before the recommendation of the Judges could be carried out. There ought to be some one who would be responsible to the public for any change that was made, and who, when any question was raised, could say—"I am the person by whose authority or under whose consent the thing was done." He therefore proposed, after the word "herein," to insert "with the consent of the Lord Chancellor." He was also prepared to make another alteration. He believed the present vacations were quite long enough, though not unreasonably long, and he would add a Proviso to the clause, declaring that the total duration of the vacations should never in any case exceed the time now given to them. Further than that, he was not prepared to go. He did not believe that the Judges as a body would be insensible to calls of duty.
  DR. BALLsaid, he did not know what would become of the unfortunate Law Officers if they were worked all the year round. Human beings must have some rest, and nothing would be gained b: abridging the vacation. He was opposed to interfering in any manner with the present system of leaving to the discretion of the Judges what should be the limit of the vacation, believing, as he did, that they were totally incapable of doing anything that they did not consider to be justified by the requirements of the case. No ground whatever had been shown for interfering with it.
  In reply to Mr. T. HUGHES,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that, in consequence of the change which had been made relative to the Accountant General's Department the Paymaster
  1870
  General's office was open all the year round, and there would be no difficulty in payments being made in the case of infants coming of age during the vacation, or in other cases of a pressing nature, in which payments had been ordered. With regard to the presence of an Equity Judge in London during the vacation, he hoped arrangements would be made to provide for that; but he did not think it would be desirable that provision should be made in that matter by Act of Parliament. He must again assert that the public had benefited by all the law reforms of this century, and he challenged the hon. and learned Member for Oxford to prove his assertion to the contrary. He was by no means unprepared or unwilling to accept the criticism of the hon. and learned Member that his own diction was occasionally more forcible than elegant; but he would remind the hon. and learned Member of the proverb about those who live in glass houses. As to his statement about there being as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it, it must not be forgotten that you must catch your fish; you must not get rid of those who are fit on the chance of finding others in the wide expanse of the sea. It was an undeserved slur on the Judges to say they consulted their own interests in preference to those of the public. All the present Judges had accepted office under statutes by which the vacations were secured to them. If the Judges and the Queen in Council did not do what was right, the hon. and learned Member could bring in an amending Bill.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, it was hardly worth while noticing the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who had the advantage in the matter of diction, while his degree of earnestness in the matter of law reform was sufficiently well known. No answer had been given to the question whether the Vacation Vice Chancellor would remain in town; all that had been conceded was that on the whole Carlisle was a little too far off for a Vacation Judge's residence. In the present state of the law, if a Vice Chancellor had wrongly refused an injunction, injustice might be done for months before there could be an appeal; and as the Judges had hitherto so interpreted the law as to allow of a Judge being at an inaccessible

  1871
  distance, what security was there they would not continue to do so, and why should not security be taken in this Bill? As to the alteration the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to make with reference to the duration of the vacations, it was no great concession to say that they should not be made longer than they were at present, considering that, taken altogether, they extended to some four months in the year. The 36th clause provided that one Judge should on occasions do the business of two Judges. Well that might be, but what was wanted was to strengthen the 25th clause. Why need the 21 Judges all work together and all stop together? He was glad the Attorney General did not endorse the interests of peace theory of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. E. Lewis), who managed to enjoy his own vacation without closing the office of the firm of solicitors with which he was connected.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he was never more astounded than in hearing it proposed that the Judges should have a vacation extending over four months. In his opinion, speaking of the Common Law Judges, ten weeks would be amply sufficient vacation. Practically the Long Vacation was only of about ten weeks' duration, and there was a Judge always sitting in Chambers in London during the whole of that time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would agree to the insertion of words in the following clause, to the effect that provision should be made for the hearing of cases when necessary during the vacation in London and Middlesex.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that proposed by the Attorney General.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Sittings in vacation).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Clause amended by the insertion of the words "in London or Middlesex," at end.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Jurisdiction of Judges of High Court on circuit).
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, there were, under the existing administration of the law, five separate commis-
  1872
  sions—namely, of Assize, Nisi Prius, Oyer and Terminer, General Gaol Delivery, and a General Commission of the Peace, under which the business was transacted on circuit, and in that system the Judicature Commission recommended a change. At present, where issues of law and fact were raised, the issues of fact were tried and disposed of by Judge and jury; but the questions of law were decided by the Judges sitting in Banco at Westminster. By the clause, however, as he read it, it was proposed that Judges might be sent down into any district, and there decide all issues, both of law and fact, however raised. He thought such a course most undesirable, and that as it stood, it was calculated to have the effect of decentralizing the High Court at a time when such a course was most unwise and unnecessary. Were Judges to take their law libraries with them to those districts? Without the authorities, it would be undesirable for them to be called upon to decide important and difficult issues of law, and he saw no reason for removing the tribunal constituted to decide such questions of law from Westminster, and he would therefore move an Amendment to leave out in page 17, line 37, the words "or of law, or partly of fact and partly of law."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had, to his mind, altogether misunderstood the clause. He had no idea that, under the clause, questions of law would be decided by the Courts sitting in Banco in the country; but what the clause intended was, that when a Judge of the High Court went into the country to try issues before a jury, he would be clothed, under certain restrictions, with the whole power of the full Court, including questions of law, subject to appeal. That was a leading principle of the Bill, which the Amendment, if carried, would mutilate.
  MR. LOPESthought that on questions of demurrer the matters ought to be submitted to the full Court sitting in Banco at Westminster.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsignified his assent.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, after what the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, he would, with the assent of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the measure was one of the most revolutionary that had ever entered into the mind of any lawyer or statesman to conceive. It was a reversal of all practice and of every theory on which all practice existed. He had never heard of such a thing before, as that a Judge should have power to decide questions of law in district Courts. It was proposed, too, by the Bill, that where there were questions of variance between Law and Equity, that Equity should prevail. At present, the country had a tribunal constituted of four Judges sitting in Banco at Westminster, to whom questions of law raised and reserved at trials were submitted, and he had never heard any expression of dissatisfaction with their decisions; yet it was now proposed to delegate the power of the full Court to one Judge, sitting in a district Court, to decide upon what might be a most important question of law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved an Amendment, the effect of which would be to empower any delegation from the Supreme Court going Assizes to decide upon issues both of law and fact, on the application of the plaintiff.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, if it were so modified as to place both parties to the suit in the same position.
  Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Sittings for trial by jury in London and Middlesex).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved as an Amendment, in page 18, line 4, before "Middlesex," to insert "Lancashire;" and in line 9, before "Middlesex," to insert "Lancashire," and said, his object in proposing the Amendment was, that when the Judges arrived at Liverpool, they should continuo to sit there until all the assize business was over. The causes which arose there were of far more importance than to be slurred over in the hurry-scurry of an Assize.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he admitted the grievance, but if Government yielded to the hon. Gentleman's request in respect to Liverpool,
  1874
  it would be impossible to resist similar proposals from Leeds, Bristol, Birmingham, and other large towns, so that the question came to this, whether they were to have a central Court and a central Bar, presided over by highly-trained Judges, or whether they were in different parts of the country to set up Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction with those at Westminster. The question had been much debated by the Judicature Commission, the majority of whom, after full consideration, were opposed to the setting up of provincial Courts. The Bill was accordingly framed on the view opposed to that taken by the hon. Gentleman, and the House of Lords sanctioned the Bill. He (the Attorney General) under those circumstances, felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment, which went to the root of the Bill; but he admitted that he performed that duty reluctantly, as those persons might be aware who had read the observations he made on the subject during last autumn. However, he hoped that, under the Bill, there would be a greater economy of judicial power, and that some more rational arrangements might be made.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that having heard the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, but hoped the Government would do all in their power to effect its object.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested that when the Government came to consider the question of the re-adjustment of the circuits, they should appoint a separate circuit for Lancashire, in order that the numerous causes which arose in the great commercial cities in that county might be disposed of without unreasonable delay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Divisions of the High Court of Justice).
  MR. RAIKESmoved as an Amendment, in page 18, line 21, to leave out sub-section 1. Its effect would be to restore to the Common Law Divisions the precedence over the Chancery Divisions of the High Court which the subsection had deprived them of.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 21, to leave out from the words "one division" to the word "division," in line 28.—(Mr. Raikes.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he regarded the question raised by the hon. and learned Member as of slight importance, and he trusted that he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that under those circumstances, he felt bound to say a few words in support of his Amendment. It was generally understood in this country that the Lord Chief Justice of England had precedence over all other Judges except the Lord Chancellor, and in the Bill as originally introduced by Her Majesty's Government, the Division of the High Court over which the Lord Chief Justice was to preside, was made the First Division. In consequence, however, of the Amendment which was proposed by Lord Cairns, whereby the Lord Chancellor was made President of the High Court, being carried, it was thought fit that the Chancery Division, over which he was to preside, should take the first rank, and, accordingly, the Common Law Division over which the Lord Chief Justice was to preside, was reduced to the second rank. Since the Bill had come to that House, however, an Amendment had been adopted under which the Lord Chancellor was no longer a Member of the High Court, and under those circumstances the Presidency of that Court would again devolve on the Lord Chief Justice and therefore the Common Law Division over which he presided should again take the first rank.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to point out that by the Bill, for the first time in that kingdom, they were putting the Court of Chancery, which was a mere excrescence on the Common Law of the Land, and had, in fact, been a curse ever since it had been created, in a position of precedence and dignity before the Common Law Courts. He protested against that precedency being decided upon, without a word of explanation on the subject being offered by the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. GORDONalso remonstrated against the course the Government were pursuing.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had intended to show no want of respect either to the Committee or to the hon. and learned Member, and begged to remind hon. Members that although the Lord Chief Justice of Eng-
  1876
  land had precedence over all the Equity Judges except the Lord Chancellor, all the Equity Judges had precedence over all the Puisne Common Law Judges. The part of the clause now objected to had been carried by Lord Cairns in the other House, and was in no way dependent upon the position which the Lord Chancellor would hold in the High Court. Moreover, seeing that all the Courts would be amalgamated in a short time, he did not regard the question of precedence as being of much importance.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsaid, that if a Division were taken, he should support the clause as it stood.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had never heard so extraordinary a statement as that the Court of Chancery was superior in dignity to the Common Law Courts.
  MR. AMPHLETTthought if it was desirable the Bill should pass, it was undesirable to press Amendments which were not of great importance.
  Question put, "That the words 'one division shall consist of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 13: Majority 35.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Amendment made in page 18, after line 20, by leaving out sub-sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, and inserting the following sub-sections:—

