Sitting of 24 July 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Imprisonment for Debt [No. 348].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [261].
Fist Reading—Telegraphs* [262].
Second Reading — Rating Liability (Ireland) [246]; Public Schools (Eton College Property) * [251]; Defence Acts Amendment* [255].
Committee—Slave Trade (Consolidation)* [249]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Endowed Schools Act (1869) Amendment [207]; Slave Trade (East African Courts)* [236]; Langbaurgh Coroners* [242]; Conspiracy Law Amendment* [190].
Considered as amended—Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment, &c. [245].
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* [235]; Penalties (Ireland) * [239], and passed.
Withdrawn—Household Franchise (Counties)* [3]; Household Suffrage Counties (Scotland)* [50]; Landed Estates Court (Ireland) (Judges) [182]; Public Meetings (Ireland)* [157].

NEWFOUNDLAND—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (for Lord CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is the intention of the Newfoundland Government to determine the monopoly which now exists in telegraphic communication between Ireland and Newfoundland, and open the line to all cables and telegraph lines across the Island,

899
subject to a uniform tariff; and if any such notice has been given to the existing holders of the monopoly; and if any Correspondence has been received by the Imperial Government in relation to this matter; and if such Correspondence would be placed before the House?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, the Government of Newfoundland has given notice to the company now enjoying a monopoly in telegraphic communications with that colony, of its determination to terminate that monopoly. Their intention is to open the matter to that competition which they believe to be wise, just, and salutary. They-will probably establish a tariff, though nothing has been settled as to uniformity. Correspondence has passed upon the matter, and there will be no objection to lay it before Parliament, but it is at present incomplete.

EGYPT—SUEZ CANAL—INCREASE OF DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. NORWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of the Government has been drawn to the statements which have recently appeared in the public journals relative to the Report of the Committee which had been appointed at Constantinople to inquire into the subject of the Suez Canal Dues, and to the comments of the Council of Ministers there on that Report; and, if so, whether the Government are able to state to the House what is the conclusion arrived at by the Turkish authorities?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, a telegraphic despatch has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople reporting that the Porte has sent a Letter to the Khedive on the Suez Canal Dues, stating that, as of all the official systems in operation the Moorsom gives the utilizable capacity with the greatest accuracy, the Porte is of opinion that the net tonnage according to that system should be adhered to; if, however, the Powers or M. de Lesseps should wish not to continue to maintain this system, it will be necessary to call an International Commission to determine the utilizable capacity. The Letter concludes by saying that this being the result of the deliberation of the Council of Ministers, and the Sultan, to whom it has been submitted, having ordered effect to be given to it, the decision is
900
communicated to the Khedive, in order that His Highness may decide upon the measures which it may render necessary.

TURKEY—COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN (for Sir JOHN GRAY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any advance has been made in securing that the evidence of Christians shall be admitted in courts of justice in Turkey on a footing equal to the testing given by Mahometans; and, whether certain inhabitants in that country at present suffer from disabilities in reference to military service and the devolution of landed property?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the latest reports from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople state that in all the Turkish Courts, excepting those administering the Koran Law, there has been an advance towards placing Christian evidence on a footing of equality with that of Mahometans. In all criminal cases, without exception, Christian evidence is admitted in the new Court. Christians are not taken for military service, and pay a tax instead; but this is now regarded by them more as an advantage than as a disqualification. With regard to landed property, Sir Henry Elliot says that the subjects of the Sultan, of whatever creed, as well as all foreigners, are stated to be upon the same footing.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CONVICT LABOUR AT DARTMOOR.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Under what authority large enclosures are being made at Dartmoor without compensation to the commoners; and, whether any payment is made by the Duchy of Cornwall to the Treasury on account of the labour of the convicts employed in the work?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the authority for the leases granted by the Duchy of Cornwall at Dartmoor is the Act 26 & 27 Vict. c. 49, s. 22, Duchy of Cornwall Management Act, 1863. No payment is made to the Treasury on account of convict labour, because the convicts are only employed on lands leased to the Prison Directors.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS—THE "WILLIAM," OF EXETER.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GILPINasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the schooner "William," of Exeter, which left Hartlepool on the 25th June, and foundered at sea on 1st July; whether he is aware that this ship was known to be so unseaworthy that she had baskets of sawdust drawn under her that the action of the sea might suck the sawdust into the seams, and thus temporarily stop the leaks; whether the Board of Trade inquiry was held on the loss of this ship at Exeter, where the owner lived, instead of at Hartlepool, where the aforesaid facts were known; and, whether, as the finding was that the vessel was not unseaworthy, although it foundered in perfectly fine calm weather, and, to use the language of a correspondent of "The Times." she "took a header" and went to the bottom, he will cause the strictest inquiry to be made, and report to the House?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I have not hoard, Sir, of the baskets of sawdust; there is no mention of that in the evidence. It is true the inquiry was held at Exeter. The question where inquiries of this kind should be held is left to the solicitor conducting them, who decides on the balance of convenience. The Report states that the vessel had been repaired three months previously; but nevertheless she was not in all respects, a seaworthy vessel. The hon. Member is wrong in stating that the vessel foundered in fine, calm weather. Having read the evidence, I find that she was exposed to a very strong gale of wind—one of the witnesses said it blew very hard. She was struck by a very heavy sea at 11 o'clock in the morning of Monday, the 30th June, when it became necessary to work the pumps, and she did not founder till 24 hours after. She went down head-foremost three miles off the land, and the crew escaped in the boats.
  MR. GILPINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Royal Commissioners on Unseaworthy Ships have power under the Order of Reference to appoint assistant-Commissioners to prosecute inquiries during the Recess at the seaports; and, if they have not, whe-
  902
  ther it is the intention of the Government to supplement their existing powers to this end, so that there may be no de-lay in prosecuting the necessary inquiries?
  MR. CHICUESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, the Royal Commissioners have full power to appoint assistant-Commissioners for the purpose stated. It will depend on the Commissioners themselves whether they exercise that power. I have reason to believe, however, that they think it desirable to see and hear all the witnesses themselves; and, in any case, the House may have full confidence in the way the Commissioners are carrying on their inquiry.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYN,for Mr. OTWAY, asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When and how he proposes to give effect to the promise he made on the 17th June last, that the Civil Service writers should receive special pay for special kinds of work, that certain holidays should be granted to all writers, that sick leave on medical certificate should be granted to writers without loss of pay, and that an allowance for travelling expenses should be made to writers when ordered away on duty by the Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the mode in which effect should be given to this undertaking is now under the examination of the 'Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners, and it will very shortly be made known. I am not in a position to say more at present.

  METROPOLIS—THE AUTHORIZED BOOK OF CAB FARES—RAILWAY STATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement is correct that Sir R. Carden said—
  "As a matter worthy of attention of the Home Secretary, that from the authorized book of cab fares now in use among cabmen, and which was published in 1870, there were no less than sixteen railway stations in the Metropolis, many of them being principal stations, entirely omitted;
  and, whether this defect will soon be remedied?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, the last authorized book of fares was published in 1872. New measurements are now being made

  903
  by the Ordnance Survey Department. These measurements will be given from the 227 principal cab-stands to certain important points in the metropolis. Among the points to which measurements will be given, 35 railway stations are included, and among them all the terminal stations. The measurements to 89 cab-stands have been completed, and the whole will be completed and a new book issued as soon as it can be prepared.

METROPOLIS—FIRES—WATER SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in "The Times" of the 19th instant, in which it is stated that owing to the want of supply of water a house was destroyed by fire in Weymouth Street between two and three in the morning?
  MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, that his information was consistent with that contained in another letter on the subject which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman had seen, in which it was stated that there had been no deficiency of water and no delay in its supply.

  CRIMINAL LAW—APPROPRIATION OF PENALTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If his attention has been drawn to a decision of the Magistrate of the Westminster Police Court directing that a penalty imposed under the provisions of "The Nuisances Removal Act, 1855," should be paid to the Receiver of Police for the Metropolis instead of to the Local Board of Works, the prosecuting authority, although the Nuisances Removal Act provides that all penalties under the Act should be paid over to the Vestry, District Board, or other local authority appointing an analyst; and, whether he will consider the expediency of providing that the penalties under this Act imposed in the metropolis shall be paid over to the local authority as in other parts of England?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I have considered that decision, which appears to me to be in strict accordance with the existing law. There are, undoubtedly, strong reasons of public policy in favour of pay-
  904
  ing over these penalties to the local authorities, and thereby encouraging active and vigorous enforcement of the laws entrusted to them. On the other hand, the circumstances of the metropolis afford much justification for an exceptional course. The Treasury bears in the metropolis charges which elsewhere are borne by the local funds, especially the cost of the police magistrates and the police courts, and they have therefore a special claim upon these penalties. The subject is not clear of doubt; but I am not prepared to say that a change ought to be made.

  IRELAND—REVISION OF LIST OF MAGISTRACY.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the answer of the Chief Secretary on the 18th March 1870, Whether the revision of the List of the Irish Magistracy, "with a view of clearing the List of the names of the persons who ought not to be there, or who had ceased to be able to act," which was then stated to be "yet going on," has been completed; and, if so, has an effect been given to the said revision in any one county in Ireland; and, if so, in what county or counties; and, if not completed, what progress, if any, has been made in such revision; whether any effect has been given to the opinion of the then Chief Secretary, "That the Government should use their influence "to have advantage taken of" all fair and proper opportunities to reduce the inequalities" then admitted to exist in the undue disproportion of Protestants to Catholics on the magisterial bench; and, whether the attention of the Irish Executive has been directed to the grave dissatisfaction existing in Ireland with regard to the present condition of the Irish Magistracy?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the revision of the list, promised in 1870, had been going on, and had been completed for 26 counties. The grounds upon which in many cases removals had been made were—insufficient qualification or non-residence, the holding of offices incompatible with the position of justice of the peace, employment in land agency, the temporary appointments of military and naval offices, and death or absence. From the remaining counties no information had been

  905
  received from the Lord Lieutenants, or the information was not sufficient to enable the Lord Chancellor to complete the revision. The work had boon one of considerable labour, involving an enormous number of inquiries, and some of them of a delicate character. A considerable number of Roman Catholic gentlemen who appeared to be duly qualified had been placed upon the Bench; but, considering the distribution of land in Ireland between the two religious professions, it was not to be expected that anything like equality should be established. He was not at all aware that grave dissatisfaction existed with regard to the present condition of the Irish magistracy. He was perfectly aware that dissatisfaction existed on the part of many persons that they had not received commissions; but he was not aware there was any general dissatisfaction.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS—ENGLAND AND IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. DELAHUNTYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether from the 19th of August 1871, to the 31st December 1872, the Public Works Loan Commissioners, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury, have not granted loans, amounting to £869,833, to local authorities in England for sanitary purposes; whether further amounts have not since been granted for like purposes, and to what extent; whether, during the present month, the Treasury has not obtained power from Parliament to raise a further sum of one and a-half millions to enable the Loan Commissioners to grant additional loans at 3 per cent. to local authorities in England for like purposes; whether from the 19th of August 1871, to the present time, the Treasury has sanctioned any loan to local authorities in Ireland for sanitary purposes, save the one to Waterford at 5 per cent.; and, if any, to state their amounts; whether the maximum period for repayment of such loans in Ireland is not fixed by Law at twenty-five years and in England at fifty years; and, whether, if the facts be so, the Treasury will still insist on exacting in the latter Country a higher rate of interest by 1 per cent. than the 4 per cent. the Law authorizes them to fix and charge?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that from the 19th of August, 1871, to the 31st of December, 1872, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had granted £8,389, and not 2869,833, and since then £262,579 had been granted. This month the Treasury had obtained power to raise £1,500,000, to enable the Loan Commissioners to grant additional loans at 3½ per cent. Since the 19th of August, 1871, the Treasury had sanctioned, besides a 5 per cent loan to Waterford, loans to Ireland, through the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of £12,100 for the Inniskillen Waterworks, £800 to the Mill Street Union, Cork, and £4,300 for Dublin; and, through the Irish Board of 'Works, of £4,000 to Inniskillen. The maximum periods for repayment were in Ireland 25 years, and in England 50 years. He had not the least objection to abolish the distinction of 1 per cent higher interest charged to Ireland; but he was bound by the general rules under which the respective loans were granted. The Waterford Loan was, he believed, from the Public Works Loan Commissioners in England.

  ARMY—GUNPOWDER—MR. DUFFEY'S INVENTION—QUESTION.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to make any use of the invention of Mr. James Duffey for the protection of gunpowder from explosion, which was tested at the Horse Guards in July 1869, in the presence of Sir Hope Grant, and on Wimbledon Common in 1870, in the presence of His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck and other officers; whether he is aware that the invention has been pronounced to be one of considerable value by them and other military and naval authorities; and, whether he is willing to assign any reward to Mr. Duffey for his discovery, which he patented in 1870, but for which he has not sought an extension of his patent in consequence of his belief that the favourable opinion expressed by the Quartermaster General would be acted upon by the Government?
  SIR HENRY STORKS,in reply, said, the Government did not intend to make use of the invention, the advisers of the War Department having

  907
  expressed a decided opinion that it was unsuited for military purposes. No award could be assigned for inventions which were not adopted into the service.

ARMY—SECOND BATTALIONS OF MILITIA REGIMENTS.

  QVESTION.
  MR. STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, When it is intended to raise the second battalions of Militia regiments referred to in the Army localisation scheme; whether care will be taken to appoint Commanding Officers and Adjutants to the new battalions in sufficient time for them to superintend the posting of the officers and men transferred to them; whether the Commanding Officers of the new battalions will have any voice in the selection of the officers and non-commissioned officers of their battalions; and, whether the officers and non-commissioned officers will be appointed at a time sufficiently before the annual training to enable them to become properly organized before their men are attached?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir. It is intended to raise second battalions in those counties in which the state of the recruiting appears to warrant it; and arrangements will be made for doing so in the course of the autumn. Care will be taken to make the appointments with due notice, and at such time and in such manner as may most conduce to efficiency in each case. The commanding officers of the old battalions will be communicated with in respect to the formation of the new, and, generally, the arrangements will be made as far as possible to meet the circumstances of each regiment.

  THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE GENEVA ARBITRATION—PRESENTS TO ARBITRATORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state to the House the precedents according to which Her Majesty's Government propose to offer presents of plate to three of the Arbitrators in the late Geneva Award, and which precedents were referred to by him in general terms on the 10th of March last.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, it had been the custom, from time to time, for a very long period, to give presents
  908
  to foreigners who had discharged special duties or performed special services for this country, as it had also been the custom with other nations to give presents to persons belonging to this country who had rendered special services to them. The precedents he would quote in the present instance were these. There was the precedent of Lord Castlereagh, who received a valuable service of china from the King of France after the Congress of Vienna, in 1814. There were also the cases of Lord Sidmouth in 1815; Lord Bathurst in 1816; the Russian and Danish Ministers in 1822, from this country; the Bavarian and Spanish Ministers, from this country in 1823; the Danish Minister in 1834; the Brazilian Plenipotentiary in 1827; the Netherlands Ambassador to Constantinople in 1829. Particulars could be supplied if the hon. Gentleman desired them. Perhaps the precedent most relevant to this particular case was that of Sir Edward Thornton, our Minister at Washington, who received a present for his services as Arbitrator between the United States and Brazil, in the case of the vessel Canada in 1870. The hon. Gentleman would remember that in the present instance it was the United States Government which took the initiative.

  NAVY—SHIP-BUILDING—PLANS OF THE GOVERNMENT.—QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that as all the Navy Estimates in regard to ship-building had been already passed, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he would redeem the pledge he gave some weeks ago by stating what type of Iron-clad it was intended to lay down this year? He would further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to couple with that statement an assurance that he should have in a formal Return the specifications as to the dimensions of the ship and the weights she would carry.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, with regard to the latter portion of the noble Lord's Question, I am more or less in the hands of the House; but I venture to submit to the noble Lord that it is not desirable that at the earliest stage of constructing a ship, notice should be given to all the world as to her exact dimensions and specifications. I will, however, make a general statement to the House. Ships

  909
  are being designed and constructed for other navies to carry guns and armour exceeding in power and thickness anything which has been hitherto adopted, and it is necessary that this ship, which will take from three to four years to construct, should, when completed, be more than a match for any other ship in the world. The ship we propose to build at Portsmouth, to be named the Inflexible, carries out the views of the Committee on Designs for Ships of War. The system is an extension of that adopted in the Warrior, of having a central armoured citadel and under-water shot-proof decks. The requisite reserve of buoyancy in the event of the unprotected ends being penetrated to any extent is secured by the central armoured citadel. The area of the armour is diminished and its thickness increased in a corresponding degree. It is not advisable to give the figured dimensions of this ship in all their details; but I can state that the armour is thicker than has been contemplated for any ship or fort; that the guns with which this vessel is to be armed will be the most powerful that can be designed and manufactured; and that low freeboard and no sails are not essential features of the design. The ship will have a freeboard of 20 feet forward, and be able to set trysails if required in heavy weather, or in the improbable event of her four sets of engines being disabled. The dimensions, except the beam, which is much greater, are the same as the Fury, with 3 feet less draught of water. The coal endurance is the same; and the ship, with a full speed of 14, will steam 3,000 knots, at 10 knots speed. The estimated cost is the same as the Fury. The Controller of the Navy, with the Director of Naval Ordnance, and the Chief Naval Architect, who has prepared the design, concur in recommending it to the Board of Admiralty, who, after very careful consideration, are unanimous in their approval.

POST OFFICE—REGISTRATION OF LET-TERS CONTAINING POSTAGE STAMPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Postmaster General, with regard to a Post Office Notice just issued, Whether he really-means after the 31st instant to require letters containing postage stamps to be
  910
  registered; and if any such letter is not registered, to subject the person to whom it is addressed, before delivery thereof, to a double registration fee of eight-pence; whether this new regulation, or extension of the existing regulation as to coin will be enforced, however small the number or value of the stamps enclosed may be; whether the readiness of the people of Scotland and Ireland to acquiesce in the withdrawal, intended to take place at the same time, of the facility they have long enjoyed and habitually used in the power of remitting small notes by post; if he will lay upon the Table any Report made to him showing necessity for this rigid and novel procedure; if he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence or Minutes alluded to in the following passage from, page 7 of his Nineteenth Report to the Treasury, which has been issued this morning:—
  "The evil to be remedied is still so great that, as you are aware, I have been obliged to ask for the authority adverted to, and, as you have been pleased to grant it, I have now to announce that, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed, the measure will be brought into operation;"
  And what is the Act of Parliament on which he relies as his warrant and justification for the intended limitation of the individual convenience of the people?
  MR. MONSELL: There is no intention, Sir, to require letters containing postage stamps to be registered, except in cases in which, from bad folding or packing, the contents are obvious. As the object of the regulation is to prevent temptation to theft arising from carelessness, now very common, it will, when applicable, be enforced without reference to the number or value of the stamps enclosed. The reasons for the regulalation having been fully given in the Nineteenth Annual Report on the Post Office, just issued, it is not necessary to lay any other Papers on the Table of the House. The Act of Parliament in which power is given to the Postmaster General, with the consent of the Treasury, to lay down such a regulation as the one in question is 3 & 4 Viet., c. 96. I will undertake, however, that the regulation is not put in force until my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) has had an opportunity of submitting to the House his Motion on the subject.
  MR. MACFIEasked, Whether he might hope that the discussion on the subject would be taken this Session?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that was a question which ought to be addressed to the hon. Member for Glocester.