  "1. One division shall consist of the following judges (that is to say): the Master of the Rolls, who shall be President thereof, and the Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, or such of them as shall not be appointed ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal;

  "2. One other division shall consist of the following judges (that is to say): the Lord Chief Justice of England, who shall be President thereof, and such of the other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, as shall not be appointed ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal;

  "3. One other division shall consist of the following judges (that is to say): the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who shall be President thereof, and such of the other judges of the Court of Common Pleas as shall not be appointed ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal;

  "4. One other division shall consist of the following judges (that is to say); the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who shall be President thereof, and such of the other Barons of the Court of Exchequer as shall not be appointed ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal."

  MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, that if the clause were adopted as it now stood, the

  1877
  old divisions between Law and Equity and the old designations of the Law and Equity Courts would be perpetuated. There would still be the Courts of Chancery, Queen's Bench, Exchequer, Common Pleas, Probate, and Admiralty. That fact would, he could not but think, tend to prevent the effecting of that which was the main object of the Bill—namely, the fusion of Law and Equity. They ought not to inscribe any distinction on the portals of the High Court of Justice, and no sufficient reason could, he thought, be assigned for crystallizing those old distinctions, and he should therefore—with a view to the several Divisions of the High Court being known by numbers rather than by names—move that in page 19, line 14, the word "Chancery" be omitted, and the word "First" substituted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 14, to leave out the word "Chancery," in order to insert the word "first"—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that while he did not disagree with it, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The question had already been considered and disposed of on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), who moved that the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas should he abolished. That Motion was fully discussed, and it was rejected on a division. It would be going over the same ground to discuss and divide upon the present Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYhoped that, notwithstanding the verbal opposition of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to the Amendment, he would get the assent of his Colleagues to that which was evidently his own view of the question. There might be some reason for retaining for the present the titles of the heads of the Courts, but what reason was there for retaining for all time the titles by which Law and Equity had always heretofore been separated? He thought that if the Courts were respectively called First, Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions, the object of amalgamating Common Law and Equity would be more readily promoted. It was desirable to get rid of everything indicating
  1878
  that any Court had a particular class of business appropriated to it.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not agree that a previous division precluded the Committee from dealing with the Amendment, but would admit there was some strength in the argument as to the House of Lords.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he agreed that that the best way of securing amalgamation was to get rid of the present names, and to distinguish the Divisions by calling them First, Second, Third, and Fourth. If the present distinctive names of the Courts were kept up, the Bill would soon have to be amended by another measure.
  Question put, "That the word 'Chancery' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 20: Majority 35.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Power to alter division by Order in Council).
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 19, line 36, to leave out "upon any," to "hereinafter mentioned," in line 38. The clause was an important one. In giving power for the reduction of the number of Divisions, the clauses provided ultimately for the diminution of the harmony which it was desirable should prevail in the transaction of the business of the Court. It was under that clause that that transformation would be effected, and it was made absolutely dependent on the Council of Judges. He thought Her Majesty in Council should recommend the reduction of the Divisions. Under the clause, the Order must be laid before Parliament to be confirmed; it was, therefore, really a Parliamentary enactment, and he did not see why the initiative should be reserved for the Council of Judges.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it would be a severe duty to impose upon the Judges, to ask them to decide upon their own extinction, and he thought it had much better be left to the Queen in Council.
  MR. LOPEShoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not give way to the Amendment, as the Judges were, of all persons, the most competent to decide upon the organization and arrangements of the Divisions.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause was absolutely necessary to

  1879
  the working of the Bill, and it was important that the words in question should be retained exactly as they stood.
  DR. BALLsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) became a Minister of the Crown he would use his power ruthlessly; and if it were only as a protection for themselves, some weight ought to be given to the Judges.
  MR. JAMESthought that, if the matter were left to the Judges, there would be no alteration made in these Divisions at all. It was delegating to those who ought to be reformed or altered, the power of altering or reforming themselves. He preferred the clause as it was proposed to be amended, under which it would be left to the Queen in Council, without consulting the Judges, to arrange for the Divisions of the Court.
  MR. F. S. POWELLdeprecated the tone in which the Judges were spoken of by hon. Members of the Bar, and considered that great deference ought to be paid to the opinion of those eminent persons, who were by far the most competent to decide upon such a matter as this. Indeed, it should be left to them to decide upon what the course of business should be in their own Courts.
  MR. WHITWELLtrusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
  MR. AMPHLETThoped the Government would adhere to the clause, which only enabled the Executive to do that by Rules and Orders which they might do by Act of Parliament.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKthought it would be a strange thing if such an alteration as that now proposed were to take place without consulting the Judges. That was an alteration in the system of the law which should be suggested, if at all, by the Judges themselves in the first instance.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT,in replying generally to the objections made to his Amendment, said, that if the decisions were left to the Judges the clause would be utterly worthless.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. VERNON HARCOURT, Amendment made in page 19, line 44, after "purpose," by inserting—
  "And such order may provide for the extinction of the offices of any of the judges who are The Attorney General
  1880
  constituted presidents of any of the divisions which may be reduced, and of the salaries, pensions, and patronage attached to such offices, notwithstanding anything in this Act relating to the continuance of such offices, salaries, pensions, and patronage."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved, as an Amendment, line 8, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided always, That the total number of the Judges of the Supreme Court shall not be increased by any such Order."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that as the Amendment raised the whole question of the number of the Judges, he would take the opportunity of calling attention to the pledges given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had put down an Amendment asserting the expediency of having a Judge who was conversant with the practice and doctrines of Equity attached to each of the Divisions. His hon. and learned Friend, though he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment on the ground that it would stereotype the distinction between Law and Equity, said the Government proposed that instead of the provisions in the Bill, there should be left to the Queen not an unlimited selection, but a selection with certain qualifications of persons not from the Common Law Bar, to fill the places of the three Puisne Judges in the Court of Appeal, and in making that announcement he had stated that he hoped it would afford considerable satisfaction to him (Mr. Morgan). Well, the announcement did afford him considerable satisfaction, but that satisfaction was short-lived. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean what he said, and he withdrew his Amendment. In fact, he fell an easy prey to the bland and honeyed words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Next day the hon. and learned Solicitor General said to him, "Don't be too sure of your three Equity Judges." He was sorry he did not prefer the vinegar of the Solicitor General to the oil of the Attorney General. In what way had the Government fulfilled their pledge? In the first place, these three Equity Judges were reduced to two, then they dwindled down to one, and now this one solitary Equity Judge, who also might be taken away by-and-by, was to be purchased at the

  1881
  expense of a Vice Chancellor. That proceeding had placed him in a very embarrassing position, for he could not help feeling that to a certain extent he had been "jockeyed" by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Moreover, by the Bill, as it now stood, at least six of the Judges of the High Court must either die or resign before the hon. and learned Gentleman could give effect to his other promise that one Equity lawyer should be appointed to each Common Law Division, because no vacancies were to be filled up until the Judges were reduced to 12. He belonged to a profession to which the public proverbially attributed more of the wisdom of the serpent, than the innocence of the dove; but if ever there was a dove who had been outwitted by the wisdom of a serpent he was that unfortunate bird. They were told by the poet that—
  "When lovely woman stoops to folly
  And finds too late that men betray,"
  the only course for her to pursue was to retire from the scene altogether; now, whether he had stooped to folly or not, he certainly had found that men betray, and therefore, the only course that seemed to him now open, was to withdraw his numerous Amendments, and retire as gracefully as he could. Before doing so, however, he wished to record his opinion that he did not think that way of playing fast and loose with one of the staunchest supporters of the Bill was the best way either to facilitate the passing of the measure, or to raise the character of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, if his hon. and learned Friend misunderstood the very plain language which he used he could not help him. When his hon. and learned Friend spoke of being "jockeyed" he should have taken more pains to ascertain that there was some foundation for the accusation than he appeared to have done. He had not the slightest desire to withdraw what he had said on the second reading, No one of common understanding or common fairness of mind could draw such an inference as his hon. and learned Friend had done. He said then, and he repeated now, that there was a strong part in the Equity case, and, speaking in the presence of the head of the Government and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he stated that they were prepared to consent to the charge for three new
  1882
  Judges if they should be required. But he took pains at the same time to explain that he gave no pledge that these three men were to come from the Equity Bar. What he said was, that it would be wise to extend the power of selection to persons other than Members of the Common Law Bench. What right then had his hon. and learned Friend to make such an attack on him as he had done, or to talk of "oil" and ''vinegar?" What right had he to make an attack of that sort upon an honourable man in the presence of honourable men, and to say that he had been "jockeyed?" What had he said, or what had he done that a man of honour need be ashamed of? The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) without any communication with him, moved an Amendment which was accepted by the Committee, and the result was that one of the new Judges might possibly be an Irishman, and another a Scotchman. But was it impossible that an Irishman might be a good Equity lawyer? He repudiated with indignation the charge made against him by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and challenged him to show that there was any foundation for that charge.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was under the impression that the Attorney General's conscience was not at ease in the matter. He believed that 99 out of every 100 of the constituents of hon. Members would be astounded at the scope and tenor of the Bill. It seemed to him that they might as well talk about the manner of the discussion as the matter. He did not recollect for 20 years hearing such language as had fallen from speakers in that discussion, but if there was ally chance of anything he said in the House ever being reported, he would say that anything was better than passing the Bill, which was really in effect to put the Court of Chancery at the very head and from of our legal system.
  DR. BALLobjected to the Judge of the Admiralty Court being taken to the Court of Probate and Divorce. If, however it was clone, his salary should be raised to £5,000.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the Judge of the Admiralty Court was not in a position to assist the Judge of Divorce in the Supreme Court. Half of the time of the Admiralty Judge would be unoc-

  1883
  cupied, and could be devoted in the way proposed. Future Judges of the Admiralty Court would receive £5,000 a-year, and the reason why the present Judge was not included in that arrangement was that he received more from the offices he now held.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that he certainly understood the hon. and learned Attorney General, replying to an Amendment of his own, to state that the three additional Judges should be taken from the Equity branch of the Law, and that the only reason for choosing them from the Common Law Bar was the addition of Ireland and Scotland.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that that was a misapprehension on the part of hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment were adopted the Judges would not be able of themselves to make any increase in their numbers, and an increase in that respect would require the passing of an Act of Parliament.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he did not agree that they were to be precluded from appointing an additional Judge should it be considered necessary in the working of this Bill to do so.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the Order in Council to increase or decrease the number of Judges might be made on the recommendation of the Judges. Did anyone think that the Judges would recommend a decrease in the number of their Order? He should like to have that matter made clear. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. GREGORYthought it desirable that the Committee should have some further explanation on the subject.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that that was a lamentable instance of the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), supported by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), over the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The effect of the Bill would be that three Judges of the Common Law staff would be cut off, and that they would be reduced to 15 Judges. At that moment they were reduced to that number, three of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench being engaged in the Trial at Bar; and the consequence was that the business was falling greatly into arrear. He regarded the course proposed by the Government as a retrograde step. The country did not want
  1884
  to have the number of Judges reduced. That reduction of our judicial strength, moreover, had been effected without the least consideration whether the present number of Judges could do the work or not, but simply with the object of carrying out the economical views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the present system there had simply been a block in our procedure, because the Judges were not physically capable of getting through the work which came before them. People talked loudly about the law's delay, but that delay arose from a want of judicial strength, and our arrears were increasing day after day. The evil of the present system in this respect would be increased and rendered permanent by the Amendment, which he hoped, therefore the House would reject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in explanation, said he did not see that the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton were well founded. The only effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Judges from adding to their own number, without in any way precluding their number being increased by Act of Parliament.
  MR STAVELEY HILLagreed in the view expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), and was of opinion that it would be a great injustice to suitors if the number of Judges were reduced to 15.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsupported the proposal of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEfurther explained the object of the clause, and defended the proposal of the Attorney General.
  MR. WHALLEYconcurred with the Attorney General so far as regarded the words proposed to be added to the clause; but the necessity for the Amendment showed that the Bill had been negligently drawn, and he held that any Member who would help by talking to dismiss the Bill altogether would be rendering a service to his country.
  MR. LOPEStook exception to the proposal, maintaining that the number of 15 Judges was entirely inadequate.
  MR. AMPHLETTsaid, the discussion that had taken place on the question, and which occupied more than an hour, appeared to him to be a senseless one. but one impression was to be gathered from it, and that was that the number of