NAVY—NAVAL RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If there is any truth in a paragraph in the "Pall Mall Gazette," of Tuesday, the 22nd, to the effect that he has abandoned the intention of proposing a plan for a Naval retirement during this Session; and, if he will inform the House when it is proposed to take the remaining Vote on the Navy Estimates?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, there is no truth in the statement in The Pall Mall Gazette, if it is meant to convey the idea that I have abandoned those intentions which I expressed on the last occasion when the Navy Estimates were before the House. The plan then suggested, that, possibly, as a temporary measure, certain modifications of the retirement scheme of 1870 might be proposed, has not been abandoned; and I shall take the opportunity on moving the Half Pay Vote of stating my intentions on that point. I believe the Navy Estimates will be taken on Monday next.

  POST OFFICE—THE GLASGOW POST OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that there are still great complaints as to the inefficiency in the delivery department of the Glasgow Post Office; if it is with his sanction that boys of sixteen are employed in the service; and, if it be the fact, that the increase of staff stated by the new Postmaster to be necessary to make the service efficient, has been only partially conceded?
  MR. MONSELL: So far, Sir, from its being known that great complaints are still made, a Report from the Postmaster of Glasgow was received only yesterday, stating that the new arrangements are working well and giving full satisfaction to the public. Youths of 16 years of age are employed in the Post Office Service, as they have been for 50 years past, if not longer. [Mr. ANDER-
  912
  sox: In the delivery of letters?] I am unable to state. The staff of the Glasgow Post Office has been increased to the full extent asked for.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—REVISED CODE, 1873, ARTICLE 59—TEACHERS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Vice President of the Council, If, looking at the difficulty of obtaining teachers for Elementary Schools and the great educational changes going on, he will hold out the hope that the provisions of Article 59 of the Code of 1873, whereby certificates of the third class are granted upon the Report of the Inspector to acting teachers reported to be efficient, will be allowed to remain in force for a further period; and, whether the examination of twenty children with fifteen passes would not be, as in the case of Scotland, a sufficient requirement?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, it was too late to make any alteration this year; but he would promise that the subject should receive the attention of the Government.

POST OFFICE—DUBLIN POST OFFICE—SORTERS AND LETTER CARRIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Sorters and Letter Carriers of Dublin held a meeting on Monday evening in the large Sorting Room of the General Post Office, at which meeting a Memorial to the Postmaster General was adopted, asking for an increase of pay; whether he has received this Memorial; and, if so, whether he can state to the House what Course the Government intend to take in the matter; whether other Memorials on this subject have not been addressed to the Postmaster General on several previous occasions lately, of which no effective notice has been taken; and, whether it is a. fact that important reforms in the Post Office arrangements were recommended more than twelve months since by the local authorities in Dublin and approved by the Postmaster General; and, if so, whether he can state to the House why these reforms have not been carried out?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, It is the case that the sorters and letter carriers of Dublin held a meeting on Monday in the sorting office of the General Post Office, and that a Memorial was then adopted, praying for an increase of wages; but, inasmuch as that Memorial reached my hands only this morning, I am not prepared to state what course will be taken in the matter. Other Memorials having the same object in view had already been received by the Postmaster General. It is not the fact that important reforms in the Post Office arrangements were recommended more than 12 months ago by the local authorities in Dublin and approved by the Postmaster General. The reforms, to which no doubt allusion is made, were recommended by an officer in London who was despatched by myself to Dublin. Of that officer's recommendations one involved an increase in the wages of the letter carriers. This increase was sanctioned in November last, and I can hold out no hope that in their case any further change will be made. The pay they now receive is identical with that of letter carriers in the large manufacturing towns in England, where the rates of wages are certainly not less than they are in Dublin. Others of the recommendations arising out of the mission to Dublin are still under the consideration of the Treasury.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that the Post Office and Telegraph Vote was put off until full inquiry could be made as to the appropriation of balances for the purposes of the Telegraph Service, he will not now allow the discussion on that point to take place before the Vote itself is taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the practical objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is that any postponement of the Vote beyond Monday would involve the postponement of the Prorogation of the Session. The state of the case is this—It is scarcely true that the Telegraph Vote was put off until the conclusion of the inquiry; but it was put off in order that Members might be sure that they would have an opportunity of discussing the subject. There is nothing
  914
  in the Vote which has any connection with the inquiry. It is a Vote for the Telegraph Service of the year, and it has no connection with the question of capital account. What the hon. Gentleman means, I apprehend, is that he should have a good and convenient opportunity of discussing the subject. We must go on this evening and to-morrow with strictly legislative business; but I will keep Tuesday morning, at 2 o'clock, free for the purpose of offering it to the hon. Gentleman, if he thinks proper to avail himself of it. Assuming that Supply will be got through on Monday night, I shall propose to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that on Tuesday evening, at 9 we should take the discussion of his Factories Bill. We will use every effort to have a House, and the subject is one to ensure a House, independently of any endeavour on our part. On Wednesday we propose to take the discussion on the Indian Budget.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to know when the Real Estate Intestacy Bill would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Not on any one of the days I have named.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked when the discussion to be raised by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) upon the subject of the West Coast of Africa would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid it must be taken on some day later than those he had just named.

SCIENCE AND ART—THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND SOUTH KENSINGTON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there is any truth in the Report that the South Kensington Museum and other allied institutions are about to be transferred to the management of the Trustees of the British Museum?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that the question of the present arrangements of the South Kensington Museum was under the consideration of the Government. They connected themselves to a certain extent with the British Museum on account of the necessity for modifying the arrangements of the British Museum, consequent upon the transfer of the Natural History Collection to South Kensington. Beyond that

  915
  he could not at present go, except to say that the matter was still under process of inquiry.

  NAVY—SALE OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL ESTATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How much land belonging to Greenwich Hospital has already been sold; what is the quantity of land now advertised for sale; and what is the quantity still remaining unsold; what security there is that the money obtained by these sales will be retained as capital and not devoted to income; and, whether he will undertake that no more of the land belonging to Greenwich Hospital shall be sold until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the policy of selling land which is held in trust for public uses? He wished to add the further question, Whether it is true that nearly 6,000 acres were going to be sold, and in eleven lots?
  MR, GOSCHEN,in reply, said, that two estates containing 1,940 acres, and realizing upwards of £200,000, were sold by public auction in August, 1872 —one estate realizing £92,164, and the other £116,000. With regard to the quantity of land now advertised for sale—the Tyneside estate in Northumberland, containing about 5,768 acres, was advertised for sale by public auction at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 5th of August next. The Admiralty had also under consideration the sale of the remainder of the Langley Barony, &c., estate, containing 8,581 acres; but it was uncertain whether that would be sold before the spring. As to the quantity still remaining unsold, there were 27,865 acres in Northumberland and Cumberland, besides ground-rents and house property in Greenwich and the Isle of Dogs, producing a gross rental of £4, 400 a-year. With respect to the security that the money would be retained as capital and not devoted to income, the 31st clause of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, provided that the purchase-money paid in respect of lands sold should be carried to the Greenwich Hospital capital account. There was the further security of the detailed audit, by the Exchequer and Audit Department, of the capital and income accounts of Greenwich Hospital, in order to see that the provisions
  916
  of the Greenwich Hospital Acts were duly complied with. Lastly, there was the additional security of the presentation of these accounts to Parliament annually, and their review by the Public Accounts Committee. He would undertake that there should be no more sales until spring; but, without knowing what course his hon. Friend might take, he would not pledge himself not to proceed to exercise the powers entrusted to him by Parliament. It was good policy on the part of the House to direct the sales of this land, because the Admiralty had plenty of public business to attend to, without having the management of large estates superadded to their other duties.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it would be his duty to move a Resolution expressing the opinion of the House on these sales, and if it decided that they should go on, he should endeavour to obtain an opinion on the part of the House that the land should be sold in small lots.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he accidentally omitted a part of his answer to the hon. Gentleman. He could not toll the precise number of lots in which the lands would be sold by auction. When he said that no more sales would take place before the spring, he did not mean that the lands advertised for sale would be withdrawn.

  IRELAND—PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the eminently satisfactory condition of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners, and the charges of every going judge of assize during the years 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872, and the present year, both as regards offences against the person and against property, and the statements of—1. Mr. Justice Lawson, at Spring Assize 1871—
  "That both the county of Louth and the borough of Dundalk, he might with truth say challenged comparison for peace and order with any portion of Her Majesty's dominions;"
  2. Mr. Baron Hughes, Spring Assize 1872, speaking of calendar and report of county inspector of constabulary laid before him—
  "They are the most favourable I have ever read since I occupied a seat on the bench, and are highly creditable to every class in your county, but above all to the people in general;"

  917
  and, 3. Mr. Justice Lawson, at the Assizes held on the 8th instant—
  "That the calendar, a perfect blank, and the constabulary returns laid before him, show a gratifying state of things, and places Louth in the first rank of a model county,"
  he is prepared to remove the Proclamation of that borough and county under the Peace Preservation Acts?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he was happy to state that not only the borough of Dundalk, but that other counties besides the county of Louth, were in an eminently satisfactory condition, and the Government would take into consideration, at the earliest possible moment, the propriety of removing the Proclamation referred to under the Peace Preservation Acts. The decision of the Government, however, could only be arrived at in view of the condition of the surrounding district. The county of Louth, for example, bordered on the county of Meath, which was not in so satisfactory a state, and it would be undesirable to place in the hands of persons arms which would be accessible to the members of the Riband Societies of the county of Meath. Dundalk was a considerable port, and after what had occurred not long since in Cork, it was not desirable to give unlimited facilities for the importation of arms into Ireland. While he could not, however, promise the hon. Member that the restriction should be removed, he could assure him that the subject should receive the earliest consideration of the Government.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (SCOTLAND) —PRIVATE PROSECUTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Petition presented to this House, signed by Angus Mackintosh, and to two Petitions from the Commissioners of Supply and Town Council of Inverness, praying that a Committee may be appointed to inquire into the state of the Law with respect to the right of private persons to institute criminal proceedings in Scotland; and, whether, on the part of the Government, he will assent to the appointment of such a Committee next Session?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, that he had received Petitions and Memorials on the subject; but inasmuch as the
  918
  law complained of had been in force in Scotland for the last 120 years, and had generally given satisfaction, it was not his intention to take any stops to alter the law.

  BALLOT ACT—BOARDS OF GUARDIANS—VOTING PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, If the Local Government Board has received any returns as to the number of votes lost at the election of guardians through informality in filling up voting papers; and, if so, if the very great percentage of such votes lost through the use of the voting paper is such as to render it desirable to take into consideration proposals for altering the present mode of election, and if any proposals have been made from any Union for such alteration?
  MR. HIBBERT,in reply, said, that no Returns had been made upon the subject, but he was aware that owing to informalities, a considerable number of votes had been lost. Proposals with reference to this subject had been made by several Boards of Guardians, and were now under consideration, and several of those proposals were to the effect that the voting should be by ballot.

  CRIMINAL LAW—PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether lie can state what measures have been or are being taken in view of the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutors Bill to fulfil the pledge given by the Government in 1872 to provide a remedy for the grievances admitted to exist in connection with the disallowances of expenses of Criminal Prosecutions?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, that, as the hon. Member was aware, the Public Prosecutors Bill would, if it had been passed, have settled this question satisfactorily. Meanwhile, it was impossible that the Treasury supervision over expenses should be discontinued. He had, however, taken care that it should be exercised with due consideration for all parties concerned, and since that time he believed no complaint had been made of anything like unfair or improper treatment.

  HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE (COUNTIES) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. FORSTERasked the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, What course he intends to pursue on the Household Franchise (Counties) Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that many hon. Gentlemen had communicated to him their desire that an opportunity should be afforded for taking a division on this subject. As, however, that was the last week in which any satisfactory expression of the opinion of the House could be taken, he felt he should be best consulting the general convenience by moving that the Order for the English and Scotch Bills should be read and discharged. It was, however, his intention to reintroduce them at an early period next Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Orders read and discharged.
  Bills withdrawn.

FRANCE—THE TREATY OF COMMERCE

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. WHITWELL,
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, A Treaty of Commerce was signed yesterday at Paris between Great Britain and France. Its main provisions are—a renewal of the Commercial Treaty of 1860 up to the 30th of June, 1877, including most-favoured-nation treatment, the national treatment of vessels, and the settlement of the mineral oils question at the close of the present year. There is, I believe. an Article in it providing for a Supplementary Convention to decide upon questions of "expertise" and other matters of commercial interest.

INDIA—THE INDIAN BUDGET.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was his desire, in consequence of what had occurred with reference to the course of Public Business next week, to make a few remarks, and to put himself in order he would conclude with a Motion. It would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) asked the Prime Minister a few days since whether he would in the present year give a whole day, and not merely a morning sitting, to the Indian Budget? The answer of the Prime Minister was that he would
  920
  take the proposal into his favourable consideration. Instead of so doing, however, he must have taken it into his unfavourable consideration; for, instead of appointing Monday or Thursday next, the Indian Budget was at the last moment fixed for a morning sitting. On the last occasion the Under Secretary of State for India occupied a considerable portion of the sitting, and for his own part, when the present Budget came on, he feared he would be unable to confine his remarks within a very narrow compass. It would be impossible to have the subject fairly and properly discussed in a morning sitting, and anything which appeared like a suppression of debate would, he believed, be felt in India as an injury. Tinder these circumstances he appealed most earnestly to the Prime Minister—not in his own interest—but for the sake of the deep impression this proceeding would produce in India, to reconsider his decision, and, at any rate, if he fixed the Indian Budget for Wednesday, to give a promise that if the debate should not close by a quarter to 6 o'clock he would make it the first Order for Thursday. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The appeal of my hon. Friend is very fair, and I am not going to contest what he has said on the subject. My motive in fixing Wednesday was two-fold. In the first place, I found I could not arrange to make Tuesday the day for the Indian Budget, and my desire then was, that it should come on upon the earliest possible day, which was Wednesday. But I had another reason. When the command of private days is given to the Government at the close of the Session they are not given absolutely, but they are given with a view to enable public Orders to take precedence. For instance, I have no power to give precedence to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) on Tuesday, for his is a private Order; or to my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) on Wednesday, for his Motion on the Gold Coast. On that account it would possibly be the best way to allow the debate on the Indian Budget, in case it should not be concluded on Wednesday, to be resumed on Thursday or Friday, I cannot say which. If that will not do, we might fix it for Thursday, but then it might run some

  921
  risk of not coming on. However, perhaps the best plan will be to let the matter stand until Monday before making any final arrangement.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYasked, whether it would not be possible to fix a day for the debate on the Gold Coast?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped to be able to see his way further on Monday.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had not had an opportunity of consulting his Friends om the subject; but as the right hon. Gentleman had kindly offered Thursday he hoped they should be allowed to have it the first Order of the Day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The matter will be fixed finally on Monday.
  In reply to Mr. PLUNKET,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he purposed, when taking the second reading of the Landed Estates Court (Judges) Bill, to ask the House to commit it pro formâ. He could not give Notice of Amendments until the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AMEND-MENT BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I need not remind you that the House only came to a division on the second reading of this Bill at two in the morning on Tuesday last, and I rejoice that that stage of the Bill was only carried by a majority of 14 votes. On the present occasion I wish to observe, if I am not out of Order, upon the course which was then pursued by the opponents of the measure. They are said to be of opposite opinions with regard to the subject-matter of it; but my belief is, that we have one common ground of objection to the Bill, and although the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) and other hon. Members rested their objections upon what I may call the sectarian ground, still believe that they all feel with those who, like myself, do not attach to that ground the importance which they do themselves, an objection to the interference of Parliament with
  922
  property, which this Bill like the original Act of 1869, entails. It appears to me, Sir, with regard to endowed schools, that this House is proceeding on the principle that where property belongs to a considerable number of people for a specific object, possession is entitled to less respect than in cases where property belongs to individuals. Now, Sir, I must say that I consider that a very dangerous principle. I know that in the county which I have the honour to represent, there are large properties in some cases, small properties in other cases, applied to the purpose of maintaining elementary education which strictly belong to the poor and the labouring classes of particular parishes. Well, Sir, what is the principle which this House has adopted? Literally, that whatever portion of such property in those several parishes is applied to the maintenance of the elementary education of the children of those parishes shall, because it is so devised, be confiscated. Well, I know that this House is too much accustomed to hear that word "confiscation," and that it has sometimes been applied in cases, where, perhaps, it was not so applicable as it is in this case. I will take an illustration. There are three parishes adjoining one another. In two of them I have property, and am a trustee for the property of the labouring classes and of the poor; I have also been asked to act as trustee in the third. Now, what has the legislation of this House done? The proposal is to extend that legislation and perpetuate the powers of the Commissioners, into whose hands this property so devoted to elementary education is transferred by this Bill and its predecessor. Well, Sir, I can assure the House that my neighbours of the labouring class are quite as well disposed as the average of their fellow-countrymen; nevertheless, they do feel very bitterly the sanction, which this House has given to the confiscation of property which belonged to them and to their fathers; property which had given them the means of education; and not only that Parliament has sanctioned the confiscation of that property, except some portion of it to be reserved as prizes, but is proposing that those same persons, who have been educated, father and son, out of this property, should, in addition to being deprived of that property, be taxed