  1885
  Judges was cut down too much. He shared that feeling, and considered that the Bill was being spoiled by the cutting down of the number of Judges.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, in order to reconcile the objections which had been offered to it he would move the insertion in the Attorney General's Amendment of the words "reduced or," so as to make it run thus—
  "provided always, that the total number of the Judges of the Supreme Court shall not be reduced or increased by any such Order" in Council.
  The power of the Queen in Council ought to be limited to decreasing as well as increasing the Judges, particularly as there was some doubt about the words.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Rules of court to provide for distribution of business) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Assignment of certain business to particular Divisions of High Court subject to rules).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved, as an Amendment, the omission in page 20, line 24, of the words "and the London Court of Bankruptcy respectively." He proposed that the business of the Court should be transferred to the Court of Exchequer, as being upon the whole the most satisfactory arrangement that could be made, and it would only be temporary.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 24, to leave out the words "and the London Court of Bankruptcy respectively."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JAMESfeared that the object of the Amendment was to cast upon the Court of Exchequer the additional duty of undertaking the business of the Court of Bankruptcy. If that was intended to be the effect of the Amendment, he should certainly oppose it on the ground that the Court had not leisure for any additional business with its existing number of Judges.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTwas of opinion that Clause 31 was not required
  1886
  at all, as preceding clauses sufficiently provided for the distribution of the business. Moreover, the Judges themselves had ample power to draw up rules as to the distribution of business.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in defending the Amendment, said, its object was to clear the way for another Amendment. He must explain that he proposed the Amendment for the following reasons:—At present, no doubt, from the illness of one Judge and a vacancy, there were considerable, though temporary, arrears of business in the Court of Chancery. The question, therefore, arose where best could the bankruptcy portion of the business of that Court be transferred, pending suitable arrangements being made for the general distribution of the business. With Judges in Chancery who had to conduct the business of their Courts single-handed, it was impossible that the bankruptcy business could have any more fair play than it had had under the Act of 1869. But there were six Judges of the Court of Exchequer, and he would admit that they were not underworked; but they had less to do than the Judges in any of the other Courts in Westminster Hall, and one could, pending final arrangements, be, without inconvenience, intrusted with the disposal of appeals in Bankruptcy. That was an arrangement which, in the opinion of those who framed the Bill, was vital to the success of the measure, and one which he hoped the Committee would not hesitate to adopt. The Amendment, although only of a temporary character, was essential to the proper working of the 33rd clause, and therefore he hoped it would receive the support of the Committee.
  MR. AMPHLETTadmitted that the Bankruptcy Act had not had fair play, but that was the fault of the Government. He trusted the Court of Bankruptcy would be kept in the Chancery Division. He thought it would be most injudicious to transfer the business of the Bankruptcy Court to the Court of Exchequer, as thereby Vice Chancellor Bacon, who had just got his Court into good order, would be dispossessed of it. He therefore hoped that nothing would be done to interfere with the position of Vice Chancellor Bacon. At the same time, it was absolutely necessary that they should have Judges in Bankruptcy

  1887
  of higher rank and judicial experience than Registrars.
  DR. BALLthought the Bankruptcy business, being of a very peculiar character, ought not to be thrust on the Exchequer Judges, who would be required to go on circuit, whereas the administration of Bankruptcy ought to be intrusted to a Judge who should constantly sit in London. He also objected to transferring Bankruptcy business from one experienced Judge to five, who would have to choose one from among themselves.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the view taken of the question by the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Ball), and hoped to sustain it, if the question went to a division.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that in order to satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury wished to avoid the necessity of appointing an additional Vice Chancellor. He strongly objected to the proposed transfer of the Bankruptcy business. The effect of the proposal would be to transfer the business of the Court of Bankruptcy to the Exchequer Court, which was at present the most unpopular Court in the country.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that the arrangements were only temporary, being made for the purpose of bridging over the interval between the present time and the future time, when all the Judges would be competent to deal with all these questions of Law and Equity. Common Law men practised in Bankruptcy as well as Equity men; it was common ground; and he thought a much larger number of Common Law barristers than of Equity barristers went into Bankruptcy. This was so well known that it had been originally suggested that one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer should be Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy. The five Judges of the Court of Exchequer would divide the Bankruptcy business between them. With regard to the objection that had been made, that they would have to go on circuit, he did not apprehend there would ever be fewer than 16 Judges, so that two could remain in town during the Assizes, and they would be fully able to attend to the Bankruptcy business. Further, a re-arrangement of Judicial force would enable the Judges to do more business. It was not necessary to
  1888
  have four Judges sitting in Banco disposing of cases less important than were disposed of by one Vice Chancellor. If business were done by one or two Judges in such Court, the remaining three or four would be available, and thus more work would be done by the same number of Judges than was done at present.
  MR. WESTthought the question was one of such importance that Progress ought to be reported. He would move, therefore, that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. West.)
  MR. GLADSTONEexpressed his willingness to accede to the suggestion.
  MR. JAMESsaid, the result of reporting Progress now would be, that this subject would come up again at the Two o'clock sitting, when many of the legal Members, himself included, could not attend. The question had been fully discussed, and as a division would probably be taken soon after Two o'clock to-morrow, it would be much more convenient for those hon. Members who were engaged in business, if a decision were at once arrived at.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that there was a great deal of force in the appeal just made by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James). He should therefore propose to postpone the clause, and not renew the discussion upon it tomorrow at Two o'clock.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 138: Majority 7.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House resolve into Committee on this Bill, To-morrow, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. COLLINSrose to Order. He wished to know whether a clause could be postponed when the discussion upon it had once begun? He thought the clause having been put should be struck out, and brought up again.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that an Amendment to the clause having been put from the Chair, the clause must either be negatived, and brought up

  1889
  subsequently, or it must be proceeded with at Two o'clock to-morrow.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that was a question which might be raised when the House was again in Committee on the Bill, but it could not be entertained by the House itself.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that the question in that case would have to be discussed in the absence of himself and many other. After the assurance of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he should, however, leave the matter in his hands.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could only say that he would do his best to keep faith with his hon. and learned Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow at Two of the clock.

  CONSPIRACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. James.)