  923
  by the foundation of school boards for the very purpose from which that property, being their own, has been alienated by Parliament. I hope I have put the case fairly and plainly; and I do assure the House that this process is producing a bitterness of feeling of which we may hereafter have disagreeable evidence. Take the case of the parish of Bedworth and the schools there, of which I have been for many years a Governor. This is a charity at Bed worth, near Nuneaton, and was founded by a former clergyman of the parish for the benefit of the labouring classes. I, and my former Colleague, Mr. Dugdale, were two of the Commissioners. Minerals were discovered under that property, and we obtained the leave of the Charity Commissioners to provide for the further development of that property. It was let upon lease; the lessee failed, and for a certain period the Charity Commissioners allowed us to work those minerals until we could let them. That was a mark of confidence on the part of the Charity Commissioners which I hope has been repaid. So, literally, the Governors have created the increase of that property from a source which has given employment to these people upon their own property, and now, when 800 of their children are receiving education in schools which are admitted to be the best in the district, I am likely to have to tell these people that "Parliament has decided that the £800 a-year of your property, property which has been devoted to the education of your fathers, yourselves, and your children, shall be taken away—and why? Because you have been so educated out of your own property!" Well, they will look across the canal which separates this property from mine, and in their homely phrase will say— "They are going to take away our pits; why don't they take Newdegate's?" What answer am I to give? Who would expect me as an honest man in this House not to oppose what I consider a downright robbery? Because, if you object to the form of education, Parliament, in its discretion, might alter that education. I might lament the change, for it is the best education that the Governors can devise and provide; but I should not feel, as I do now, that Parliament was about to take away from this people the property which had been applied beneficially to them and their
  924
  fathers for generations. Sir, I am directly and distinctly opposed to this principle of confiscation; and we feel it none the less acutely, because this principle is specially applied to property which is devoted to education in the tenets of the Church, of which I and the great majority of these people are members. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their sectarian heat, can scarcely have considered the feeling that they must be arousing in the hearts of those possessors of property, who are as sincerely attached to the religion they profess as hon. Members may be to the religious views they entertain. Look at the matter from another point. If there is one denomination of religion in this country more defiant than others in raising their institutions, it is the Roman Catholic denomination. Not less than 300 of these monastic and conventual institutions have of late years been erected in England and Wales, the most of them being for educational purposes; but Parliament which has dealt thus with the property of the educational establishments belonging to the Established Church, has never yet completed even an inquiry into the existence of this other property which is held against the law, is administered in defiance of the law, and yet remains secured from the rough process which is applied to the educational property of the Church of England. I ask hon. Members, then, who are in the habit of talking so much about equality, where is the equality between the treatment that you have extended to the Church of England educational charities, and your abstinence even from inquiry into those increasing establishments of the Church of Rome? I cannot think that hon. Members who represent various Protestant sects can have looked at the subject as it stands; but I feel it to be my duty to bring it distinctly before the House, because I am convinced that Parliament is dealing with this matter in a sense which the people feel to be directly undermining their independence; for, disguise it as you may, this determination that there shall be no educational property, except that administered to the operative classes either out of the poor rate, or an education rate, which is equivalent to a poor rate, levied under an administration similar to that which levies the poor rate, is inflicting upon them a sense of

  925
  deep degradation, a feeling that when you take away the property which is their own for the same purpose, and saddle them with this great sustained system of rating, you are treating them as if they were indeed a class apart, unfit to possess or to enjoy property, unfit to have it administered to their immediate wants, especially their educational wants, the urgency of which you are perpetually pressing upon the attention of Parliament. Let not hon. Members mistake the feeling which is thus engendered. It is very well for you to tell us that because the rate is to be administered by elective boards, therefore it is more these people's own than the property which they now enjoy. The people feel nothing of the kind. You may suppose that country gentlemen like myself have no sense of responsibility. You may suppose that I could have used this trust property as I liked, and yet go scatheless among my neighbours. You know little of the English people if you believe anything of the kind. I thank God that the people of my district have always been of a very independent mind, and if they suspected me of anything like abuse or foul play, they would let me know it before a week was over, and that in no very doubtful terms. I know that well. With people of that temper, if you think that your present process is pleasing, you are very greatly mistaken; and tell you that when it is understood it is most distasteful to them. Hon. Members may be pleased to treat this as a question that is closed, whereas it is a question that has only lately opened itself to the understanding of the people, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Department of the Privy Council admitted the other night whilst apologizing to some of his Friends, that the puny concessions which this Bill contains had been wrung from him by the pressure from without, and by the apprehension that the House of Lords might respect those feelings of opposition. Well, Sir, I believe that whatever the hidden jealousy or sectarian feeling hon. Members may represent, as opposed to those charities because they are connected with the Church of England, still there lies at the bottom of their opposition a recognition of the fact that the process which you are applying is calculated to undermine the independence of
  926
  the labouring classes; an independence which I have always respected; an independence which I believe to be at the foundation of our national greatness; an independence which I have never done anything to violate; an independence which I hope that the House will ever respect. I have given Notice of my intention to move that this Bill be committed on this day three months, because I believe that this Commission ought to be brought to a close. Had it been a Commission of Inquiry, had it been a Commission for the correction of abuses, had it been a Commission for obtaining the restoration of property that had been misapplied, I should have hailed it; but I have it stated in the correspondence of these Commissioners that no matter what may be the merits of a school, or however thoroughly good may be its administration, the one fact that any such school is sustained out of property which belongs to the inhabitants of a parish, at once condemns the property so applied to confiscation, vpso facto, from no imputation upon its management; but simply because this House will not permit property for elementary education to be held for the people of this country in the form of a trust, the trustees being bound to give effect to the intentions of the founder. Now, Sir, that decision applies not only to the Church of England, but to every denomination that may hold property of the kind; and I say this—I myself may have thought of devoting property for the purpose of continuing elementary education to au increased and increasing population already in the enjoyment of some of this trust property. But I will do nothing of the sort, if Parliament is to pass an Act, that, first confiscates the larger charities applied to those purposes, and vests them in these Endowed Schools Commissioners to be alienated from their original objects, and then, as a concession in this Bill, merely changes the appropriation of the smaller charities, confiscating them from the possession of the locality and investing them in the Committee of Privy Council. Sir, such petty concessions as this are no concessions of principle, as the right hon. Gentleman informed the House the other night, but constitute a perpetuation of the same principle to which I am diametrically opposed. I wish the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had reached the public. I am sorry to say, that, perhaps

  927
  owing to the lateness of the hour at which it was delivered, the reports of it were very much curtailed; but such was the zeal displayed by the right hon. Gentleman that I made a note of one passage. He said—
  "My hon. Friends must be aware that in several instances the House of Lords has rejected schemes which have been proposed by the Commissioners. I very much regret that the House of Lords has possessed that power."
  It seems, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is so ardent in the cause, that he would even disfranchise the other branch of the Legislature in order to further his object. That is Sir, an excess of zeal which must be dangerous in its consequences. I object, then, to the continuance of this machinery for the carrying out of that which in my neighbourhood will be a process of confiscation. I object to it the more, because it is a confiscation of the property of the labouring and the poor classes; and it is for these reasons that I have given the Notice which I now beg to place in your hands, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill on this day three months.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEseconded the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and he did so all the more readily because he was very anxious to leave on record the grounds of his support. He did not think it was just that Parliament should, under any circumstances, ignore the right of inheritance which existed in the children of the poor, especially as every proposal of the Commissioners seemed to be—indeed, was almost openly avowed to be —to take from that class, and to provide for the children of another, which ought to be able to provide for the education of its own children. As soon as that Commission came into operation, they had this state of things—that the Commissioners proceeded to deal with some of the charitable foundations of the country which ought not to have been touched at all, or, at least, not until after all the misused endowments had been thoroughly dealt with. He asked the House to consider whether it had not evidence before it, that the very first schools that were attacked were those which were well conducted and the least requiring alteration. He was one of those who did not believe in competitive examination to
  928
  the extent to which it was at present carried, because he knew that practically it meant cramming; and he especially disliked competitive examination when it actually dealt with the children of the indigent poor whose early lives were commonly passed in great straits, and who, therefore, had not the pecuniary means to place their children on the same footing as those of comparatively richer people. Under such circumstances there could be no "fair start," inasmuch as the poor man's child must necessarily be over weighted in such competition. He, therefore, cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. Friend, because he wished it distinctly to go forth throughout the length and breadth of the country that, without using the word "confiscation," the alienation now going on was as near confiscation, so far as the heritage of the poor was concerned, as was possible. The time, however, was fast coming when that class of the people would thoroughly understand to whom they were indebted for that state of matters, and, no doubt, it would be precisely and correctly appreciated. For his own part he believed that no man, or no body of men, call them by what name so ever they pleased had the right, even under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, to alter the devolution prescribed by the will of a Founder, without the most urgent necessity.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," —(Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
  MR. HINDE PALMERthought it would be a very serious misfortune and great calamity to the public, if the Bill now before the House did not pass, and the Commission were consequently allowed to expire. In a great number of instances in which the Commissioners had dealt with these endowments, they had conferred a large benefit on the communities of different localities. One great advantage had been that the Commissioners had saved an enormous amount of litigation in the course of their proceedings, because they had settled schemes of endowments for a large number of charities which otherwise could not have been

  929
  settled without the institution of separate Chancery suits for each individual charity. When the endowments were made there were comparatively very few elementary public schools; but now the national education establishment existed, or would exist everywhere. Why, then, should not some of these endowments be applied towards the provision of a higher grade of education than that given by the mere elementary schools? One of the great wants of the day was, that they should give a better sort of technical education to the children, and this was one of the points recommended in the Report of the Commissioners, which he hoped to see accomplished.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was not without considerable sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, in regard to several points in his speech; but as the House bad arrived at the point of going into Committee on the Bill, he confessed that he would rather prefer seeing what could be done with it in Committee than give any opinion of the measure in its present shape. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the undesirability of a discussion at this stage. He strenuously denied that confiscation was contemplated, or had been committed, under the original Act, and with regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, it had not yet come before the Commissioners. The duty of the Commissioners—which he believed they had tried to fulfil, and which the Government took care that they did fulfil—was not to confiscate the property of the poor, but to see that the property was applied in a manner that would best help the poor. Considering the provision which was made by law for elementary education, it was desirable, in dealing with great endowments, to see whether we could not do something more with them than teach merely reading, writing, and arithmetic. What he said the other night was, that this House was bound to consider facts as they were, and that it was in the power of either House to carry out its own peculiar views in any particular matter on the consideration of a scheme. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire might take some comfort from that fact, seeing that he had so
  930
  much confidence in the other House. This "confiscating" Commission had been at work for some years, all its schemes, with the exception of some half-dozen, had become law, notwithstanding the check upon them possessed by both Houses; and the unsuccessful schemes had not been rejected on the grounds taken by the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLWYNadmitted that he had been fairly beaten the other evening, and, accepting the decision of the House, wished to get into Committee, where he would again endeavour to give effect to his views. His objections were exactly the reverse of those of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; he complained of the Bill clipping the wings of the Commissioners and curtailing their power.
  MR. HEYGATEcould not admit that schemes met with approval in the country, because the rejection of them was not moved in either House. He knew of several instances in which great discontent had been evinced at the schemes of the Commissioners.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexplained that he had mentioned the case he had adduced as an illustration and type of those dealt with in schemes, and that the principle to which he had objected, the alienation of endowments from the labouring classes, was embodied in letters he had received from the Commission as Chairman of two Trusts. He wished to take the sense of the House on that principle.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Exception of elementary schools from 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56. and application thereto of 33 & 34 Viet. c. 75, s. 75).
  MR. HEYGATEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "not being,' to "is" in line 16, on the ground that the clause was drawn with certain limitations as to grammar schools and the amount of endowments.

  931
  Under the limitation in the clause all grammar schools having endowments of less than £100 a-year would be liable to be deprived of such endowments. The object of his Amendment was to fulfil the promise which his right hon. Friend had made over and over again—that the voluntary schools should not be injured by the Bill of 1870.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was impossible for him to give his hon. Friend an assurance in the matter. His hon. Friend proposed to withdraw all grammar schools under £100 a-year from the purview of the Bill; but he trusted the Committee would not accede to such a proposal, on the ground that there were a large number of small grammar schools which had degenerated into miserable elementary schools, not only not doing good, but harm, by preventing other and better schools being established, and leading the people in the district to believe that no other school was required. He had little doubt that the Commissioners would find a great deal to do with respect to the more important schools first; but he could not consent to omit 416 grammar schools, or nearly one-half from the Bill. For himself, he should have liked to see the clause not go beyond £50; but, nevertheless, there was an advantage in framing the Bill on the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners.
  MR. COLLINShoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment in another direction. There were a great many elementary schools throughout the country, and he could not see why the amount should be limited to £100. The right plan would be to remove all these elementary schools from the operation of the Commissioners till they had concluded their work in regard to grammar schools. It did not at all follow, that because these schools were removed from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, therefore they would be removed from all improvement. For example, they might be subjected to regular Government inspection, and have the power of charging fees. The Commissioners had stated that the reason why they might fairly divert funds given for elementary education to the purposes of
  932
  higher education was, that the country had now made provision for elementary education. He maintained, however, that the country had not done so; because where voluntary schools existed it was not necessary to raise rates. He could not see why, when they had to deal with elementary schools provided for out of endowments, they should not be put upon as good a footing as others, nor why they should insist on putting them in the hands of a Commission that did not want them. He would move as an Amendment in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "1870," to "in," in line 21.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy," to the word "in," in line 21.—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Amendment would produce large results certainly not contemplated by the Select Committee. The clause, as it stood, would affect about 1,200 schools under £100 per annum. Certainly a larger endowment than that could scarcely be applied with advantage to this elementary education in a national school. [Mr. GATILORNE HARDY pointed out that under the 3rd section all elementary schools would be liable to inspection.] But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would include 400 or 500 additional schools, some with incomes varying from £4,000 to £8,000. In Bristol alone there were three of these large foundations now devoted to mere elementary education. There were two leading objections to the proposal. Firstly, the Education Department had not a staff for investigating the working of such schools, and for making new schemes for them, while the Endowed Schools Commission had been organized for the very purpose. Secondly, it would be unfair to the schools themselves; for if they were handed over to the Education Department they came under the Act of 1870, which gave powers to that Department to ratify new schemes under its own authority, and to amend them at its own discretion. So that the schools would lose all those safeguards which were provided by the Endowed Schools Act. They would thus lose their power of three appeals—from the Commission to

  933
  the Education Department, from that to the Privy Council, and from that to the supreme authority of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have contemplated that that would be the result of his Amendment. It was true that, under the Act of 1870, the initiative for reform must come from the schools; but to preserve that motive for sluggishness could not be the object of the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the exemption applied to endowed schools that were really elementary schools, and when they were put up to £100 a-year they had to deal with a very different range of schools, some of them with endowments of many thousands a-year. That was the very class of schools that required reform, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. The Commissioners were bound to take care of the interests of the poor, and they would do so. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by his Amendment was to leave the trustees of these large endowments unreformed, and the effect would be to strike out many schools that really required reform. The Education Department were not provided with the organization and the Staff necessary to send down Inspectors and arrange schemes for these large schools. If such schools as the Colston Schools at Bristol, which ought to be under the supervision of the Commissioners, were to be inspected in the higher branches, they would require a large increase of Inspectors. The duty of the Education Department was to look after elementary education, for the promotion of which large sums were voted to Parliament. Under the operation of that Amendment Emanuel Hospital would have been exempt, and it would exclude from the possibility of reform large institutions which required improvement as much as any endowments that came under the purview of the Commissioners.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that his remarks would not appl3 to the Colston Schools, nor to the Emanuel Hospital, which were really charity schools, and did not come under the description of elementary schools.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 88: Majority 41.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Amendment of 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56, s. 11).,
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, this was the opportunity for providing against the assumption on the part of the Commissioners of powers which lie felt certain the House never intended them to exercise, and which, if employed, would be attended by very mischievous results. He would therefore move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "scheme" and insert—
  "To make provision, as near as may be, for the educational interests of the class denoted in the gift or bequest of the donor as that for which his endowment was intended, and no proposal shall be inserted in any scheme alienating any portion of such bequest or gift for the benefit of persons in any other class in life or of persons in the same class resident in any other county or town than that named or otherwise indicated by the donor."
  No one could doubt, looking at the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that the Commissioners had assumed to themselves a discretion with regard to the transfer of endowments from place to place and from class to class, which Parliament never intended to confer upon them. When introducing the Act of 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council expressed his hope that no attempt would ever be made to apply the school endowments of the country to the purposes of elementary education. He could state from his own knowledge, cases in which, in the opinion of the communities concerned, the most grievous injustice was impending by the exercise of this assumed power on the part of the Commissioners. He had that morning received an answer to a letter lie had addressed to a friend, requesting information as to the feeling in South Devon with respect to the manner in which this power had been exercised. In reply his informant stated that with regard to the correction of abuses, he and his friends I were perfectly satisfied; but that the Commissioners had exercised an arbitrary discretion concerning many endowments which were regarded with much discontent—that they had taken away the means of education from the humbler and poorer middle class in order to create elementary schools which might be otherwise provided, and had thereby done a greater wrong to the real poor than if they had left the endowments as they were. Now, the real poor were

  935
  not the members of trades unions, earning 40s. and 50s. a-week, and who could raise for them the price of fuel at their will and pleasure. The real poor were the half-pay officer, the curate, the clerk, the surgeon, and the man of small means of various degrees, whose children it was of the utmost importance to have properly educated, and for whose benefit these endowments were originally given. It was now for the Committee to decide whether, in passing the Endowed Schools Act, Parliament meant to constitute a triumvirate over the endowed property of this country, to do with it what no Department of the State would venture to do—namely, to change altogether the purposes for which it was bequeathed. As a member of the legal profession, he ventured to say that the assumption by the Commissioners of the right to overturn the old doctrine of cy pres, was never intended by Parliament. The doctrine of cy pres rendered into vulgar English was this—when a donor had given of his wealth for purposes of education or charity, and it became difficult in after times to find exactly the object designed by the deed of gift, you were to go as near to it as might be. That was common sense and common honesty, and the Courts of Equity had always upheld it. And was Parliament now, with Communism looking in at the door, to overrule that principle? And, besides, the purpose of the gift, he maintained that place was one of the elements to be considered. The Commissioners had usurped functions which Parliament had never given them. When examined as a witness recently before the Select Committee, Lord Lyttelton had avowed the doctrine that after 50 years property belonged to the State. He asked where were they to stop? Would any gentleman feel his property as secure as before if Parliament gave its sanction to such a doctrine? The right hon. Gentleman had laid on the Table a coil of schemes which he had approved, but which, from pressure of business, the House had not had time to examine. The day was, perhaps, not far distant when Members would bitterly regret that the Anaconda folds of that serpent had not been cut. He submitted that the whole course of their legislation and law was opposed to the discretion vested in the Commissioners, and on which this clause placed no efficient check, and for the purpose of enabling the House to decide whether
  936
  this check was required or not, he now moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 20, to leave out from the word "scheme," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "to make provision, as near as may be, for the educational interests of the class denoted in the gift or bequest of the donor as that for which his endowment was intended, and no proposal shall be inserted in any scheme alienating any portion of such bequest or gift for the benefit of persons in any other class in life or of persons in the same class resident in any other county or town than that named or otherwise indicated by the donor."—(Mr. Torrens.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERtrusted the Committee would abide by the words of the clause which were those agreed upon by the Committee upstairs. The alteration had been determined upon after much consideration, and for the purpose of giving effect to the view arrived at by the Committee after taking a great deal of evidence. His hon. Friend had said that this clause would give to that "Triumvirate" powers which had been given to no Department of the State. It did no such thing. The power given by the original Act was vested in the Government, and the Commissioners were only the machinery made use of in framing the schemes. But the Government had found that there was a disadvantage in their not having the power to amend a scheme, being limited to approval or disapproval, and that power was taken in this Bill. But, undoubtedly, the Bill left the Government absolutely responsible for these schemes, and it was an entire delusion to say that the matter was left to an irresponsible-triumvirate. The illustrations given by his hon. Friend referred to schemes not yet agreed upon or approved by the Education Department. He affected to be horrified at the Anaconda coil of schemes that had been laid upon the Table. But, if his hon. Friend was so horrified at that dreadful serpent, which was coiling itself around .hon. Members of this House, why did he not himself come to the rescue and cut the coils? He doubted whether the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would carry out his own object. He had alluded to one scheme—that, he supposed, of Dulwich

  937
  College; but no county was named by the original Founder, and the different parishes interested in Dulwich School had different opinions on the subject; a scheme was settled not long ago which did not give full satisfaction to one or other of them. It was the duty of the Commission to examine into the matter and propose a scheme which would be just to all sides. By the clause as it now stood the Government took care that due regard should be paid to the interests of the particular class originally intended to be benefited, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend would only fence round and limit the action of the Commissioners much more than would be desirable.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend who had moved that Amendment, that no greater mistake could be made than the adoption of a policy which took property from some people simply for the purpose of giving it to others. The Commissioners had made many mistakes in the exercise of their functions, and he had the greatest objection to the tyrannical powers with which they were armed. Representing as he did one of the parishes interested in the Dulwich School, he must say great complaints were made of the course they had taken in regard to that school. A scheme had been prepared, but it was kept back from the public, in the hope that in the meantime the powers of the Commissioners would be renewed. The Commissioners were three tyrants in the country, and they seemed to think that they could do anything they liked.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 68: Majority 32.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Anderson, G.

  Brocklehurst, W. C.

  Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S.

  Brown, A. H.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Baines, E.

  Cadogan, hon. F. W.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Bass, A.

  Candlish, J.

  Bassett, F.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Carter, R. M.

  Beaumont, Major F.

  Cave, T.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Bentall, E. H.

  Childers, rt. hon. H.

  Biddulph, M.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Corrigan, Sir D.

  Bowling, E. A.

  Davies, H.

  Brady, J.

  Delahunty, J.

  Brasses, T.

  Dent, J. D.

  938

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lush, Dr.

  Dixon, G.

  Lusk, A.

  Dodds, J.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Edwards, H.

  M'Clure, T.

  Egerton, Adml. hn. F.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Miall, E.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Miller, W.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Fletcher, I.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Gilpin, C.

  Peel, A. W.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Pender, J.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Playfair, L.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Price, W. E.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Rathbone, W.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Reed, C.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Richard, H.

  Henderson, J.

  Shaw, R.

  Henley, Lord

  Sherlock, D.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Hoskyns, C. Wren

  Storks, rt. hon. Sir H. K.

  Illingworth, A.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Jardine, H.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Johnston, A.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Kensington, Lord

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Knatehbull-Hugessen,

  Whitwell, J.

  rt. hon. E. H.

  Williams, W.

  Lancaster, J.

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Young, rt. hon. G.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  TELLERS.

  Leith, J. F.

  Adam, W. P.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Greville, hon. Captain

  NOES.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Baggallay, Sir R.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Miller, J.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Mitford, W. T.

  Beach, Sir M. Hicks-

  Monckton, hon. G.

  Cawley, C. E.

  Morley, S.

  Charley, W. T.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Collins, T.

  Nicholson, W.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Cubitt, G.

  Parker, Lieut.-Col. W.

  Denison, C. B.

  Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Pell, A.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Pim, J.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Plunket, hon. D. R.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Figgins, J.

  Read, C. S.

  Finch, G. H.

  Salt, T.

  Floyer,

  Sandon, Viscount

  Fowler, R. N.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Smith, S. G.

  Gordon, E. S.

  Stanhope, W. T. W. S.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Steere, L.

  Grant, Col. hon. J.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Torr, J.

  Hermon, E.

  Turner, C.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Watney, J.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Welby, W. E.

  Holt, J. M.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Kavanagh, A. MacM.

  Winn, R.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  TELLERS.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Locke, J.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  In reply to Mr. F. S. POWELL,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERstated that the Bill would come into operation on the 1st of September, and would apply to all schemes which were sanctioned after that date. He was prepared to give a, pledge that no scheme should be approved of by the Department between the present time and the 1st of September.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Amendment of 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56. s. 17. as to holders of office being retained on governing body).
  MR. F. S. POWELLmoved, in page 2, line 25, the omission of the word "express" believing that the Commissioners construed it too strictly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not consent, by omitting the word, to widen the clause, which he would not have proposed himself, but which was recommended by the Committee upstairs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEYGATEproposed to insert, in line 26, after "endowment" the words or of the statutes or regulations made by the Founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years of his death."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the clause related to the appointment of ex officio clerical Governors, and it was one which he would not have proposed himself. Having been adopted by the Committee, however, he felt it his duty to submit it to the House. It provided that ex officio clerical Governors might be appointed where the wills of the Founders expressly contained a provision to that effect, and he could not consent to the introduction of any words widening the operation of the clause.
  In answer to Mr. F. S. POWELL,
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would assimilate his Amendment to that placed on the Paper by the hon. Member, and move the addition of the words "which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the principal Act."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 26, after the word "endowment," to insert the words "or of the statutes or regulations made by the Founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years of his death, which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the principal Act."—(Mr. Heygate.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 87: Majority 53.
  On Question? That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. DILLWYN,in moving to leave out the clause, said, it was a Church of England question, and the ex officio member who would be retained in office by the clause was generally the clergyman of the parish. He objected to ex officio members who were named in trusts being confirmed in office by this clause. The will of the Founder should be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the time. His view was that when property was once dedicated to the public, after a reasonable lapse of time, the public should have the right to say how it should be administered and to deal with the endowment. Ex officio clerical members of the Board might find themselves unable to work harmoniously with the elected members. In Wales the great majority of the population were Dissenters; and therefore the life appointment of the Church of England clergyman would be obnoxious.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmust ask the Committee not to consent to the omission of this clause, the effect of which it was quite possible to exaggerate. His own individual opinion was that it was a mistake to have a trustee appointed for life as an ex officio member; but if the Committee struck out the clause, although it might or might not endanger the passing of the Bill, he felt sure that the House of Lords would strike out every scheme in which the will of the Founder was thus interfered with. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked why it was that the clergyman should be placed in this preferential position by statute? As a rule he would, by his position, by almost certain of appointment by the Commissioners. He believed the Government, by pressing this point, would lose their own supporters in the country. As to the possibility of the Lords taking the course which had been supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not think that consideration ought to weigh with the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not consent to exclude the clause from the Bill, and called upon the Committee to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he must press his Amendment to a division, as it in-

  941
  volved a question of principle and not of practice.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 84; Noes 40: Majority 44.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Extension of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56. s. 19. as to schools excepted from the provisions as to religion).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which he considered one of considerable importance. This clause introduced a principle entirely novel, and which had never before been introduced into England—namely, it declared that all endowments connected with religion were to be considered non-religious, unless made subsequent to the reign of William and Mary—that was, in effect to say that all endowments up to that time were not to be respected, because they were made before the Act of Toleration. There were just as strong Church endowments made before that time as since. Even in the case of the Irish Church Disestablishment and Disendowment Act the Government respected the endowments which had been made long previously to the time of the Toleration Act. Were they going to say that in this country they should not be respected? He begged therefore to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "endowment" to "if" in line 35.
  Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out from the word "endowment," to the word "if," in line 35.—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  Question proposed. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the clause was intended to widen the term by which under Section 19 of the old Act schools were excepted from Section 17 and one or two other sections. That was a question which occupied a long time in Committee, and several propositions were made very much enlarging the scope of the clause. He himself would have preferred that the clause had been left as it stood so far as regarded exceptions; but as now proposed, it was not without argument in its favour. When the majority of the members of the Governing Body, or the principal teacher, or the scholars edu-
  942
  cated in the establishment were declared by the original endowment to belong to a particular denomination it would be considered a denominational school. That was the first condition. The second condition was that the endowment must have been made under such circumstances as must render it plain that it belonged to a. particular denomination. It was only fair to require that in the latter case the words should show a real denominational intention. He must, for those reasons, oppose the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 88; Noes 40: Majority 48.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would not move the other Amendments which stood in his name; but would now look to another quarter to remedy the injustice which had been done him by the Committee.
  MR. HEYGATEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 35, after "terms," to insert, "or manifest intent."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdeclined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be very difficult to interpret the words. But with regard to the remark which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), he must say that, both in Committee and in that House, the Government had shown a great desire to meet legitimate objections as far as they possibly could, and certainly they had to show that desire contrary to the feeling of many of their own Friends.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSmoved, as Amendments, in page 3, line 3, after "of," insert— "or shall attend the public worship;" and in line 10, after "section," insert—
  "In any such scheme it shall be provided that not less than two-thirds of the governing body shall always he members of such church, sect, or denomination."
  He did so, formally, to prevent the Amendments being lost, through the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), in whose name they stood on the Paper.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question. That the Clause stand part of the Bill?
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in moving its omission, said, that Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act excepted certain schools from the operation of some provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. The clause now before the House extended these exceptions, and enacted that when by the statutes of the Founder, or by statutes made within 50 years of his death, the members of any Governing Body, or the advantage of any endowment, were confined to any particular sect, such limitation should hold good in perpetuity. Now, that clause seemed to him entirely in opposition to the spirit of recent legislation; it was a distinctly retrograde step—a clause for the perpetuation of schisms and sectarianism. It was quite right to leave great powers in the hands of testators, to allow almost any experiment, provided only the time was limited. But these endowments were not really endowments of religion; they were endowments of individual opinions. It was said that the law of England abhorred perpetuities; but no perpetuity was so bad as that of an erroneous or untenable opinion. In fact, they might with truth say that these endowments tended to the multiplication and perpetuation of temporary errors. They were attempts to influence the opinion of future generations, not by appeals to their intellect, but by taking advantage of the pressure of pecuniary necessities. The Universities had very wisely been thrown open, and yet it was proposed to maintain a spirit of sectarianism in the case of schools. He did not deny that there were advantages in the existence of honest and healthy differences of opinion on religious matters. Nonconformity had done great things for the country, but then it was tested and ennobled by self-sacrifice. A variety of religious sects, dead in themselves, but galvanized by money into unnatural vitality, would be an unmitigated evil. He begged to move the rejection of the clause.
  MR. DILLWYNhoped the Committee would not be deterred by the threat which had been held out by the right hon. Member for Oxford. University, who had just left the House, from doing their duty. Because he had failed in making a trifling alteration in this clause he had distinctly threatened the House that he was not satisfied with their decision, and would appeal to "another
  944
  place." It was the first time he had ever heard such a threat held out. Unless there were good grounds for retaining the clause, he should not be influenced by any such threats; but vote for its omission.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he had heard the language used by his right hon. Friend, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no threat whatever had been used. His right hon. Friend had been entirely misunderstood. He merely said, as his Amendment had not been adopted by the Committee, he hoped it would be adopted in "another place." His right hon. Friend was the last person in the world who would venture to threaten the House in any way whatever.
  MR. DILLYWNwas in the recollection of the House, and he hoped the House would express its opinion whether he was right or wrong in his interpretation of the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRobserved that, as the clause had been brought in in the interests of conciliation, there was much to be said in its favour. But after what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, his feelings were quite altered respecting it. He had taken down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were—" That he would look to another place' for that justice which was denied him by the Committee." After they had been told that the clause was to be altered in a certain sense in "another House," the best thing would be to leave no clause to be altered, by omitting it.
  MR. F. S. POWELLthought there was nothing disrespectful to the House in expressing the hope that in "another place" a different decision would be arrived at. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Maidstone, he took exception to the hon. Member's statement that this class of endowments were intended to promote, not religion, but the opinions respecting religion held by the founders, and were therefore not entitled to be defended by the law of England. The same doctrine struck at the foundation of every Dissenting place of worship in the kingdom. The maintenance of these endowments was in accordance with the principles of justice. He supported the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrather regretted the remark of the right hon.

  945
  Gentleman, but he did not think it was intended to bear the interpretation which had been given to it. To be candid, he must say that that was a clause which he proposed in the Committee in the interests of conciliation, and he thought it was a fair addition to Section 19 of the principal Act. There was fairness in saying, as it did, that since the Toleration Act, no endowment, in which, by the original instrument and by invariable custom since that time, it had been required that the majority of the Governing Body should be members of a certain denomination, and that the principal teacher should belong to that denomination, should be interfered with, and he did not think it went beyond the principle of the original section. He could understand those who objected to the original provision objecting to that also. The reason why it was proposed was that there were certain endowments which everybody expected would come under the provisions of the original Act which had not come under it. It must be remembered that it was even possible for a Church school to have a majority of Governors belonging to Dissenting denominations; at any rate, provision was made for the admission of Dissenters as members of the Governing Body, as well as for meeting the conscientious views of the parents whose children might attend such schools.
  MR. CLARE READremarked that if small men made observations similar to that attributed to the right hon. Gentleman no indignation was aroused by them. ["Oh, oh"] When the Agricultural Children's Bill was in Committee of the House, and a certain Amendment had been carried, he said he would not trouble the Committee to divide again, because he hoped the Bill would be set right in "another place." No indignant remark was uttered when he made that observation.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it was their duty to express their honest convictions, and to leave those in "another place" to do the same. Most of the schools which would come under Clause 19 were in Cathedral cities, where, as might be inferred from the course of that discussion, there was a good percentage of Dissenters. The result of passing that clause would be to prevent many of these Dissenters from being on the Governing Bodies of the schools, for it had been the practice of the
  946
  Commissioners to confine co-optative appointments to the members of the Church of England. It was both unjust and impolitic to admit Dissenters to a trust, and at the same time to provide that in no case should there be a majority of them. If they had civil and parochial rights, why should they be treated in this exceptional manner? Why were they not to exercise the rights of the majority, if they were the majority? What was done from expediency in the case of the Irish Church was no guide as to what should be done in utilizing schools which were of a national character. So far from being privileged schools they were substantially national schools. What civil, parochial, or educational right had a Dissenter given up by building a chapel and providing for religious services there? He did not thereby subject himself to any disability, in respect of property or privilege of the Church by law established.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he should support the clause, as it was a small step in the right direction, but it failed to meet the justice of the case.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 88; Noes 48: Majority 40.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 11) Amendment of 32 and 33 Viet., c. 56, s. 37, as to approval of Committee of Council on Education to schemes).
  MR. CRAUFURDmoved, in page 4, line the omission of the words "such scheme may be approved of by Her Majesty without being laid before Parliament." He objected to these words, becsuse they took away the control exercised by Parliament over these Commissioners. It was becoming rather fashionable on the Treasury Bench to talk of the inconvenience of the control of the House of Commons, and they knew that with regard to a certain contract the Minister principally concerned had expressed his opinion that Parliament should have no control over such matters.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be that no appeal, such as at present existed, would be possible; and that was hardly what the hon. Gentleman was aiming at. The Committee thought there were a

  947
  great number of schemes which it was not worth while burdening Parliament with, and which it was desirable to pass without any unnecessary delay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Continuance of powers of making schemes).
  MR. COLLINSthought it would be enough if the Commission were continued for three years, instead of five, and would move accordingly in line 28, page 6, to leave out from "one thousand eight hundred and seventy six," to the end of the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. M. TORRENScomplained that an Amendment of his, limiting the duration of the Commission to one year, although handed in to the Clerk at the Table prior to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boston, was not placed upon the Paper in its proper course. Owing to that arrangement, the words which he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) proposed to amend were swept away, before he had the opportunity of doing so; but nevertheless, he would stand upon his right, and move the substitution of 1874 for 1876. The Government had not yielded a single point in Committee that night, and now the Vice President of the Council did not scruple to try by taking advantage of a printer's error to shut out an Amendment which challenged the policy of prolonging the existence of the Commission for more than one year. But there was such a thing as being "too clever by half." The Government had brought in three educational measures this Session professedly founded upon a policy of conciliation. The first foundered in a calm sea, and the Ministry had to take to the Brighton boat to get safe to land. They saved the second Bill by throwing over half the cargo; and now upon the third Bill, the House could not agree upon a single clause, although the Bill had had the advantage of a patient examination by a Committee upstairs. The matter became of the more importance when hon. Members were threatened with the loss of their seats, if they did not vote according to the dictation of the Birmingham League. He regarded that as an
  948
  exceedingly bad Bill, and had voted against the second reading with great pleasure. He appealed to the conscience and fair play of the country against the proposal to increase the arbitrary power of these three Commissioners, and should move accordingly to substitute "1874" for "1876," in page 6, line 28.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the date 1876 having disappeared from the clause in the last Amendment, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, substituting for it 1874 must fall to the ground.
  MR. CRAUFURDcomplained that he had an Amendment on the Paper, which should have precedence of the one now under discussion.
  MR. COLLINS,by leave, withdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSmoved, in page 6, line 28, to leave out "76" in order to insert "74."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he understood that some remarks had been made in his absence on something he had said at the close of the discussion on a former clause. He did not go out of the House at the moment, and he should have thought if any hon. Gentleman wished to comment on what he had said, he would have preferred to do it in his presence rather than when he was away. But if he were to speak over again, he should say exactly the same thing as before. He did not recognize that this House had an absolute right to determine everything, irrespective of the people outside the House, or the Lords, who were a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. What he had said was that, in his belief, injustice had been done in some of these clauses, and that he looked to the Lords to remedy it. [Cries of "Order!"] He was quite ready to obey a call of Order from the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is the duty of any hon. Member of the House to rise to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not warranted in repeating a speech made on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman is appealing to Members, and is repeating what he said. I say that is not in conformity with Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is, I believe, the universal feeling in this House to concede to any hon. Member a hearing when he desires to offer a personal ex-