  [BILL 190.] SECOND READING.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT,in moving, according to Order, that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it did not deal either with the vexed question of the Master and Servant Act, or the question of contract. The measure dealt simply with the question of conspiracy, and that only in the case of master and servant; and it provided that no prosecution for conspiracy should be instituted unless the offence was indictable by statute or was punishable under the provisions of some statute with reference to violent threats, intimidation, or molestation; that no prosecution should be instituted except with the consent of the Attorney or Solicitor General; and that persons convicted upon such prosecution should not be liable to any greater punishment than that provided by law for such cases as aforesaid. With regard to the magistrates, many of whom were employers of labour, it was particularly necessary in their case, that no prosecution should be instituted without the sanction of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, and with regard to the maximum penalty, he deemed it necessary that a change should be made in that provision of the law. The hon. and learned Member concluded by hoping that the House would consent to the second reading of
  1890
  the Bill, the object of which was to bring the law down to the legislation of 1871.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the second reading, but he could have wished that his hon. and learned Friend had accepted the challenge thrown down to him from the Treasury bench, and had brought in a Bill dealing with the general law of conspiracy. In assenting to the second reading, the Government must not be understood as entertaining no objection to the Bill. They would, when the proper time arrived, object to making these prosecutions subject to the approval of the Law Officers; but they would not object to fixing more definitely than had hitherto been the case the punishment applicable to offences of this nature.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 157.]
  (Mr. P. J. Smyth, Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Ronayne, Sir John Gray, Mr. Downing, Mr. Butt.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the same liberty of holding public meetings existed in Ireland as in England, but under an Act which the Bill proposed to repeal, meetings were not permitted of persons who professed to represent their fellow-subjects. It was probable that a Home Rule convention, or something of the kind—would if this Bill was allowed to pass—be convened in Dublin, and the question was whether it was desirable that a body of this nature should be allowed to assemble in Dublin, and represent themselves to the people as a sort of Irish Parliament. There were some objects of the Home Rule Convention with which he sympathized, and he hoped that they might be able to delegate to some local body both in Ireland and Scotland, matters of a peculiarly local character; but he thought that such an object would be more likely to be promoted by rejecting the present

  1891
  Bill. It would be much better that the Imperial Parliament should declare consistently that there were certain objects which Home Rulers could never obtain, instead of encouraging false hopes. He trusted that the House would reject the second reading.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was gratified to hear the declaration just made by the noble Marquess, and the more so, because the House had seen an hon. Gentleman professing Home Rule principles led up to the Table in the early part of the evening by the noble Marquess. [Mr. BRUCE said a few words which were not heard.] He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the election utterances of the hon. Gentleman who had taken his seat that evening.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the Bill had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth), but as he was not in his place, he did not like to see the Order become a dropped Order. He entertained no doubt that he should one day see the noble Marquess, or some one in his position, bring in a Bill conceding everything that the Home Rulers asked. He had himself heard speeches at meetings in England which if made in Ireland would have made the assembly amenable to the law.
  Question put, and negatived.

  SEDUCTION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Charley, Mr. Eykya, Mr. Mandella, Mr. Whitwell.)

  [BILL 10.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. CHARLEY,
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4 struck out of the Bill; and new clauses (Repeal of sections 50 and 51 of 24 and 25 Vic. c. 100), and (abusing a girl under twelve years of age) inserted in place thereof.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had struck out the whole of his Bill, and had replaced it by two clauses; and as he approved of the object which those clauses effected, he should no longer oppose the measure.
  The Marquess of Harlington
  MR. WHARTONmoved a new clause providing, at the discretion of the court, that whipping may be added to other punishment, if the girl is under 12 years old. Where a man was a brute he should be treated as one.
  New Clause (Whipping may be added to other punishment if the girl is under twelve years old,)—(Mr. Wharton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he felt bound to resist the proposal, on the ground that it affirmed a vindictive principle which it was not desirable to carry further than was necessary.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he intended this clause to act as a deterrent merely. He was induced to move it, from observing what a beneficial effect a like punishment had upon a somewhat kindred crime—namely, that of garrotting.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he must point out that garrotting had in a great measure ceased before the Act inflicting whipping as a punishment for it was passed. Moreover, he considered that as they had already passed a clause inflicting penal servitude for at least five years, they ought not to add corporal punishment, the deterrent effect of which, to say the least, he considered of doubtful effect.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in supporting the clause, said, he agreed with his hon. Friend who moved it, that whipping should be inflicted in cases of this sort. He would make the brutes who committed such crimes wince and howl.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 25: Majority 14.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT (UNIVERSITY OF LONDON) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Medical Act as regards the University of London, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Sir PHILIP EGERTON, and Mr. ROBERT FOWLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 224.]

  ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to make provision for more effectually securing the Ulster Tenant Right, and to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. CALLAN, and Mr. P. J. SMYTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL BOARD) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HEYGATE, Bill to amend "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," in respect of the period which must elapse between the rejection and renewal of a Resolution for application for a School Board," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HEYGATE, Mr. AKROYD, and Mr. FRANCIS S. POWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 228.]

  RAILWAYS AMALGAMATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STAPLETON, Bill to provide for the Amalgamation of Railways, and to enable local authorities to influence the administration of the Amalgamated Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAPLETON and Mr. DICKINSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 227.]

  PRISONERS ON REMAND BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN, Bill to regulate the treatment of persons in custody charged with crime or misdemeanor, whether on remand or committed for trial, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN, Mr. LOCKE, and Mr. M'LAGAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 226.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption)* (198); Blackwater Bridge (Composition of Debt)* (199).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision* (174); Slave Trade (East African Courts)* (187); Slave Trade (Consolidation)* (188).
Committee—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (170–200).
Third Reading—Agricultural Children (185); Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property* (140), and passed.
Withdrawn—Prevention of Frauds on Charitable Funds (122).
Royal Assent—Municipal Corporations Evidence [36 & 37 Vict. c. 33]; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) [36 & 37 Vict. c. 34]; County Authorities (Loans) [36 & 37 Vict. c. 35]; Crown Lands [36 & 37 Vict. c. 36]; Vagrants Law Amendment [36 & 37 Vict. c. 38]; Fairs

1835
[36 & 37 Vict. c. 37]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxi]; Railways Provisional Certificate [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxiv]; Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxiii]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental [36 & 37 Vict. c. lxxxvi].

ARMY—THE EDUCATION OF OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether arrangements might not be made whereby gentlemen who have qualified for direct commissions, and who may have to wait for some considerable time before being appointed to regiments, might not be sent at once to undergo the prescribed course of study at Sandhurst? He regretted that a question of so much importance should not be brought under their Lordships' notice by some one more competent to deal with it—but what he objected to, in common he believed with the great majority of the military profession, was that young men entering the Army, having successfully passed their competitive examination, after being a year with their regiments, were sent to Sandhurst for a year's study. In fact, after being for a year recognized as regimental officers, they were re-converted into schoolboys. This was said to have been adopted from what was done in Prussia. But what might suit the Prussians very well, where the whole system of training was arranged in conformity, he thought it would be found repugnant to the habits and feelings of young Englishmen. If the young gentlemen who had qualified themselves for direct commissions were sent to Sandhurst at all, it should be immediately after passing the competitive examination, when still accustomed to the restraints of scholastic life, and when they were more likely to render a strict obedience to the regulations. It was unwise, when they had had 12 months' acquaintance with regimental duties and with their brother officers to take them from their regiments and send them to a military seminary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that, as a rule, gentlemen who proved themselves qualified for direct commissions would obtain them without delay, and when any delay occurred, it
  1836
  was highly improbable that the interval between the date of their qualification and that of their appointment would be of sufficient length to enable them to complete the prescribed course at Sandhurst. He was happy to say that the gentlemen who qualified at the last examination would probably be provided with commissions within a very short time—probably within two or three weeks. This remark did not apply to a certain number who had passed for West India regiments or the Household Brigade. There were some cases, also, of gentlemen who might have obtained commissions without loss of time, but who had signified to the military authorities that they preferred to await a vacancy in some particular regiment rather than accept a commission in some other regiment actually vacant. It should be borne in mind that the last year or two had been exceptional, the new system having been introduced at a time when there were a very large number of names on the Commander-in-Chief s list, and when moreover a considerable reduction had been made in the establishment of officers, and the delay arising from these circumstances would not be likely to recur. It was intended in future to accept only as many candidates as there was a reasonable prospect of providing with commissions at once. The noble Lord's suggestion would involve the inconvenience of sending to Sandhurst young men waiting for commissions, together with those who had been a year with their regiments. Moreover, the limited accommodation at Sandhurst precluded the admission of a fresh class of students, and the course of study presupposed a year's military experience, acquired with the officer's regiment, without which the instruction provided would not produce the desired advantages. Whatever the House might think of the expediency of making the Sandhurst course the beginning of the officer's career, it was obvious that this and the existing system could not be tried concurrently.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, it was incorrect to suppose the Military Education Commissioners recommended the present system, or that it was adopted in imitation of the Prussian, or any military system of education. When he, as a Member of the Education Commission, in common with his Colleagues, desired to obtain infor-