  949
  planation. In this respect I think considerable latitude is allowed. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman had no intention to exceed, nor does he exceed that latitude.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he did not wish to exceed that latitude; but he was in Order, because it must be remembered that he was speaking in Committee, and he had a perfect right to repeat everything and go into every case connected with the Bill. The Motion now before the House was, whether the Endowed Schools Commission should continue one year or five, and he understood that in his absence, some hon. Gentlemen had made some remarks on what he had said. He was quite sure that they would have been glad to have made them in his presence; but what he said was, that he considered some injustice had been done, but that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing any further, but that he would look for justice on those points "elsewhere", and nothing more. He did not hesitate to say what his meaning was; he might appeal to the people, or the House of Lords, and he was quite entitled to say that he considered the people to over-ride that House, and the House of Lords to be co-ordinate with it. It was not said in an offensive manner, and he in no way threatened the House, and in point of fact the right hon. Gentleman might just as well be accused of doing so when he had told them that they must do certain things, or it would bring about a collision with the House of Lords. He had never been wanting in respect to any hon. Member, nor had he ever disparaged the House of Commons. On the contrary, he should stand up just as much for the privileges of that House as the House of Lords.
  MR. DILLWYNexplained that he did express his regret at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the time he was making the remarks, and what the right hon. Gentleman now stated quite confirmed what he had said. He admitted that he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had threatened them by dangling the House of Lords before their eyes; but if he had misapprehended him, he must express his regret.
  Mr. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought they might now go on with the business of the Committee. His hon. Friend had
  950
  proposed to omit the word 1876 and substitute 1874. The Government were willing to give up the two years, and thus continue the Commission till 1876; but they could not be blamed for supporting the provisions of their own Bill. He was surprised that they should be accused of unwillingness to make concessions, after the one they had just made. Every clause they proposed was in accordance with the views of the Committee upstairs. He hoped the Committee would not accept the limit of one year as proposed.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the decisions of the Committee upstairs were very much the reflex in their essential part of the will of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would therefore urge the hon. Member for Finsbury not to trouble the Committee by dividing.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. COLLINS, Amendment made, in page 6, line 28, by leaving out from "seventy-six" to end of clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKproposed a clause which would open to the graduates of any British University the office of head master in any endowed school, which was now restricted to graduates of Oxford and Cambridge.
  A Clause (Graduate of any University of the United Kingdom, if otherwise fit, shall be held qualified where the statutes require the head master to be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge,)—(Sir John Lubbock,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEopposed the clause, which was altogether beyond the scope of the Bill. It appeared to be a very mild, benevolent clause, but it would over-ride the constitution of all endowed schools. He would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill on some Wednesday next Session for the purpose of carrying out the object he had in view.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKdefended the clause, pointing out that a similar provision had been introduced into every scheme already sanctioned which had become law, and that to their honour be

  951
  it said, neither Oxford nor Cambridge had made any objection. The provision that masters and head masters should be graduates of Oxford or Cambridge was not intended to favour those Universities, but to secure competent men. The degrees granted by the University of London were as thorough and complete as any other degrees in the world; and. he believed there was now no British University the degrees of which were open to criticism. The Committee, therefore, need not fear if they adopted the clause that they would be lowering the standard of qualification for masters. That was a question which could not be determined by a case of individual hardship, but must be dealt with on liberal principles. If necessary, however, he was prepared to show that it was no theoretical grievance which would be remedied by the clause.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENobserved that the term "British" would exclude graduates of Trinity College, Dublin.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would alter the phraseology to graduates of "any University in the United Kingdom."
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the clause differed entirely from the whole framework of the Bill, and of the existing Act. It was not by the provisions of the measure that schools were affected, but by schemes framed under the Act. He did not object to the qualification in favour of a graduate of the London University; but he objected to have an isolated provision acting of itself, and by itself, instead of by schemes adapted to the several eases.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it seemed to him that the clause could not be really objected to. He hoped that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would withdraw his opposition to it, or at all events, that the Committee would not think it necessary to divide.
  MR. MOWBRAYcomplained that the hon. Member for Maidstone had proposed his Amendment without one word of explanation. That was only another instance of the irregularities which had characterized the proceedings of that evening.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if in past times people were foolish enough to give their money for these purposes, expecting that their wishes would be abided
  952
  by, he did not see why they should not have full power to choose the graduates of what Universities they liked. It seemed to be the fashion now to try to upset everything. The Scotch Universities existed at the time the Founders made this choice, and he thought that their wishes ought to be regarded. The clause might have something in it, but it certainly introduced a very new and. wide principle which was quite alien to the whole framework of the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would divide the Committee against it, as he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the opposition to the clause.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsupported the clause. No one could object to putting all the Universities on a level. The objection, therefore, was merely a technical one.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTthought the present was another instance of unnecessary legislation. He thought the proposed alteration could be effected by scheme, and objected to the insertion in an Act of Parliament, on a totally different subject, of a provision that would place all the Universities on the same level, and make no distinction between the ancient institutions of Oxford and Cambridge and the mushroom Universities of modern times. The question, if raised at all, should be considered in a separate measure.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he could not help expressing his surprise at the opposition of the right hon. and hon. Members for Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He believed it would be for the advantage of those Universities that the clause should be inserted. He thought no disrespect could be more marked than that which excluded a graduate of a University from equal competition with the members of the older ones.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he would remind the Committee that the schemes of the Commissioners included many subjects of modern learning, such as physical science, and therefore it was desirable that they should extend the area of selection for the teachers of these schools as much as possible.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked why they should over-ride the will of a Founder who designed to benefit graduates of Oxford? He thought the clause went further than the hon. Mem-

  953
  ber intended. If its operation were confined to existing Universities in the United Kingdom it would be a great improvement.
  MR. CRAUFURDobjected that there was no reciprocity in the clause, and that if it passed in its present form London University might still enjoy any monopolies of its own.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 65: Majority 76.
  On Question? That the Clause be added to the Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that before the clause was added to the Bill he wished to propose an Amendment which would place all the Universities in the kingdom on an equal footing. He accordingly moved the omission of the words "the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge," to make way for the insertion of the words "a University graduate."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDpointed out that the Amendment would virtually exclude Oxford and Cambridge, even if named in the will of the Founder, and he suggested that the better way would be to omit "Oxford and Cambridge," and insert "some specified University or Universities," which would meet the difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed with the hon. Member as to the desirability of inserting such words.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved the insertion of the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act," the object being to restrict the clause to existing Universities.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Universities did not rise spontaneously, like mushrooms. No University could be created without the consent of the Crown, and they had had experience in the early part of that Session how very difficult it was to create Universities. He did not think the objection of the hon. Baronet ought to prevail. It was not an unreasonable presumption that if new Universities should be founded it would be because some better principle was devised which would make them something more in
  954
  accordance with the spirit of the times; and he did not see, therefore, that the elder Universities were entitled to any particular preference in this matter, for if any fault were to be found with them, it was that they had been too easy in giving their degrees.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. LOCKEmoved the following new clause:—
  "The power of the Commissioners under section ten of the Endowed Schools Act (the principal Act) for removing any governors or trustees of schools shall be restricted to those cases only in which it may appear that the governors or trustees have proved themselves unfitted for the execution of their duties by reason of neglect or mismanagement.
  He thought that some hon. Members were under the impression that it was the duty of the Governors to teach the boys. In fact, their duty was to see that the establishment was managed according to the scheme laid down for that purpose. Any unnecessary removal, or the introduction of new Governors unacquainted with the management, would only tend to produce confusion, and he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) would accept what he considered a very mild proposal. If he could not agree to it in the shape proposed he trusted that the object would be met by some other words.
  New Clause (As to removal of governors or trustees of Endowed Schools,)—(Mr. Locke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERopposed the clause, which, he said, if carried, would put the whole of this matter in the same position as it would have assumed under the original Resolution proposed in the Committee by the hon. Member for Kent, and which was rejected by the whole of the Committee, with the exception of its Mover and Seconder. Restrictions were already numerous enough, and it would be most difficult to carry out reforms under the conditions which the clause proposed.
  MR. HEYGATEthought it would be wise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause, as it would have the effect of lessening the unpopu-

  955
  larity of the Commissioners in the country.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONobserved that the unpopularity of the Commissioners had been so often talked about, that people began to believe in it. According to his own experience, the action of the Commissioners was welcome, popular, and satisfactory.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsupported the clause, though he had no expectation that it would be carried. He thought that trustees who had faithfully and without legitimate complaint fulfilled their duties to their schools ought not to be liable to removal.
  Question put.
  House resumed.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 146: Majority 46.
  Schedules agreed to.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONgave Notice that on the Report he would move, as an Amendment to Clause 13, a Proviso to the effect that whenever any Motion for an Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her assent from any proposed scheme of the Commissioners was made in either House of Parliament, it should be incumbent on the President or the Vice President of the Council to move the assent of the House to such scheme within two months. The object of the Proviso was to prevent the inconvenience which had been suffered in some instances from Motions in the hands of private Members expiring by effluxion of time.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND) (JUDGES) BILL— [BILL, 182.]
  (The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Baxter.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, since his statement that he should proceed with this Bill, the Government had re-considered their position; and, though there would be great convenience in obtaining legislative sanction for the course of not filling up the second Judgeship, it was not absolutely incumbent upon the Government to fill up the appointment even without legislative sanction. The Government,
  956
  therefore, did not propose to proceed with the Bill, upon the understanding that, unless unforeseen circumstances rendered it necessary to do so, they would not fill up the appointment. He regretted to learn that the learned Judge upon whose advice the Government had acted had been unjustly assailed, and his motives in giving that advice had been entirely misrepresented. That learned Judge did not originate the proposal not to fill up the appointment; but, upon being asked., he gave a straightforward answer, which was the only answer he could give, and he had refused to take the additional £500 a-year which was to have been granted to him during his life-time, unless that increased salary was attached to the office and continued to his successors. He would move that the Order be discharged.
  DR. BALLsaid, the course taken by the Government would give general satisfaction; but he hoped the noble Lord would not meanwhile commit himself one way or the other as to the filling up of the vacancy. In his (Dr. Ball's) opinion the second Judge should be appointed, especially as there was a considerable amount of property which had belonged to the Irish Church which ought to be dealt with in this Court.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT, &c., BILL— [BILL 245.]
  (Mr. William Edward Fowler, Mr. Secretary Brace.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  VISCOUNT SANDONproposed a new clause, taken almost word for word from the Scotch Education Act of last year, providing that any person who took into his service a child under 13 years of age, unable to read or write, should be deemed thereby to undertake the duty of a parent as to elementary education.
  New Clause (Any person who takes into his service a child under thirteen unable to read or write shall be deemed thereby to undertake duty of parent as to elementary education,)—(Viscount Sandon,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTobserved that it had been often said that an Act of Parliament could do anything but convert a man into a woman, and that clause proposed to convert an employer into a parent. A person who took a poor child into his employment, really from motives of charity, would, in consequence, be saddled with serious consequences, and in his opinion the clause was a most objectionable one. If it were passed, the result would be that a benevolent employer would dismiss the child from his employment, rather than have such heavy responsibilities imposed upon him. The ultimate consequence of the clause would be to drive such poor children into the street, and more unwise or despotic legislation for the purpose in view could not be imagined. He hoped the House would not fulminate such a decree against persons who were acting in the interests of benevolence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that though the clause might, with advantage in some instances, be carried into effect, yet it raised too important and complicated a question to be adopted at the present late period of the Session. He was aware, however, that the clause had been urged by many school boards after much consideration.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had entirely mistaken the object of the clause, which had nothing to do with vagrant children, but was a general clause making education a condition for employment of labour. This kind of indirect compulsion was chiefly relied upon by some countries, as in Denmark, and certainly, before we succeeded in making compulsion universal in this country, direct compulsion must be backed up by some form of indirect compulsion of this kind. But with the doubts which had been expressed by competent authority—that the words of the proposed clause would interfere with other forms of indirect compulsion already existing in the Factory and Workshops Acts, he would suggest to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) that he should not push his new clause at present—though, if he did, he would vote for it.
  VISCOUNT SANDONremarked, in answer to Mr. HARCOURT, that such a sys-
  958
  tem of compulsion as that which he proposed existed at present under the Factory Acts. He had been urged only five minutes ago by the Vice President of Council to bring on the clause; but after being deserted by him in a manner of which he had right to complain, he would not persevere with the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that he told the noble Lord that there was a great deal in his proposal which deserved support, but that it would require a good deal of alteration.
  MR. SPEAKERput the Question, That the clause, by leave of the House, be withdrawn. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. MELLYsaid, that if it was intended to divide, he should like to say a few words on the clause. It went much further than the Factory Acts, as it provided no modified half-time system at all. The school boards were beginning at the wrong end by taking hold of these children who were learning how to earn their living, instead of turning their attention to the education of those poor children who wandered about the streets of large towns and never went to work.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEexpressed it to be his intention, if the House went to a division, to vote for the clause. He, however, hoped it would be allowed to be withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government did not object to the principle of the clause, but they must vote against it for two reasons. First, it was a subject upon which a serious difference of opinion existed, and it was undesirable that at so late a stage of the Bill any provisions should be introduced into it that did not meet with the full consent of the House. Secondly, the clause was objectionable in some of its details. It would be the duty of the Government to vote against it; but that must not be taken as an indication that the Government disapproved of the principle of the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CUBITTmoved a new clause for dividing the Lambeth division of the London School Board district into the Lambeth and Wandsworth divisions—the Lambeth division to consist of the borough of Lambeth and the parts of the parishes of Lambeth and Camberwell outside the borough; and the Wandsworth division, of the parishes of

  959
  Clapham, Tooting Graveney, Streatham, Battersea (excluding Penge), Wandsworth, and Putney. The parish contained 500,000 people and had an area of 32 square miles.
  New Clause (Division of Lambeth into two School Board districts,—(Mr. Cubitt,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. REEDsaid, if that was the proper time, he should fully concur with the hon. Member in thinking that a division of the area of Lambeth was desirable. But there were other large districts, such as Greenwich, Finsbury, and Marylebone, which also required to be divided; Greenwich for area, and Finsbury and Maryle bone on account of population. The question was, whether such arrangements could be made at that stage of the Bill. Though he considered the hon. Member had a good case, for the reason he had stated he could not vote for the clause.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, the reasons for the division of Lambeth were so strong that if the hon. Member for East Surrey divided the House he would vote for the clause.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsupported the principle of the clause, as he thought the population of Lambeth was too large to be represented as they were now on the School Board.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the difficulty of the proposition was, that it opened a much larger question than the division of the borough of Lambeth—in fact, it would lead to the consideration of the larger question of the re-distribu-of seats on the London School Board. That was a grave question, which ought not to be raised at present, especially as he understood that no representation had been made by the representatives of Lambeth to the Education Department or to the School Board on the subject. It would be quite time enough to consider the question when such an application was made.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 128: Majority 51.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSproposed a clause, providing that after a school board had established sufficient schools in a locality it might be dissolved?
  960
  New Clause (After the School Board has established sufficient schools the Board may be dissolved,)—(Lord John Manners,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERopposed the clause as introducing a new principle into our legislation. Besides providing sufficient school accommodation, other duties fell upon the Board, one of them being to enforce compulsory attendance at the school.
  MR. CLARE READreminded the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of Highway Boards a Board could un board itself.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 126: Majority 63.
  Clause 3 (Repeal of and substitution of other provisions for 18 & 19 Viet. c. 34. (Denison Act).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, to leave out the words "it shall be a condition of such relief that."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "relief out of the workhouse may he granted to the indigent parent of any poor child between five and thirteen years of age to enable him to send such child to a public elementary school by withdrawing him from labour, providing him with suitable clothing, and paying the school fees."—(Mr. Stapleton.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would without doubt be an important addition to the clause, but it was open to the objection that it would alter the conditions of Poor Law relief. The clause as passed in Committee not only enabled, but required Guardians to see that the children of out-door paupers were educated and to provide proper relief if necessary for that purpose. But the Amendment would introduce this principle—that a man who was not a pauper, according to the general definition of pauperism, might become one solely for the purpose of the education of his children.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause 23 (Regulations as to legal proceedings).
  MR. J. G. TALBOT,in moving the omission of sub-section 6, said, it would in effect introduce a new principle into the criminal law, by compelling a man to prove lie was not guilty before evidence had been offered against him. It should lie on the Inspector to prove that children in respect of whom the parent was summoned were of an age which rendered them liable to be sent to school.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from the word "certificate," to the words "if a Child," in line 41.—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
  MR. REEDbelieved that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had introduced that provision on the strong report of the School Board of London, with a view to meet the difficulty which they had experienced in proving the age of a child. If the child were at any employment, a strong temptation was afforded to the father not to allow the age of the child to appear, and he thought that, therefore, was a most reasonable provision.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsupported the Motion, on the ground that the sub-section introduced a new rule at variance with all the ordinary rules for the administration of justice. The argument of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Reed) amounted to this—that because it was difficult to prove a man guilty they ought to assume his guilt. Such a proposition was subversive of the first principle of their law. An Act to that effect would have had a considerable effect in shortening a certain criminal case now in course of trial
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they should not forget the interests of the child in considering the interests of the parent. The principle of the clause had been already adopted in the Vaccination and Factory Acts.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSwas heartily sorry and ashamed to hear that the London School Board had been the authors of this provision. Could anything be more absurd or unjust than an enactment which threw the onus of proving the educational efficiency of a particular school upon the scared and ignorant parent, who was had up for
  962
  not sending his child to the new Board school? He cordially supported the Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAregarded the provision in the Bill as being a beneficial one in the interests of the children.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSdenied that the clause embodied any new principle.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 60: Majority 53.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

  RATING LIABILITY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Secretary Brace.)

  [BILL 246.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that it abolished the exemption of Government property from rating, and also included in the valuation lists hereditaments which had heretofore been excluded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a. second time."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. PIMmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He complained that among other defects the Bill contained no provision for the equitable valuation of the revenues of the harbour authorities of Ireland, and he therefore considered himself justified in moving its rejection.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to acid the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Pim.)
  Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. VANCE,in opposing the Bill, said, it was a most imperfect measure, and entirely a step in the wrong direction.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsupported the Bill, contending that in principle it was a step in the right direction, but would admit it might be amended in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONhoped the opposition to the second reading would be withdrawn. He would remind the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr.

  963
  Pim) that his objection might be dealt with in Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS. CONSIDERATION.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  On Amendment made by the Lords, that Writers to the Signet should hereafter be enrolled as law agents.
  MR. GRIEVEmoved that the House disagree with the Amendment, as it was entirely at variance with the principle of the Bill.
  MR. LEITH,on behalf of the Society of Advocates of Aberdeen, disapproved of the Amendment which the Lords had introduced.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the object was very fully discussed when before the House of Commons on a previous occasion, and he was entirely against the Amendment which had been introduced by the Lords.
  Motion agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
  Lords' Amendment, that members of the Society of Solicitors should be enrolled as law agents disagreed to.
  On the Motion of the Lord ADVOCATE Lords' Amendment to insert "incorporated" in lieu of "unincorporated," in line 12, page 7, agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Law Agents (Scotland) Bill:"—The Loan ADVOCATE, Mr. CRILDERS, Mr. ADAM, Mr. GRIEVE, Mr. LEITH, and Mr. CRAVECRD:—To withdraw immediately: Three to he the quorum.

  APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (CASHEL AND SLIGO).—LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the appropriation to the towns of Kingstown and Queenstown of the seats vacated by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Cashel and Sligo."—(Mr. Butt.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should feel it his duty to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. VANCEobserved that he should likewise have to oppose the Motion, if it were persevered in by the hon. and learned Member.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONassured the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that the matter would receive the attention of the Government, who might possibly find themselves in a position to introduce a Bill on the subject next Session. He put it to the hon. and learned Member, therefore, whether it was worth his while to persevere with the Motion at that late period of the Session.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BAXTER, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BAXTER and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 261.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Extradition Act (1870) Amendment* (235). Second Reading—Salmon Fisheries (215) Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* (223).
Committee—Militia (Service, &c.)* (206–237).
Committee—Report—Steam Threshing Machines* (210–239); Medical Act Amendment (University of London)* (214); Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)* (222); Treasury Chest Fund* (217); Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption)* (198); Military Manœuvres* (216).
Report— Conveyancing, (Scotland) (227–238): Petitions of Right (Ireland)* (233).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1)* (167), and passed.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 215.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill which had come up from the Commons, be now read the second time, briefly explained its objects. The main purpose of the measure was to render the existing law more elastic. Power would be given to the Home Secretary to vary the limits of the fishing districts. The 40th clause, which was the backbone of the measure, would enable the conservators of rivers to draw up by-laws and to alter the close time within certain limits. The by-laws would not be valid until approved by the Secretary of State, who might, if he thought fit, order an investigation before granting his consent. As the details could be better discussed in Committee he did not feel it necessary to enter into them on this stage.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Morley.)
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYgave Notice that he would move Amendments in Committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 227.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved to insert words providing that the Act should not come into operation till the 1st of January, 1874. The Bill would cause a great disturbance in the existing mode of land conveyance in Scotland, and therefore he thought that a proper amount of time should be given to persons who were in the habit of transacting land conveyancing business to prepare for the change about to be made.
THe LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not object to the postponement suggested by the noble Duke.
Amendment made accordingly.
Further Amendments made; Bill to be road 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 238.)

THE ALBERT AND EUROPEAN ARBITRATIONS—EX-LORD CHANCELLORS.
Order of the Day for considering the Commons Amendments to the SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL, read.
LORD CAIRNS: Before proceeding to the consideration of these Amendments I will ask permission of your Lordships to make an explanatory statement upon a matter personal to myself, and which, I think, had better be kept distinct from the merits or demerits of' any of the Amendments we are about to consider. I have said that the statement I wish to make is personal to myself; but if it were merely personal to myself I am not sure that at this period of the Session I should have ventured to delay your Lordships in proceeding to other business. But the charge or the statement to which I am about to refer, although personal to myself, conveys also in it that which appears to me to be a reflection upon the conduct of the legal business of your Lordships' House, and therefore I think it is my duty to mention it to your

857
Lordships, and to make the statement for which I have asked permission. I have yet another reason for taking this course. The charge, while referring to me, refers also to one whose voice can no longer be heard among us to defend himself—I mean my late lamented Friend Lord Westbury—and knowing as I do the facts of the case, it is my duty on behalf of his memory, as well as on my own behalf, to call your Lordships' attention to the subject which I am about to mention. One of the Amendments which has been made in the Judicature Bill—and on the merits or demerits of the Amendment I am not now about to say a word—has dealt with the question of the relations between those who may hereafter be appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor and the Appellate Court created by the Bill; and a provision has been introduced into this Bill with regard to the terms upon which future Lord Chancellors shall be expected to take and to hold office. The argument by which that Amendment was pressed by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General had reference to circumstances connected with myself and the late Lord Westbury. The right hon. and the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom I have just alluded referred to some cases in which, under the authority of Acts of Parliament, Lord Westbury and myself have acted for some time in the discharge of a high judicial function created by the Acts. As far as I am personally concerned, the Acts of Parliament were, one connected with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and another connected with certain Insurance Companies, of which the Albert was the head; and the statement made was, that my late Friend and myself had assumed in our positions as ex-Chancellors the transaction of that which was private as distinguished from public business; and the suggestion was, that that which was termed private business had interfered with the performance of what were described as our public duties, and that therefore legislation upon the subject for the future had become necessary. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General were good enough to say that they did not deny the perfect right of either my noble Friend or myself to act as we had done; but they stated that the House of Commons had a right to prevent a repetition of
858
that which had been done—or, at all events, that they had a right so to guard the relations of ex-Chancellors towards the public as that the consequences which had been suggested should not again occur. Of those statements and arguments made and urged in the other House of Parliament I had no notice—if I had such notice, I could possibly, through the kindness of some Friends of my own who are Members of the House of Commons, have laid before the audience addressed the facts which I am now about to state to your Lordships. My late Friend, Lord Westbury, could not have had such notice, for at the time the statements were made he was in a condition in which notice could not have been given to him; and the same circumstances spared him what I cannot but think would have been to him the inexpressible pain of being made aware of the observations which had been made by his Friends upon his course of action. I will now state to your Lordships the facts which ought to be mentioned with reference to this subject. The charge divides itself into two portions. In the first place. there is the suggestion that judicial occupations of a private nature were undertaken by Lord Westbury and myself; and, in the second place, there is the statement that such occupations interfered and must interfere with the duties to be performed by us in this House. Let me, therefore, lay before your Lordships the short facts connected with the first Act of Parliament to which I have referred. A few years ago, the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway was on the point of collapse—or I suppose I might say had been reduced to a state of insolvency. The interests involved in that Company were between £17,000,000 and £18,000,000 sterling. There were, at the time the Act was passed, no less than 46 Chancery suits and 78 actions at Common Law pending with reference to the affairs of the Company; and, in addition, there were filed for the consideration of the Arbitrators appointed under the Act of Parliament 79 cases. At the time the Act was passed, the large revenues of the Company were entirely locked up, and whole families were reduced to destitution, because the income which they ought to have derived from the securities of the Company could not be paid. In addition to the Chancery

859
suits which I have mentioned, some branches of the Courts, and particularly the Chambers, were absolutely blocked up and impeded by the magnitude and the cumbrousness of the litigation which had arisen. Tinder these circumstances, a measure was introduced into Parliament, and it was proposed that a special tribunal should be created in order to deliver the Company from its embarrassments. I have no word to say in favour of the policy of special tribunals. I have always entertained a very strong opinion against their policy, for I look upon the creation of special tribunals of this kind as a species of reproach upon our whole system of judicature. That, however, is not the question now under consideration. An application was made to my noble Friend not now present (the Marquess of Salisbury) and myself to act as Arbitrators. The answer I made was, that if Parliament conceived that I could be performing with advantage a public duty by undertaking the office proposed to be created by the Act, and if powers were conferred which appeared to me to be adequate to rescue the Company and those concerned in it from the difficulties they were in, I should feel myself bound to perform the duty which Parliament would thus impose upon me. I do not know what answer my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) returned, but I presume it would be something to the same effect. The Act of Parliament was passed and powers of the most ample and unusual kind were conferred upon us. The term "Arbitrator" was applied to us by that Act; but, in point of fact, the office we were asked to undertake was not that of Arbitrators at all. I understand an arbitrator to be a person who by the agreement of other persons decides disputes between them. But there was no agreement in this case—there was an absolute, unqualified, and unappealable power conferred by the Act upon the Arbitrators in reference to the whole affairs of the Company. They were clothed with a power higher than that possessed by any Court of Law or Equity in the country, and, as I have said, their decisions were unappealable and irreversible. I repeat that I do not argue with the policy of the Act; but the result of its working was that the whole of the litigation which had arisen and had occupied the Courts to the extent I have
860
mentioned was finally concluded in 18 months from the time of the passing of the Act. I am not unwilling to admit that I look with satisfaction upon this result, although I question the policy of the Act of Parliament under which it was attained. I attribute the result mainly to the unexampled assistance which I received from my co-Arbitrator in the work. What I now want to ask your Lordships is, whether it is proper to describe the discharge of duties such as these as the assumption of private business to the detriment of public duties? I do not wish to argue the question; but I will state to your Lordships the views which I take of it. I believe the duties which under the Act of Parliament were imposed upon me, and which I performed, were duties which for their authority and their sanction, and as regards their responsibility, were as high in their nature and as public, and were as much clothed with the whole power and force of the Parliament of the country, as are the functions performed either by the Prime Minister or the Attorney General. Now, I pass to the other Act of Parliament to which I have referred. About five years ago, a huge Assurance Company—the Albert—collapsed and failed. In that Company were rolled up some 20 or more of other Assurance Companies. Your Lordships will be surprised to hear that the number of persons interested in the failure as policyholders was upwards of 23,000, everyone of whom either had or might have a separate case which he might raise and require to have determined. The number of shareholders having different interests was upwards of 2,000. The business of endeavouring to settle the affairs of the Company had gone on in the Court of Chancery for something like two years. It had been found absolutely impossible to arrive at the solution of any one of the various questions which were involved in the failure. Nothing had been got in and nothing had been paid at the time I speak of, and at the end of two years after the failure the only result of the proceedings was the incurring of an amount of costs, the magnitude of which would startle your Lordships were I to mention the figures. In this state of things, how came it to be suggested that Parliament should create a special and exceptional tribunal for dealing with the case? Lord Justice James made the

861
following remarks upon the case, and those remarks were quoted in Parliament as a justification of the Bill:—
"I considered that as a Vice Chancellor could only give a portion of his time to things of that kind, it was desirable that Parliament should find some means of appointing some special tribunal which could give the time that was necessary and not give merely portions of days or portions of weeks. I did not see how it was to be worked out under half-a-century, if it could be done in that time. That was really the ground on which I proceeded."
Again, I have nothing to say as to the policy upon which Parliament proceeded in passing a Bill in conformity with the recommendation of this learned Judge. I was asked to undertake the office which was to be created under the Act. I stated that I was not much encouraged by my former experience; but in this case too, knowing the extent to which the Court of Chancery was blocked up hr the litigation—knowing, also, the extent of the interests which were involved, and the amount of misery which was being suffered by persons interested—I stated that if Parliament thought fit to confer upon me the duty of acting upon this tribunal, I should feel myself bound to accept the duty and perform it to the best of my power. Acting on this tribunal—which the Prime Minister and the Attorney General pleasantly describe as a piece of private business—powers were vested in me which I certainly believe were undesirable, for the Act of Parliament not only armed me with the whole of the powers of the Court of Chancery without appeal, but gave me in every part of Her Majesty's dominions, in every colony, in India, and in all Her Majesty's possessions, all the powers of all the Courts in these colonies and possessions. I look with some surprise upon the magnitude of those powers, and I trust I have exercised them with care; but I do not think the exercise of such powers can be called private business. The result is this—I am happy to say that at the end of the first year after the passing of the Act of Parliament, the first award, which settled almost all the cases in dispute, has been made; the second award is on the point of being made; every case has been heard and disposed of; and the only circumstance which prevents the whole proceeding being wound up and closed is that some assets remain to be got in, and that persons to whom money has been
862
awarded will not come and take it away. Let me add one fact. These Acts of Parliament contained clauses contemplating the refusal of the persons named, and if I had refused the office, Parliament has thought fit to declare by these clauses that the only persons who could be appointed in my place were just the persons to whom the objections of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General would apply as much as to myself—namely, ex-Lord Chancellors. Judges of one of the Superior Courts, or Members of the Judicial Committee. Let me now say a word as to the case in which Lord Westbury acted. Subsequently to the failure of the Albert, another huge Assurance Company, the European, collapsed, and a similar Bill was introduced for dealing with its affairs. While it was pending Lord Westbury came to me and said he had been asked to discharge the duties which were created by the Bill, and he was good enough to add that he had declined to do so unless he found that I was unwilling to undertake these duties. I said it was quite impossible for me to undertake them, and I begged him earnestly, if he found his health and strength equal to the task, not to fail to give to the public—because it was given to the public—the benefit of the assistance which he, perhaps, beyond all other men could give in such a case. I believe it was owing to my strong representation that Lord Westbury very reluctantly undertook to give effect to the Act of Parliament. I come now to the other question—whether the discharge of those duties has interfered with my duties in this House. As regards those persons who have held the office which I have had the honour to hold, I apprehend there is little doubt as to their duties to the public. I hold that, altogether irrespective of the office which I have had the honour to holding. I, as a Member of your Lordships' House, and as what is called a Legal Member of the House, am bound by my obligations to your Lordships to undertake, to the best of my poor ability, along with my noble and learned Friends, the duties of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House; and I hold, again, that, irrespective of any office which I have had the honour of holding, as a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, when summoned by Her Ma-

863
jesty to attend the Judicial Committee, I am bound to attend and offer my services there. But let me now consider the charge which was made that the functions I have described interfered with my duties in the House. The proceedings in the case of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company occurred in 1859. On looking back I find that 18 sittings were held by my noble Friend and myself in that case, and not one of those 18 sittings was held upon a day devoted to appellate business in your Lordships House. So much for that charge. I have also turned to the case of the Albert Company. I find that 38 sittings were held under the Albert Act. Out of these 38 sittings, only four were held upon days when judicial business was taken in this House; and upon one of those days I find that, owing to the meetings being at different hours, I was able to sit in this House as well as in the Arbitration. Thus, out of 56 sittings which occurred during five years, three only were held upon days when judicial business was proceeding here. Your Lordships will now be able to judge what degree of foundation there was for the statement either that the duties undertaken by me were private duties, or that they interfered with my duties in this House. I have already stated that I had no notice of the statement or the charge—whichever it must be called—made against me in the other House of Parliament. I must go further. This is a Bill which began in your Lordships' House. It was considered here upon the second reading, and also before a Select Committee, upon which there were several Members of Her Majesty's Government. The scheme of the Bill then was, that future Chancellors should have their choice of a certain pension if they were willing to serve upon the Appellate Court, and of a certain other pension if they were unwilling to do so. That clause was not accepted in the Select Committee, and I rather think that the Members of the Government concurred in its omission. What I have to call your Lordships' attention to, however, though not by way of complaint against my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, is this—if the Government were of opinion that any functions undertaken by Lord Westbury and myself should be made the foundation of changes in the Bill,
864
why was not that opinion expressed here? Why were not the proposals of the Government made here? Why was this statement made in "another place?" Why were these proposals reserved till the last stage of the Bill in "another place?" What led to a change in the Bill in the other House I do not stay to inquire. I have laid the facts before your Lordships, and I leave it to your Lordships as men of honour to judge whether the course adopted in this case by the Prime Minister and by the Attorney General has been marked by courtesy or by justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, one thing I cannot help saying, and that is, that whatever reason there may be for regretting that anything should have been said elsewhere which could have touched or moved the feelings of my noble and learned Friend, or of the other noble and learned Lord to whom he has referred, on one point I think your Lordships have no reason to feel regret—and that is that my noble and learned Friend should have had an opportunity of giving so fully before your Lordships and before the country the facts of this case, and of so entirely justifying himself from any personal imputation. But I cannot for a moment think that any personal imputation was by anyone intended. I can assure my noble and learned Friend that there was no premeditated idea on the part of the Government, or. I will undertake to say, on the part of any Members of the other House, of casting any imputation upon my noble and learned Friend or upon Lord Westbury, and I am convinced that a desire of making such reflections as my noble and learned Friend imagines was not the groundwork of the change in the Bill made in the other House. For reasons right or wrong, that change was made in the Bill—a particular alteration affecting the position of future Lord Chancellors was proposed to be made; and it is undoubtedly true that those who addressed the House, and to whom reference has been made, did refer to the parts taken by my noble and learned Friend and Lord-Westbury in the Arbitrations in question, as in their opinion furnishing some reason why for the future those arrangements should be made. I feel persuaded that if the whole case, as it has been put by my noble and

865
learned Friend, had been before the minds of those who, I am convinced, then spoke without any premeditation, and certainly without any intention of casting imputation, no such observations would have been made. For my part, I do not deem that a sufficient reason for what the other House has done with regard to that clause; but I am sure that nothing that was said was intended to cast personal reflections upon those who undertook the duties undertaken by my noble and learned Friend and Lord Westbury under Acts of Parliament. I am bound to add that it appears to me that when Parliament thought fit to create new special Courts with such enormous and unprecedented powers, it was totally impossible that any persons should be entrusted with those powers except learned men who had the greatest judicial experience, and who, from the public opinion of their capacity, as well as of their virtue, might obtain the confidence of the country in the exercise of such extraordinary powers. If those Acts were to pass at all, it was an indispensable condition that some such men as my noble and learned Friend and Lord Westbury, if they could be prevailed upon to undertake those duties, should discharge them. They did undertake those duties under the direct cognizance of both branches of the Legislature—if I do not mistake they were named in the Bills. I am quite sure, therefore, your Lordships did not need the assurance of my noble and learned Friend that it was from a sense of public duty and nothing else that he and Lord Westbury undertook those duties. I should not satisfy my own conscience in this matter, or do full justice to my noble and learned Friend, if I did not also tell your Lordships that when one of those Bills—I am not quite sure which—was in the House of Commons, a Member of that House communicated with me upon the subject of the propriety of such duties being undertaken by a person who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor; and what I said to him and to other persons was, that I did not feel it consistent with my duty to deprive the promoters of those Bills of the services of men competent to discharge those duties; and that in my opinion only men of the highest judgment in the country, if they were free from other engagements, could dis-
866
charge those duties. I declined, therefore, to take any part in opposing that Bill, and I may have been, in some degree, responsible for the decision of some other Members of the Legislature not to oppose it.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  (Commons' Amendments, 234.—The page and line of these Amendments refer to Bill No. [154.] as first printed by the Commons.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now pass from this subject to address to your Lordships a few words in moving that your Lordships do take into consideration the Commons' Amendments to this Bill. So far as I am concerned, it is my intention to propose some consequential or corrective changes in those Amendments, but not to propose anything of importance which would interfere with what the House of Commons has done. Upon those matters it is not necessary now to trouble your Lordships in detail; but on one important point I have undertaken to propose to your Lordships an addition to the Amendments of the House of Commons, which I hope and believe will tend to produce a general agreement among your Lordships on a matter of great importance, which otherwise might be a subject of no slight division of opinion. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that when the Bill was introduced, the 18th clause, which authorizes Her Majesty if she think fit to constitute a new Court of Appeal, to hear those Appeals which now go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, did not extend to appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts. I stated to your Lordships at the time, on more than one occasion, the reason which had led me to make that exception. The subject was one of great and increasing importance, and had received a good deal of public consideration; and I was apprehensive that if I proposed by the Bill to deal with these ecclesiastical appeals the Bill would be over weighted and its success might be endangered. I stated at the same time to your Lordships that my own individual opinion was not opposed to a transfer of such appeals to the new Court of Appeal, but that I thought it