  1837
  mation as to military education on the Continent, they deputed Captain Hozier, who was an excellent linguist and well acquainted with the subject, to go over and make inquiries, and his Reports, printed in the Appendix, showed that nothing of the kind was practised in foreign armies. He could not conceive anything more injudicious than the present course. Young officers were taken away from their regiments just as they were acquiring a knowledge of their duties, and by an absence of 12 months at the College of Sandhurst would certainly on their return have forgotten much they had learned. Such, at least, was the opinion of some of the best lieutenant-colonels, whom he had consulted on the matter. The Duc d'Aumale had remarked that soldiers should not only receive military instruction, but should belong to a military family; should have a military home; where they know and were known to everybody. If this applied to the soldiers, it was still more applicable to the officers, but the 12 months at Sandhurst interrupted this thorough acquaintance with the regiment, throwing together a number of young officers strangers to each other, under no wholesome control of senior officers, whom they must look up to and obey during their future regimental career, and subjected to an anomalous academic discipline, as disagreeable to their feelings, as useless for any military training. Moreover, some of the existing arrangements were singularly injudicious. For instance, cavalry officers sent to Sandhurst were not allowed to take their horses with them unless they paid for their care and keep at an inn, though every military man was aware that for any extended reconnoissances an officer without being mounted could learn nothing. Again, military administration and military law could be much better mastered with the regiment than at Sandhurst. Strategy was taught there, but this was beginning at the wrong end; and history and geography were unwisely omitted. As to geography, it was the element of all others most important in any military education. It could not be cultivated too early, and it was a study that must be followed up by an officer throughout his whole career. It was well known that if one thing more than another contributed to the late successes of the Prussians, it was the wonderful knowledge of the
  1838
  geography of France shown by their officers of all ranks. Moreover, the well-informed and the ignorant officer alike had to stay 12 months at Sandhurst, learning what could be better acquired with the regiment. He objected, as a professional man, to a system which was fraught with mischief.
  LORD VIVIANasked for an explanation of the statement that an officer could wait for a commission in a particular regiment? He had not understood that an officer was left any choice as to the corps with which he would serve.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEexplained that it sometimes happened that a gentleman would desire a commission in a particular regiment, and took the chance of having to wait a little longer than would otherwise be the case.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he presumed the noble Marquess did not intend to convey the impression that a cadet had a right to a commission in a particular regiment. Hitherto appointments to first commissions had rested with the General Commanding-in-Chief, and no such thing had been heard of as a young officer having a preferment for going into this or that regiment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, no change had been made in that respect.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, he had heard from all officers with whom he had conversed an unfavourable opinion on the arrangement by which young officers after a year's service with their regiments were sent to Sandhurst for study. With the regiment, they were in the position of commissioned officers. After having passed their drill, they mounted guard, sat on courts-martial, acted as orderly officers, and were the companions and equals of their brother officers. A young officer was the object of the kindly interest of his brother officers, and with the prospect of an honourable career he viewed his regiment as his home, and felt indemnified for the home he had left. After 12 months all this was interrupted, and he was sent to Sandhurst, where the companionship of his equals in social life was not possible. Moreover, it was impossible in a year with the regiment to acquire the proper degree of efficiency, and Mr. Cardwell, in instituting this system, could not have been aware of the wise provisions of the Queen's Regulations.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYin reply, urged that officers awaiting their commissions should be allowed to go at once through the Sandhurst course, and that some other mode should be devised of instructing officers who had joined their regiments.

  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—EXAMINATIONS.
  LORD DE ROS,who had given Notice to call the attention of the House to the selection of subjects periodically published for examination of candidates for Woolwich Academy; and to ask, If the general officer at the head of the Academy is at all consulted in preparing that selection; and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of the four last published lists of subjects, said, that seeing Romeo and Juliet among the subjects announced for a recent examination, he wrote to his friend, Sir Lintorn Simmons, whose practical character, as an officer, he knew, to ask what had induced him to sanction it. Sir Lin-torn Simmons replied that he had no voice in the matter. The Royal Commission on Military Education, adopting the Duke of Wellington's principle of examining candidates to see whether they had had the proper education for gentlemen, recommended the abolition of the Council of Military Education, and the appointment of a Director-General of Education, for which post his Royal Highness had selected General W. Napier, a highly accomplished and esteemed officer. Now, surely, the choice of subjects ought to be, to a certain extent, in his hands, or the Civil Service Commissioners should, at least, consult him in the matter. He noticed in the list Chaucer, Spenser, the Epistles of Horace, and other authors from the perusal of whom a taste was likely to be formed in after-life, but who inspired distaste when imposed, as a study, on young men who saw in them no immediate practical utility. In Mr. Edgeworth's admirable work on professional education, this proposition was argued with great ability. Lord Stanhope's History of England or History of the War of Succession would be much more suitable; but what possible effect could the study of Romeo and Juliet have upon the scientific and mechanical education of
  1840
  Woolwich? He also noticed, among the subjects for examination, the Areopagitica, which—though he was aware that the Areopagus was a Greek tribunal—puzzled him, and it was not till after vainly consulting several dictionaries that he found that the word Areopagitica was said to have been originally derived from some tradition of a trial of the God Mars for homicide, which trial was conducted by Twelve Gods and Goddesses, when six being on one side and six on the other the accused was acquitted. This seemed a precedent for the recent proposal of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) as to Irish juries. Moreover, as soon as this curious list of subjects was published, the crammer came forward to "coach" his pupils in every detail of the works so fancifully selected—a very unwholesome system. He could not think that the selection of subjects was at all suited for young men studying for the Army, and as their Lordships were practical judges on the subject, he thought he should have their support in urging a more common-sense view as to the propriety of issuing subjects for the examination of Woolwich candidates of more elementary nature, and more likely to be of service in preparing them for the course of instruction they would be required to pursue in the academy of Woolwich, which was specially intended for training cadets for the service of Engineers and Artillery.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the subjects of examination for admission to the Royal Military Academy were laid down in the Regulations for first appointments in the Army. Those Regulations were framed upon the Report of a Royal Commission, of which the noble Lord was himself a Member, as also were Sir Lintorn Simmons (the present Director General of Military Education), General Napier, and Lord Northbrook. The examination was conducted, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, by the Civil Service Commissioners, who selected the period of history and the particular authors prescribed for each examination. The Commissioners notified their selection to the Director General of Military Education, who published the particulars in the newspapers or otherwise, and who had an opportunity—of which he sometimes availed himself—of signifying to the Secretary