  867
  better on that subject to defer as much as possible to the general opinion of the clergy and laity of the Church, and more particularly to the right rev. Prelates who sit on that bench. No change in that respect was made in the Bill before it left your Lordships' House; but afterwards there appeared to be a greater degree of concurrence of opinion than had been expected in favour of a transfer of these appeals to the new Court of Appeal. Some Members of the right rev. Bench were known to be in favour of it. And here I cannot but refer to the loss your Lordships have so lately sustained by the death of that great and illustrious ornament of the right rev. Bench, the Bishop of Winchester, who in so lamentable a manner has been taken from us, and the authority of whose name I believe will grow in lustre and strength during the lapse of years. That right rev. Prelate was one of those who were favourable to this change. It is not for me to say to what extent his opinion is shared by other Members of the right rev. Bench. I know, however, that some did not concur in that opinion when the Bill left your Lordships' House, but "elsewhere" there appeared to be so general a concurrence of opinion in favour of the transfer of ecclesiastical appeals to the new Court of Appeal that the House of Commons has thought fit to send up the Bill with an Amendment excluding the exception which was in the Bill when it left your Lordships' House, and adding certain words directing in what manner a sentence of suspension or deprivation on any clerk shall be pronounced. An increased degree of public attention has since been directed to this matter; and I think it is tolerably clear that a considerable portion of the members of the Established Church, as well as some of the most distinguished Members on the right rev. Bench, are dissatisfied with the clause in the shape in which it has come back to your Lordships' House. I have been anxious to arrive at a course which may avoid the future agitation of this subject, and so prevent its being brought forward at a future time when circumstances might not be so advantageous for finally settling the question as they are at present. Under these circumstances I entered into communication with the most rev. Prelate whose sentiments I knew to be opposed to the Amendment introduced
  868
  into the clause in the other House, in order to see whether some safeguards could not be introduced into the Bill which, in the judgment of your Lordships, might be necessary to prevent the measure from operating in such a manner as to forfeit the confidence of the clergy of the Established Church in the new Court of Appeal. I have succeeded in arriving at something like an agreement with the most rev. Prelate, and—as I understood from him—with a considerable number of his right rev. Colleagues on the subject; and at the proper time I shall move the following Amendment:—
  "The Court of Appeal, when hearing any Appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes which may be referred to it in manner aforesaid, shall be constituted of such and so many of the Judges thereof, and shall be assisted by such assessors, being Archbishops or Bishops of the Church of England. as Her Majesty, by any general rules made with the advice of the Judges of the said Court, or any five of them (of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one) and of the Archbishops and Bishops who are members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, or any two of them (and which general rules shall be made by Order in Council) may think fit to direct."
  I think that that Amendment will accomplish the two main objects which your Lordships are likely to have in view—namely, first to prevent any accidental weakness in the constitution of the Court for each particular cause, and, secondly, to prevent what would be still worse—the suspicion that the Court might be constituted in such a way as to give it a bias one way or the other. The possibility of the impartiality of the Court being suspected would be almost as bad as the reality. The rules which under this Amendment Her Majesty in Council will have power to make will provide that the Court shall be constituted of a considerable number of Judges, and at the same time that they shall be taken in such order as to prevent any degree of distrust or suspicion arising with regard to the selection of the Judges for the hearing of any particular appeal. It is also proposed by the Amendment to retain the advantage of the assistance of some Archbishop or Bishops of the Church of England, to be selected in. such manner as the Order in Council shall direct, and who, not sitting as Judges, but as Assessors merely, shall give such assistance and advice as may be necessary to the Judges, for whose judgments, how-

  869
  ever, they they are in no way to be responsible. Under this arrangement, the Judges will be saved from the risk of falling into error on technical matters which, if not avoided, might possibly lead to consequences unintended and unforeseen. In order that the two great interests of the laity and clergy may have due influence in the consideration of these rules, and in advising Her Majesty as to how they should be framed, the Amendment proposes that a certain number of the Judges of the Court and also not less than two of the Episcopal Members of the Privy Council shall concur in advising Her Majesty what those rules shall be. I hope that this proposal will meet with your Lordships' approval, and that it will lead to a satisfactory settlement of this part of the question. I now beg to move that your Lordships proceed to the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill.
  Moved, "That the said Amendments be now considered."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD REDESDALE,who had given Notice to move that the consideration of the Amendments made by the House of Commons be deferred for three months, said, he desired, in the first place, to remind their Lordships of the course he had taken with respect to this measure since its introduction by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Without for a moment pretending to look at this matter from its strictly legal aspect, he should confine his remarks to the effect the surrender of their Appellate Jurisdiction would have upon the character of their Lordships' House. In his opinion the House had no right to surrender a jurisdiction which was one of vital importance, not only to themselves, but to the interests of the people at large. The opinion he was now putting forward was not a new one—it had been long entertained by competent judges of what concerned the character of that House. In speaking on the subject at the time of the contest that arose between the two Houses with respect to the Appellate Jurisdiction of that House, the great Lord Shaftesbury had said "Your judicature is the life and soul of the dignity of the Peerage of England." In his (Lord Redesdale's) opinion that dignity could not be given up without
  870
  impairing in an important degree the position of their House; for if the House admitted that it was unfit to discharge the judicial duties it had so long performed efficiently, it might be held to have declared itself unequal to discharge its other duties, and it must fall in the estimation of the public. The Appellate Jurisdiction of the two sister Kingdoms had been delegated to the House by the Acts of Union, and he believed that very serious results might flow from any successful attempt to transfer that jurisdiction to a new Court. He had not brought forward this matter with a party object; nor had he had any communication with any Leader either on the one side or the other—in fact, he anticipated as much opposition from the noble Lords who sat behind him as he did from those who sat on the opposite benches. The Amendment he proposed commenced by stating that—
  "It was now admitted by the promoters of the Bill that there should be only one Court of Ultimate Appeal for the United Kingdom;"
  but when he had proposed a Resolution to that effect on the 2nd of May, it was opposed by the Government, and was rejected in that House by a majority of 38 to 13. Their Lordships knew what had occurred afterwards in the other House. Her Majesty's Government, on Notice being given of the intention of a Member of the House of Commons to move to amend the Bill by introducing into it words to transfer the Scotch and Irish Appellate Jurisdiction from their Lordships' House to the new Court of Appeal, had, even without waiting until the question had been discussed, acceded at once to the proposition. His Resolution went on to declare that—
  "As it was uncertain whether any such Court could be newly constituted in England which would give the same satisfaction to Scotland and Ireland which it was admitted that that House had afforded, it was inexpedient, without allowing time for farther Inquiry, to pass a Bill which established a separate Court of Ultimate Appeal for England, and must therefore render a repeal of the settlement under the Acts of Union necessary, if the appeals from those countries were to be transferred to that Court., the formation of which would justify Scotland and Ireland in desiring to have separate Courts of Ultimate Appeal in their own capitals, if they were no longer allowed to come to that House."
  It was universally admitted that the Appellate Jurisdiction of that House was satisfactory to the people of Scotland

  871
  and Ireland; and when that was the case, why, he should ask, should it be altered? He had heard no argument why their Lordships should give up a jurisdiction which had been so satisfactorily exercised. It was admitted that the House had exercised its jurisdiction efficiently, and it might be still further improved by the introduction of certain high legal officers in this country into the House, and it might be, also, in certain instances, of high legal officers from Ireland and Scotland, so that as good an appellate tribunal as could be bad might be secured in that way. He regretted that an Amendment which he had proposed, that where a further hearing should, in accordance with the suggestion of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Cairns) be considered necessary it should be referred to this House, had been rejected. A third hearing might in some instances be highly desirable, as in those cases in which the decision of the first Court had been reversed, and there was nearly a balance of opinion among the Judges of the Appellate Court, and why should not such hearings be before their Lordships' House? If that Amendment had been adopted the ultimate appeal in England would have been reserved to the House of Lords without any interference with the general provisions of the Bill. He hoped that, in any future arrangement which might be made with respect to the constitution of a final Court of Appeal for all the three Kingdoms, that House would still be allowed to exercise a jurisdiction which it had shown itself perfectly competent to discharge. As to the proposal immediately before the House, asking their Lordships' assent to the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Commons, he would observe that it was not right at the end of July that the House should be asked to consider a long list of Amendments in a Bill which had been sent back to it two days ago. That was not a satisfactory mode of proceeding in dealing with a measure constituting a High Court of Judicature as well as a Court of Ultimate Appeal, and lie, for one, could not see what would be lost by postponing the settlement of the question for another year. Indeed, great advantage would, in his opinion, result from postponement, for the proposals contained in the Bill would undergo examination during the Recess,
  872
  and a more complete and satisfactory measure would in all probability be the result. If their Lordships were to dissent from the Commons' Amendments in any important respect, that House might, when the Bill went back, insist on their Amendments; and how, he should like to know, could the question be fairly discussed when the Bill was returned to their Lordships, perhaps at the close of another week?
  Moved, To leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion for the purpose of inserting the following words: ("As it is now admitted by the promoters of the Bill that there should be only one Court of Ultimate Appeal for the United Kingdom, and as it is uncertain whether any such Court can be newly constituted in England which will give the same satisfaction to Scotland and Ireland which it is admitted that this House has afforded, it is inexpedient, without allowing time for further inquiry, to pass a Bill which establishes a separate Court of Ultimate Appeal for England, and must therefore render a repeal of the settlement under the Acts of Union necessary, if the appeals from those countries are to be transferred to that Court, the formation of which will justify Scotland and Ireland desiring to have separate Courts of Ultimate Appeal in their own capitals if no longer allowed to come to this House and it is therefore expedient that the consideration of the Amendments made by the House of Commons be deferred for three months.")—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he desired to say a few words on the particular point to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had made special reference in connection with the Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill came back to their Lordships in a very different state from that in which it had left them. His noble and learned Friend had been Committee enough to place him on the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred simply because one of the clauses had reference to ecclesiastical matters: and after the fullest consideration it was resolved both in that Committee and in the House itself that ecclesiastical matters had better not be mixed up with a general measure of this kind. He could not help thinking that his noble and learned Friend had exercised a wise discretion when he avoided the somewhat extended range of ecclesiastical law and the thorny paths into which those who discussed that law would be likely to lead the House. It had turned out, however, that others had rushed in

  873
  where a Lord Chancellor feared to tread, and he was very much afraid that those who had so rushed in did so without that full consideration and understanding of the subject which its importance demanded. His noble and learned Friend was entitled to his personal thanks for his courtesy in consulting him on the subject of the Amendment which he intended to move; but he felt himself in some difficulty with regard to it, because he and those who held similar views on the question had been driven, as it were, into a corner. He had never been more surprised than when he learnt that before dinner on a day in July, when men's minds were naturally occupied with other thoughts besides those of the constitution of the Church of England, a sudden change had been made in the Bill, which was of such importance that a very eminent lawyer had declared in print that the introduction of that change altogether destroyed the Royal Supremacy in the Church in this land, and destroyed at the same the character of the Court of Appeal as belonging to a tribunal which was henceforward to have the highest cognizance in ecclesiastical matters. When he heard that, he confessed he felt more surprise than he could well express. He felt that in that matter they were almost in the condition of persons who were run off with in an express train, and did not know what in the world was to happen next. A right hon. Friend of his in the Lower House had communicated to him what had occurred there while he was at dinner. Immediately after he returned home, he received a letter from the Prime Minister. "Of course," he said to himself, "it must be a letter desiring to be made acquainted with my opinion and that of the Episcopal Bench in a matter which at all events very materially alters the constitution of the Church of these realms." Well, when he opened it, the language was, as it always was, courteous, but it informed him, in plain English, that the thing was done. And not only that the thing was done, but—what surprised him still more—that the right hon. Gentleman had consulted his Colleagues in the Cabinet on the propriety of doing it the day before, although no communication whatever had passed between the Heads of the Church and those who were engaged in quietly considering in the Cabinet whe-
  874
  ther the whole constitution of the Church should be altered or not. He did not know what was meant by "consulting one's Colleagues in the Cabinet;" but it was often said that when any Prime Minister had a specialty the Members of his Cabinet were more or less in the position of the Kopha prosopa with which they were all familiar in the Greek drama. He was therefore much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having so far listened to the Episcopal Bench as, at all events, to have altered what appeared to be a total exclusion of the ecclesiastical element from the highest Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes. He was not unwilling to accept the modified proposal now made, because it enabled them probably to get out of a great difficulty. He thought, however, the mode in which the change was made after the Bill had left their Lordships' House was the strongest proof that it ought not to have been made, because he felt convinced that if a thing of that kind was done in such hot haste on so important a matter, it could not possibly be well done. He understood it was said that the unanimous feeling of the country was in its favour. Well, he had presented a number of Petitions that day, all of which were distinctly condemnatory of the course suggested—namely, that of excluding the ecclesiastical element from the Final Court of Appeal; and even, in these days of accelerated communication, it was almost impossible to make people aware of what was done in Parliament with sufficient speed to enable them to be awake to what was transacted so hurriedly. He was told that a large number of Petitions would be placed in his hands to-morrow morning to the same effect as those he had already presented; but by to-morrow morning the whole thing must necessarily be over. While, therefore, he was thankful for the modification of the proposal that was to be made, because it gave them something where they feared they would get nothing, yet he wished the country had had a more deliberate opportunity of expressing its opinion on that subject. Every clause of the Bill, as far as it referred to the Court of Appeal, might be viewed in a somewhat now aspect; because they must consider not only whether it was a good new Court of Appeal for the cases which would come before it from the

  875
  ordinary civil Courts, but whether it was a good Court of Appeal for the ecclesiastical matters which were to be imported into it. He did not know whether that new Court of Appeal was to be divided into a great number of, as it were, Committees, and whether they might not be so unfortunate, in that press of business which had been so graphically described as arising in the ordinary Courts, as to have their ecclesiastical affairs referred, perhaps, to not the most important members of that appellate tribunal. The writer of the pamphlet to which he had alluded stated that it was very important that persons acquainted with theology should be present, and should take a considerable part in the drawing up of its judgments—which might relate to such matters as the Real Presence in the bread and wine, the adoration of the consecrated elements, &c. If those most abstruse questions were to be brought before the highest Court of Appeal, it certainly did seem necessary that they should have the assurance that they would have the ablest Members of the Court present to hear those cases. It was not right that those matters should be decided by a simply civil tribunal; but it was not proposed even now to decide them by a purely civil tribunal. The Court of Delegates, to which the present Judicial Committee of the Privy Council succeeded, was not a civil tribunal any more than the Judicial Committee, when sitting upon ecclesiastical matters and having the whole powers of the Court of Delegates transferred to it, became in those cases a civil tribunal. The fact that a Court consisted entirely of laymen was not rendered thereby a civil tribunal. The Court of Arches, which sat in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was presided over solely by laymen. The Consistory Court of London, which exercised its ecclesiastical powers in the name of the Bishop of London, was a distinctly Ecclesiastical Court, and was presided over by a layman. Their highest Court of Appeal would be an Ecclesiastical Court still, for it would represent the Queen in her ecclesiastical capacity as exercising the Supremacy of the Crown; and in that capacity it would be an ecclesiastical tribunal. Whether it consisted entirely of laymen, or of laymen advised by theologians, it would be an ecclesiastical tribunal. He wished that to be
  876
  distinctly understood; because he found another Amendment in the Bill which he did not understand, and although he had read the discussions in the other House they had not helped him to do so. That tribunal was to have all the powers of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in matters ecclesiastical—those powers, descending from the Reformation throughout the whole course of the administration by the Court of Delegates, were now to be transferred to this Court of Appeal; and yet the most important part of the functions of that Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal were to be taken from it and transferred to the Court of Arches. That was, no longer was the sentence for degradation or suspension to be pronounced, as it had heretofore been, by this Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal; but they were to refer to the Court of Arches in order to give some sort of authority to the Court which was above. That, he thought, was a matter which required very serious consideration. It was proposed to transfer all the powers of the Judicial Committee to the new Court of Appeal, and yet, for some reasons which he should like to see explained, they proposed to deprive it of anything which gave it the semblance of being an Ecclesiastical Court. Various opinions had been expressed by Churchmen as to the proposed change, but for the greater part against handing over to a purely civil Court the decision of matters purely ecclesiastical. Indeed, one gentleman went so far as to declare his determination to treat with contempt the decision of a civil Court in such cases. For his own part, he was opposed to that proposal to deprive the last Court of Appeal in matters affecting the Church of that ancient ecclesiastical character which in one sentence the Bill seemed to preserve to it and in another to take from it. The subject was a very important one. It stirred the feelings of a great number of people. It had to do with the social and religious life of the country, and therefore it would be disrespectful to the Church and the people of England if their Lordships' House were to appear to hurry through a matter of such importance with the same speed with which it passed a Railway Bill.
  THE MARQEESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that one observation made by the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken com-

  877
  pelled him to say a few words in defence of a right hon. Friend of his in the other House. The most rev. Prelate had applied to his right hon. Friend the epithet which had become classical. ["What?"] Well, he never used the word himself; but a noble Duke opposite (the Duke of St. Albans) had, and it appeared to have received the high sanction of the most rev. Prelate.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I said "some persons."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The most rev. Prelate said that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) had taken the House of Commons by surprise in proposing his Amendment; but that allegation was entirely negatived by the fact that not only had due Notice been given of it, but the subject had been debated in their Lordships' House, and the opinions in reference to it of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, of other noble Lords, and of at least one Member of the Episcopal Bench had been expressed. Eventually it was only put aside lest the passing of the Bill in the House of Commons should be imperilled. Having been proposed in the House of Commons, there was an obvious reason why the Government should accept it without notice to the most rev. Prelate—they had only "Hob-son's choice" in the matter—if they had not accepted it they would simply have been beaten, for the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons—Conservative, Liberal, and Radical—was in favour of the change. And, perhaps, one reason why the Amendment was so speedily accepted was to be found in the phenomenon that during the discussion in either House no speaker rose to defend the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the exception of the two most rev. Prelates. They sat absolutely alone. Except the two most rev. Prelates, the tribunal seemed to have no adherents. But the most rev. Prelate said that the clergy were in favour of it, and that he had presented numerous Petitions. Did he forget the petition which had been presented against it to the Lower House of Convocation.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That petition expressed the opinion of individual clergymen—not that of the Lower House of Convocation as a body.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It expressed the opinions of 38 representative members of the Province of Canterbury, and no counter opinion whatever was expressed. He did not propose to follow the most rev. Prelate into a technical legal discussion in reference to this change. In his opinion, it was not the case that the Court of Delegates was composed of spiritual persons. It was composed of persons, lay or clerical, at the will of the Sovereign—and, as a matter of fact, he believed the Court of Delegates had sat only four times from the Reformation down to the present day in order to decide cases relating to Church discipline. He trusted that the provision suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would tend to the attainment of the end he had in view—namely, the furnishing of the best information to the Court of Appeal on ecclesiastical subjects. Whether it would do so or not, would depend in a great measure on the mode in which the new rules were framed. For his part, he could have wished that the power of summoning Assessors had been extended beyond the Episcopal Bench to all divines, because it was obvious that the gift of ecclesiastical learning did not, any more than that of reading or writing, come by nature. Still less did it come by virtue of official position. There had been, and there were Prelates distinguished by learning of all kinds—there had been, and there were Prelates distinguished for that abstruse branch of knowledge, canon and ecclesiastical law. But it did not follow that because a man was a Bishop, therefore he was a man of such attainments. Bishops were chosen for a variety of reasons—exalted piety, personal influence, successful administration of a parish; but they might not have the least capacity for giving information to Judges as to questions of ecclesiastical law. He hoped, therefore, that under the rules to he framed, it would be secured that the Assessors to be chosen should not only have high rank in the Church but also capacity to give sound advice to the appellate tribunal. To assume that a Bishop, because he was a Bishop, must therefore be versed in ecclesiastical law, was equivalent to assuming that an Admiral, because he was an Admiral, was therefore learned in the law of the Court of Admiralty. It was, doubtless, inconve-