  1841
  of State any objections he might possibly take to the recommendations of the Civil Service Commissioners. The Governor of the Royal Military Academy was not, however, consulted. The authors were selected generally with reference to the period of history prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners. He should be able to place in the hands of the House the list of authors for the last four examinations, when the House would see that, with the exception of one or two classical plays of Shakespeare, and of parts of the works of Chaucer—the authors selected either had reference to the events which took place during the period of history selected, or else the works were written during that period of history itself. He confessed that he had listened to the noble Lord opposite (Lord. de Ros) with feelings of surprise. He objected to the selection of Romeo and Juliet. Now, it was just conceivable that the noble Lord might anticipate with apprehension the effects of reading the balcony scene upon the imagination of some young lieutenant. But when the noble Lord went on to profess his surprise at the selection of the Areopagitica, and to ask the House what that treatise was, he confessed to feelings of bewilderment. With regard to the intention of these examinations he might remind the House that they were not intended as tests of the military acquirements of a candidate. The Royal Commission took this view, and their Report contained. these words:—
  "To the general character of the entrance examinations recommended by us we have already alluded. They have been designed with a special reference to the curriculum adopted at the most advanced of our public schools, and with the express intention of enabling the competitors to come straight from one of those establishments to the examination hall, without having occasion to resort to any intermediate place of study."
  "Moreover, as we have already observed, it is very desirable that no instruction should be rendered purely technical until after the foundations have been laid of a sound liberal education."
  That was the view of the Royal Commissioners, and he thought it was a sound one. It was a misapprehension to consider the examinations as forming any part of the course of military education. Their object was, not to test the military acquirements of the candidate, but to ascertain whether his general culture fitted him for admission to the
  1842
  Queen's service. He agreed with the noble Lord's condemnation of "cramming," but the new system tended in an opposite direction. If the candidate had to take up the whole of English literature or history he would resort to a system of "tips," or a memoria technica, and his acquaintance with the subject would be only superficial; whereas the specification of a particular period and particular authors gave him a fair chance of acquiring a solid groundwork in an important part of our history.

  AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)

  (No. 185.) THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid he had again to propose the Amendment which he submitted on the Report. Reformatory schools were under inspection, and were under the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They were placed under general rules and regulations, part of one of which was that—
  "The secular instruction shall consist of reading, spelling, writing, and ciphering, and, as far as practicable, the elements of history, geography, social economy, and drawing. It shall be given for three hours daily."
  The rules for industrial schools made the same provision. The Secretary of State had power to deduct from the grant if these rules were not complied with. Under these circumstances there was surely a sufficient safeguard that the children would be properly educated. The intention of the Education Act was not to interfere with these schools, and. he certainly would have inserted a clause in the first instance had he not imagined they were exempted from the restrictions of the Bill by virtue of the Acts under which they were established. As to the particular school he had mentioned in Northamptonshire, where the labour of the children was let, he found the educational portion of the instruction spoken of most highly in the last Report of the Inspector, as indeed it was in most cases in other schools throughout England and Scotland. The Bill would affect but very few children, it was true, as the account given of the admissions to reformatory schools in 1871 would. show. Out of 1,575 admitted, all but 28 were above 10; 1,340 (or about three-fourths) were above 12,

  1843
  and 760 (or nearly half) were above 14 years of age. In order, however, to avoid interference with special Acts, and with the good work which these schools were doing, he proposed this clause. He must remind their Lordships that, if the clause of exemption was not inserted, children in these schools could not profit by the exemptions of the Bill, for no doubt schools would be provided everywhere within two miles, and in this case, under the interpretation clause, they could never qualify for a certificate of attendances or of proficiency; and no one could say for a moment that children ought to be educated away from the reformatory school to which they had been sent—in fact, no manager would consent to such a course being adopted. In deference to the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), so good a friend to education and to this measure, he would gladly have proposed an addition to the clause. There was a great deal in the objection of the noble Duke, but he found it almost, if not quite, impossible to meet it. For the reasons he had stated, and after representations made to him by experienced managers of reformatory schools, he did not think it right that these schools should be included in the Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the addition to the clause for the purpose of exempting them.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause 10, insert—
  "Nor shall the said provisions apply in the case of any child for the time being detained in a certified reformatory school or in a certified industrial school within the meaning of the Reformatory Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872, and the Industrial Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872, respectively."—(The Lord Henniker.)
  After a few words from the Marquess of SALISBURY, the Marquess of RIPON, and the Duke of RICHMOND,
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—MILITIA RESERVE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OP GALLOWAYrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the conditions under which militiamen were induced to enrol in the Militia Reserve
  1844
  Force during the years 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872 may not be annulled retrospectively as proposed by paragraph 1, clause 38, of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Circular, dated War Office, 21st April, 1873; but that the operation of this clause shall commence only from the date of its issue. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War had, on the 13th of June, been asked a Question by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Exeter), respecting the amount of bounty which was refused to men of the Militia Reserve who enlisted in 1868, and whose term of service did not expire till after the training of 1873; and he (the Earl of Galloway) must say that the answer the noble Lord gave in return to the Question was anything but satisfactory. He thought, indeed, that something like a breach of faith—unintentional, no doubt—had been committed by the War Office towards the men who had enlisted in the Militia Reserve. In 1868, it was thought advisable to establish a new military force called the Militia Reserve. The conditions of entering it were that an ordinary militiaman who met with the approval of his commanding officer, and who had been two years in the force, might be enrolled in the Militia Reserve, whereby he became available for drafting into any regular regiment during his five years in the event of either actual or imminent declaration of war. The point in dispute was the amount of emolument this man became entitled to after enrolment in the Reserve. The original Order was issued on the 9th of May, 1868; and that was followed by an explanatory Memorandum on the 23rd of April, 1869. He maintained the meaning of the original Memorandum was the man should be paid £1 on attestation, and £1 at the close of every subsequent training during his Reserve engagement; but in the explanatory Memorandum the second "£1" was omitted. But without this the Memorandum had no meaning whatever. The understanding these men believed to have been come to with them was that they should receive £1 on entering and £1 a-year for each of the five successive yearly trainings which they agreed to serve. In 1868, they were enlisted, and would consequently be entitled to £6 in 1873. Hitherto the men had received their £1 every year; but on the 23rd of of April in the present year an Order

  1845
  was issued from the War Office stating that to preclude misunderstandings as to the Militia Reserve bounty, the Militia Reserve man was only entitled to receive for his five years' service a total of £5. The men would not understand this as a performance of the engagement made with them. It must be remembered that ordinary Militiamen made many sacrifices in entering the Reserve force. In the first place, at the end of four years' service he received £1 6s.; he got on being enrolled 15 s., which made £2 1s. Added to this he generally got a free gift and the price of his kit, which made altogether about £6. He contended that under all the circumstances of the case the decision of the War Office was a breach of faith, and he hoped it was not yet too late to rectify it. It might be followed by very serious consequences. For example, the regiment which he had the honour of commanding, assembled last week, but the number of men absent amounted to at least 40 per cent. He would have to join in the course of the following week, and what was he to do? He was told by a high military authority that he ought to arrest and punish those who absented themselves as so many deserters; but how was he to accomplish that? In the first place, the police did not display any great energy in arresting deserters from the Militia, because they did not now receive any reward for exercising that part of their duty, and he feared that in many cases they sympathized with the offenders. There were already many grievances alleged, and if this one were added he thought this old constitutional force would dwindle away to a considerable extent.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the conditions under which militiamen were induced to enrol in the Militia Reserve Force during the years 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872 may not be annulled retrospectively, as proposed by paragraph 1, clause 38, of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Circular, dated War Office, 21st April 1873, but that the operation of this clause shall commence only from the date of its issue.—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the difficulty, in so far as it had practically arisen, was limited to those Militia Reserve men who engaged in 1868, and whose engagement expired this year. After the conversation which took place some time ago he had com-
  1846
  municated with his noble Friend opposite, and had also referred to the documents. The question was under what contract did those men engage. The terms of their engagement were to be found in the Act of 1867, and in the Regulation of 1868, which was signed by Sir John Pakington. When he gave his answer to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Exeter) at that time, he believed that the engagement was for a service of five years in consideration of a payment of £5. He still believed that this was intended, and he should not despair of bringing forward a good technical argument for refusing the sixth £1 to those men who had only five trainings. But this was not a case for such technical arguments. The Government were dealing with an important force, whose education as a rule was not very high, and any appearance of bad faith was to be avoided. Acting under this view, he had laid the documents before the Lord Chancellor, and begged him to advise him what was the contract apparent upon the face of the papers, regardless of technical construction. The noble and learned Lord had advised him that its obvious interpretation did not exclude the payment of a sixth £1 to those men who had engaged in 1868 on account of the training of 1873. They would therefore receive the sixth £1, not as a matter of right, but because Her Majesty's Government thought that if there was a doubt as to interpretation that doubt should be ruled in their favour. As a consequence, all the Militia Reserve men similarly circumstanced, and who engaged after 1868, but before the issue of the Circular of 1873, would get their sixth £1 if their fifth training was held within the period of their engagement. This difficulty would, he trusted, not arise in the case of future engagements, because a Bill was now in progress whereby Her Majesty's Government proposed to extend the service in the Militia Reserve from five to six years, with a bounty of £6—£1 for each year's liability.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHexpressed his great satisfaction at hearing the statement of the noble Marquess, because there was great dissatisfaction among these men when they were told they were not to receive the bounty this year. Whatever might be the noble Marquess's estimation of the education

  1847
  of those men, they were at all events shrewd enough to form a judgment as to their rights.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PREVENTION OF FRAUDS ON CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. (No. 122.)
  (The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to put an end to those fraudulent cases in which, under the name of charitable associations, certain persons succeeded in obtaining money from the public, which they misapplied, and spent for their own purposes. The Charity Organization Society, of the labours of which he could not speak too highly, had clearly shown to what an extent the fraudulent system to which he referred was carried. That Society had a local committee in almost every district in London, and had done everything in its power to bring offenders to justice. As to the associations against which its efforts were directed, their committees consisted, for the most part, of mere dummies, the names upon them representing persons who had no existence. In a vast number of instances there was only one man, having a small room, who issued reports and collected money, which he spent after his own fashion. The present law was not sufficient to deal with this matter—as in the instance of the Bible and Clothing Society, which had been prosecuted by the Charity Organization Society. It was shown that very considerable sums of money had been received by that society; but as it was proved that a certain number of Bibles and a certain quantity of clothing—merely nominal—had been purchased, it was relieved from the charge of obtaining money under false pretences, and the charge was dismissed; and he feared the result would be the same in most cases, the law being imperfect. He had a list of 16 of these societies whose receipts averaged, he found, £13,410 a-year, and he believed he was within the mark when he stated that between £300,000 and £400,000 per annum was
  1848
  raised in that way throughout the country. It was desirable, then, he thought, that the law should, as far as possible, be brought to bear on abuses of that kind, for the perpetration of which the penny post, the telegraph, and other modern improvements afforded increased facilities. To meet the evil he proposed that every charitable society should keep proper books of account, containing particulars of all money or goods received by them, the names of the donors, and the manner in which all moneys received have been applied, a register of all officers, agents, and others; and should in every prospectus or report, declare where these registers might be inspected. He further provided for the inspection of these books by any person interested, or his agent; and that it should publish yearly a balance-sheet to these provisions; and to that every honest society would not, he felt sure, have any objection to submit. Their Lordships would observe that he did not propose the enactment of any new law, but for an application of existing laws—such as the Larcenies Act, the Charitable Trust Act, and the Companies Act—to cases of abuse which were not adequately dealt with by the existing law. It might be contended that it would be better to have the societies registered; but he did not think the registration of Friendly Societies had produced any great effect in the prevention of frauds; in fact some of the greatest frauds had been practised under cover of the Friendly Societies Act; while as to the argument that there was no good reason why the Legislature should try to protect people against the consequences of their own folly, he would merely observe that a woman had only the other day been sent to prison with hard labour merely for procuring money by fortune-telling, while the law also stepped in to protect shareholders against fraud. If their Lordships gave a second reading to the Bill he did not propose to press the measure any further this Session, but he desired to have it circulated throughout the country, with a view to effective legislation, if possible, next year.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had no doubt of the excellence

  1849
  of the noble Earl's object in bringing forward that measure; but he thought the mode in which he sought to accomplish that object was open to great objection. There were a large number of people who chose to intrust their money for charitable purposes without taking the least precaution to ascertain the character of the persons to whom they intrusted it, or the reality of the object for which the money was asked; and by this Bill it was proposed to protect those people by placing every person, whether innocent or guilty, under a series of restrictions and regulations which would be intolerable. The noble Earl had referred to a considerable number of societies in London; but he would ask him to consider what the effect of the Bill would be upon many of the small charities in country districts? Take the case of a parochial clothing fund, in which the wife of the parson associated with a few other ladies in the parish to benefit the poor. Those ladies would be required by the Bill to keep or cause to be kept a book or books containing particulars of all moneys or goods received by them; particulars of the manner in which all moneys received by them had been paid or applied; to keep a register of all officers, agents, collectors, and all other persons, whether paid or unpaid, who might be in any wise employed by or assist in the management of such charitable association. They were further required to allow donors to inspect the register and all other books or documents for at least two hours during every day in which the office of the association was open for business, and also to send them every year a report and balance-sheet, giving full, true, and particular accounts of all receipts and disbursements. Any person contravening these provisions was to be liable to a penalty of 40 s. for every offence. It was very hard to impose those severe restrictions on persons who were pursuing a laudable object in various parts of the country. If the noble Earl could not devise any other remedy except by harassing and worrying those innocent people, it would be better to let fools remain unprotected. Clause 4 declared that any person who, among other things, destroyed, altered, mutilated, or falsified any book or paper belonging to any charitable association, should be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard
  1850
  labour for any period not exceeding six months. So that if a clerk within the office of a charitable association tore up a paper he might be sent to prison for six months. Again, a like penalty was imposed on those who published or concurred in publishing any written statement or account which turned out to be false. The impression left upon his mind by a perusal of the Bill was that it had not passed through the hands of a Parliamentary draftsman; the penalties proposed were out of all proportion to the offences dealt with; and any clear case of fraud such as was here provided against would be much better dealt with by the ordinary law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORagreed that the Bill, however excellent in intention, was entirely impracticable, and it was a serious question whether their Lordships should give it a second reading. The effect of passing it would simply be that no man or woman of sense would have anything whatever to do with any charitable institution. Let their Lordships only conceive of excellent charitable ladies in town or country, not accustomed, perhaps, to business, if they "omitted, or concurred in omitting, any material particular in any book of account or other document," being liable, without the option even of a fine, to be kept to hard labour for any term not exceeding six months, and if the offence were repeated, to be sentenced to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that after what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor, he would not press their Lordships to read the Bill the second time. But it was no encouragement to any person wishing to remedy a flagrant and admitted abuse to find himself at the outset met, not with the support which he might have expected, but with language such as might make him shrink from his attempt.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORassured the noble Earl that he did not attribute to him, but to the draftsman of his Bill, the provisions which he had criticized. The noble Earl would admit that those who were responsible for the administration of the law, and for advising either House of Parliament as to the effect of Bills to amend the law, ought to be most careful before they committed themselves to provisions of

  1851
  the nature of those to which he had referred, and that if they were of opinion that more harm than good would be done by them, it was the duty of one occupying his position to point out that such, in his opinion, would be the effect of the measure.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.