  879
  nient to interpolate one debate into the middle of another, but he was not the first offender; and he could not, without some observation, hear the classical term by which they now designated each other in that House extended to so inoffensive a person as Mr. Hardy. The great object to be attained was that henceforth no suspicion, just or unjust, of partiality should rest on those who occupied the position of Judges of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes. He had no doubt whatever that the most rev. Prelates who heretofore sat in judgment on these cases had honestly endeavoured to dismiss all bias from their minds; but by their office and by the nature of their duties, it tended very much to controversy in the Church, that a clergyman brought before the tribunal of which they formed part should see before him men whom lie might possibly regard as his leading adversaries. No doubt they were very unjust in imputing partiality, but the possibility of such a thing being said was almost as bad as if it were really true. For the future, however, such a thing would be impossible, and the country-would have the satisfaction of knowing that the clergy, like other people, would be judged in the last resort by persons of learning, who were sure to be well advised. He deprecated the proposal of the Attorney General that when sentence was pronounced by the secular Court it should be handed over for execution to the spiritual Court below. He could understand a spiritual Court delegating the execution of its sentences to a secular Court; but the course which had been followed in this case was a curious reversal of the power. He hoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not consider it inconsistent with his proposal to modify that Amendment, which he was sure would not find favour with the House.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that nothing could be worse for the country than over-rapid legislation—namely, legislation without giving people adequate notice of what was about to be done. Such legislation could not be justified on the ground that everybody must approve what was done, for the first object should be to make the country perfectly aware of the course it was intended to take. Now, with regard to ecclesiastical appeals, he regretted that means were not taken to put deliberately before the
  880
  country the course intended to be taken by the Government. He could understand how they had been led into it; but he could not help regretting the absence of Notice, and he could not agree with his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) that because certain members of Convocation and speakers "elsewhere" had all approved a change in a particular direction, this was to be taken as the general opinion. People who wanted a change were the people to speak out promptly; while it was not till the proposal was fully placed before them that others, who perhaps did not want a change, applied their minds to it, and expressed an opinion upon it. He himself wished for a change as regarded the hearing of ecclesiastical appeals. One reason was that at present, in any case exciting immense interest and stirring to the depths the different schools of thought in the Church, the body hearing it was necessarily formed for that particular purpose. He knew as a matter of fact that this had always been done in the best possible way and with the best possible objects; but it was always open to people out-of-doors to say that particular men had been chosen to hear a particular case. That could not be satisfactory; and he believed the dissatisfaction rose to a height in the present year, when a Gentleman for whom he had great respect was appointed under the Sign Manual a Member of the Judicial Committee on the eve of an important ecclesiastical ease. He had had no judicial, and he believed no forensic experience, but he sat on that case; was supposed, rightly or wrongly, to have advocated the views of one particular side in the question to be argued; and as far as he knew had never sat upon any other case. Another reason for dissatisfaction was, that if it was desirable to have a fair representation of ecclesiastics as Judges, the actual representation—never more than two, and often only one—was altogether insufficient. On the other hand, those who objected to any ecclesiastical element were also dissatisfied. The proposal of his noble and learned Friend—though he was sorry there had not been more time to let the public know what was to be done—had so much to recommend it that he was not prepared to advise their Lordships to reject it. As he understood it, Her Majesty, as supreme over all

  881
  causes ecclesiastical and temporal, would fix by an Order in Council the number of Members of the Supreme Appellate Court to hear ecclesiastical cases, and would prescribe who were to hear them, so that the Court would not be composed for every particular case. The proposal also secured an ecclesiastical element in the most desirable form. The advice and instruction of highly-cultivated minds were required on matters of phraseology and more important points, and such persons would give by private communications to the lay Members that assistance of which, they always stood in need. He did not agree with his noble Friend that there should be an indiscriminate power of summoning divines, for that would lead again to the error of a Court ad hoc. An Order in Council could not prescribe what divines were permanently to act as Assessors, whereas it was easy to prescribe the number of Bishops who were to act. As to the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), he was disappointed with some of the changes made by the House of Commons in the position of the Court to which their Lordships were willing to surrender their Appellate Jurisdiction, but he was not without hopes that some of these matters might yet be adjusted, and entertaining such hopes he could not at this stage support a Motion which would preclude the opportunity for such Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he regretted the declaration just made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), for the Bill had come back from the other House at such a late period, and the Amendments that had been made were so important, that he thought further time ought to be allowed for their consideration. The House had wandered into a discussion as to ecclesiastical appeals, but the present question was whether the Commons' Amendments should be considered. He had had great difficulty in making up his mind on this point, one reason being that it was a great legal question, and that a layman must hesitate to express an opinion on points which might be of a technical nature. The matter, however, concerned the honour, dignity, and interests of the House, and therefore concerned the country which had committed these to their charge. Great, moreover, as might be the force of legal authority
  882
  arrayed in favour of the Bill, both in its first and last stages in this House, he believed that in the searching criticism it had undergone in "another place," not a single lawyer except the legal Members of the Government could fairly be said to have supported it. The measure, too, had come back largely altered, and owing to the pressure of time had not been printed in the usual form; for instead of red ink showing what had been altered and expunged, their Lordships had nothing but the original Bill and the Bill as it left the Commons, with pages of close print, containing the alterations; and it was difficult for all but the most acute minds to ascertain the exact position of the matter. Some of the changes were very extensive, and the noble Lord's argument that they wanted a little more time fully to consider the question was a reasonable one. There was one objection which he entertained to the Bill as altered he desired to express to the House—it was, that that which was, no doubt, a very high-class Court of Appeal had been converted into a Court of an inferior nature to that proposed by this House. Was it for such a Court that their Lordships gave up so large a portion of their jurisdiction? The next point on which he wished to touch was the question of the salaries to be paid to the Judges. The salaries represented the value which the State set upon the services rendered. Their Lordships would remember that the salaries originally contemplated were £7,000; but when the Bill left their Lordships' House the salaries were fixed at £6,000 per annum; the House of Commons, however, had made a still further reduction, and it had come back with the amount reduced to £5,000. But this was not the whole question. When a Committee sat to inquire into and consider this very question, the decision arrived at was that £6,000 per annum would be a very fair minimum salary to fix for the Judges appointed in the new Courts to be constituted; but this recommendation had been disregarded in "another place," when Mr. Vernon Harcourt, a strong supporter of the Government, expressed his opinion that if the House of Commons, with unwise parsimony, reduced the salaries of the Members of the Court of Appeal to £5,000 per annum, the House of Lords

  883
  would be well entitled to refuse to pass a Bill containing such a proposal. ["Order!"] He would not refer further to the debate in "another place," but would be content with quoting Mr. Harcourt's opinion. He was aware that it might be urged that the salaries of the paid Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were £5,000 a-year; but he would remind their Lordships of the fact that it was not very easy to obtain such Members at such a rate of payment. They were not to take individual cases in dealing with such a question as this. It might be possible now to induce lawyers of eminence to accept the positions with that rate of remuneration attached to them; but he very much doubted whether such a state of things would long continue. The truth was that in this, as in other respects, Her Majesty's Government were actuated by a spirit of parsimony in small things and of extravagance in matters of greater moment. It must not be forgotten that parsimony in the matter of salaries paid to Judges meant a lowering of the whole judicial standard; because it was not to be expected that men of the highest character and legal ability would accept laborious duties with a niggardly scale of payment attached thereto. There was another and more serious objection to this branch of the measure as it had come back to their Lordships' House. Clause 13 had for its marginal note the words "Pension of Lord Chancellor," but, instead of these words, the note should have read, "The future status of the retiring Lord Chancellor," for the clause provided that no pension should be granted in future unless the retiring Lord. Chancellor signified in writing his willingness to serve as an additional Judge of the Court of Appeal, or unless he should have served 10 years as Chancellor or 15 years first as Chancellor and then as Judge. Let them consider the position in which this would place the Lord Chancellor. An ex-Chancellor had been the highest officer in the State, the head of the law, the Keeper of the Sovereign's conscience, and the embodiment, may be, of some of the finest passages in English history yet it was proposed henceforward to put him under the lowered and degraded conditions contemplated by the clause to which he was referring. If he left his argument at this point he believed he
  884
  would have made out a sufficient case in support of his contention; but he had a further and still stronger objection to urge. This Bill came back to their Lordships' House as an avowed instalment of some future measure, and he most earnestly objected to any such course. It was true that the House of Commons had given up the position they took in reference to the Irish and Scotch appeals; but what security was there that if the Bill passed this Session in its present form, an attempt would not be made next Session to resume the position from which they had temporarily retired? The effect of taking up again the question of Irish and Scotch appeals, and dealing with them in the manner suggested in "another place," would, in his opinion, be to lower, what ought to be an Imperial tribunal to the level of a provincial Court. An hon. Member of the House of Commons who was supposed to represent the Home Rule party in Ireland, had stated very significantly that the Irish people would not be satisfied with the measure in its present form, and he therefore strongly deprecated the taking of a course which could possibly stir up a fresh source of contention and bitterness on the other side of the Channel. Their Lordships had already made great concessions to Ireland, and had obtained small thanks for it—the fate as a rule of those who made surrenders to a majority—and he urged that no further similar concessions should be made at the present time. One of the most remarkable men who ever sat in that House made a speech nearly 200 years ago, in which he put with great force the point he was now urging. Lord Shaftesbury said—
  "This matter is no less than your whole judicature and your judicature is the life and soul of the dignity of the Peerage in England; you will quickly grow burdensome if you grow useless. You have now the greatest and most useful end of Parliaments principally in you, which is not to make new laws, but to redress grievances and to maintain the old landmarks."— [Parl. Hist. iv. 793.]
  Their Lordships should beware, at all events, of acting hastily in this matter. He did not ask them to insist upon Privilege. The question of Privilege had been disposed of, and Privilege, like Prerogative was a dangerous weapon. He did not ask their Lordships to retract what they had once done, because the question which had arisen was a new

  885
  one. He did not ask them to reject the Bill—he merely asked them to give it a little further consideration. If, in consequence of the Government running their Lordships into this corner, the indirect result of the Motion was the failure of the Bill, the fault was theirs. Like the most rev. Prelate, he deprecated hot and un statesman like haste in this matter. Their Lordships were fully entitled to take time and consider this large question as a whole; not piecemeal, for it was a question which involved the rights and powers of the House, and that which was of even greater importance—the trusts and duties for which it was responsible to the people of this country.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, there were two points on which he wished to address a very few words to their Lordships. One was the change made in the Bill as to ecclesiastical appeals; the other was the recommendation that their Lordships should postpone the measure for another year—a course which would, in his opinion, be attended with inconceivable mischief to the country. Upon the first point he shared the opinion of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that it was desirable that the construction and powers of the new Court should not be open to misconception or misunderstanding, and that it should be made perfectly clear that though presided over by lawyers it was still an Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal for ecclesiastical causes. He should therefore prefer to omit the provision that where suspension or deprivation might ensue as a consequence of their judgment, the Court should hand over that part of the case to the Court of Arches. Such a provision would lead to the inference that the new Court of Appeal was not an Ecclesiastical Court—which it undoubtedly would be. The character of a Court did not depend upon the profession of the Judges. Down to the reign of James I. the Court of Chancery was, more frequently than not, presided over by an ecclesiastic, but that did not make the Court of Chancery an Ecclesiastical Court. Again, the fact that Lord Stowell, Dr. Lushington, and. other laymen presided in the Court of Arches did not make that a lay or civil Court. The question in all such cases was not "Who are the Judges?" but "Under what authority do they sit?" Ever since the Reformation the Crown, being supreme in all
  886
  causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, united in itself both functions, and conferred these two functions upon the various Courts by which it was represented. As it had been pointed out in an able publication by Mr. Fremantle, cases had occurred in which not a single ecclesiastic had sat in the Court of Delegates upon appeals coming to them from the Court of Arches. But that fact did not make the Court of Delegates the less an Ecclesiastical Court; and there was no doubt that the new Court of Appeal, when sitting upon appeals from the Court of Arches, would be to all intents and purposes an Ecclesiastical Court, possessing powers of suspension and deprivation, and all other powers incidental to an Ecclesiastical Court. Within his own experience the Judicial Committee had exercised the painful duty of suspending a clergyman for disobeying the order of the Court and as a process for compelling obedience. They looked into the authorities in that case, and found that the Judicial Committee sat under the authority of a statute which gave them all the powers of the Court of Delegates—a Court which constantly exercised the power of suspending and depriving clergymen; and that power would clearly be transferred to the new tribunal. As to the postponement of the Bill, he would remind their Lordships that the question had been under discussion for years past; that their Lordships themselves had resigned their Appellate Jurisdiction as regarded England; and that the whole community were looking forward anxiously to the establishment of a new appellate tribunal. Why were their Lordships to delay the establishment of such a tribunal for England, because it was possible that hereafter Scotland and Ireland might also desire to resort to it? The Bill as it stood would not take effect till November in next year, and if it were delayed till next Session the new Appellate Court would not be formed till November two years. Their Lordships had been told that the object of the new Court was to get rid of double appeals; but a still more cogent reason was, that the House of Lords were not a Court sitting continuously, like other Courts of Judicature, and that their Lordships depended for the hearing of appeals upon very precarious assistance. The decisions in appeal cases were really the decisions,

  887
  not of the House of Lords, but of what might be termed a small Committee of the House, subject to the risks of illness and death; and one instance of the precariousness of this assistance had just occurred in the removal by death of a noble and learned Lord who had appeared till recently to be stronger and more vigorous than he (Lord Hatherley) was, and whose valuable services had been lost to the House by a singularly rapid and unexpected illness. At such a time, and after this illustration of the risks which were run in the present constitution of the Appellate Court, he appealed to their Lordships no longer to disappoint the expectations of the country, which had been looking forward to this Bill with a rare unanimity.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was most unfair to their Lordships that they should be called upon in the last days of the Session to consider new points that had been raised in the other House, on which the public mind had not yet been formed, and as to which it was impossible to say what direction opinion would take. This was not now an entire measure. Their Lordships had discussed an English Court of Appeal; the other House had been discussing an Imperial Court of Appeal. It did not follow that what was good for the one was good for the other. Their object should be to establish such a Court as should carry the greatest weight in the feelings and opinions of men. The superstructure their Lordships were now asked to sanction would have too narrow a basis. It might seem presumptuous in a layman to discuss the question—but was it not one of the essential elements of the highest Court of Appeal, that as much as possible it should consist of the same persons—and of a small number of persons, whose opinions should not vary from time to time, and who should be of higher attainments and higher authority than both those who appeared before them and, if possible, those from whose judgments appeal was brought? On all these points the Bill would lower the position of our highest Court of Appeal. If it was one of the heaviest charges against the existing system, that possibly the decisions of the House of Lords and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might not always harmonize; what must it not be when there would be practically five Courts,
  888
  each supreme, and with such very varying elements—Irish, Scotch, Colonial, Indian? Further, it would lower the position of the Chancellor. As a Member of the House of Lords he could not be indifferent to that lowering of the dignity of the Great Seal of England—that Seal, to which such a romantic and mysterious interest was attached in English history. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord Hatherley) had not shown that there was any pressing necessity for passing the Bill this Session. One of the grounds assigned for depriving the House of Lords of its Appellate Jurisdiction was that its sittings were not continuous. But were the sittings of the Courts continuous? Their Lordships had a vacation of six months, and the Courts had a vacation of four months. Was the difference between those vacations sufficient to justify what was now proposed? As to the insufficient judicial strength of the House of Lords, why were not the suggestions of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees adopted by which the heads of all the Courts would have been made Peers for life? He thought no case of urgency had been made out for passing the Bill at such a period of the Session and should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down had spoken as if he imagined that the Bill as returned to their Lordships would transfer Irish and Scotch appeals from their Lordships' House to a new Imperial Court for the hearing of English, Irish, and Scotch Appeals. The noble Earl was completely mistaken.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he knew that was not intended by this Bill, but it laid the foundations for taking such a course next year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the arguments of the noble Earl were adapted to a case which was not before their Lordships. If their Lordships should be opposed to a transfer of the Scotch and Irish appeals, they would have ample opportunity when that transfer was proposed to consider and reject it; but he could imagine no course more likely to have the ultimate effect of forcing such a change on their Lordships, whether they approved it or not, than to say that all English appeals should be kept as at present, so long as

  889
  Scotch and Irish appeals were separated from English appeals. So far as concerned the addition of ecclesiastical appeals, he hoped—and he thought he had every reason to hope, from what had been said on both sides of the House—that the manner in which it was proposed to modify that alteration would be generally acceptable. So far as related to the general scheme and arrangements of the and all the important machinery provided for the union of Law and Equity and the consolidation of the judicial powers, hardly any substantial alteration had been made by the House of Commons in the Bill. In the constitution of the High Court of Justice, only one alteration had been made, and that was not by any means of vital importance; he referred to the alteration which confined the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor to the Court of Appeal. The fact that the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeal had been fixed in the other House at £5,000, instead of £6,000 per annum—though in strictness their Lordships had not inserted any amount in the Bill; being the privilege of the house of Commons to fix salaries—was not a matter which should lead their Lordships to reject the measure, although they might be of opinion that the larger sum should have been determined upon. Upon this point he must further remark that the Appellate Judges would, in all probability, be most often selected from experienced Judges in the Courts of the First Instance, in which their salaries were also £5,000 a-year, subject to considerable expenses; and he ventured to say that those eminent men would not be disinclined to accept the still higher and less laborious dignity of Judge of the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding that they would not, beyond the saving, in some cases, of circuit expenses, derive pecuniary benefit from the change of position. The cases where gentlemen obtaining large emoluments at the Bar would refuse to accept the dignity in consequence of the reduction in the amount of the salary were very rare, and might be left out of consideration. The only other change of importance which had been made in the Bill by the other House was that which left it to the discretion of the Crown to appoint any three persons besides those expressly mentioned, to sit as Judges in
  890
  the Court of Appeal: whereas in the Bill as it passed their Lordships' House, those three additional Judges were to be selected from the existing Judges. This change, however, was merely intended to facilitate by greater liberty of choice, the working of the Bill. In conclusion, he ventured to remind their Lordships that this Bill was the result of very careful deliberation, extending over many years, that it had been very carefully considered in its passage through both Houses, and that it was now, with but few exceptions, in the same form in which it had met with their Lordships' approval. If the measure were to be rejected now, the whole legal business of the country would be thrown into confusion until future legislation could be had on the subject, and no measure which on a future occasion their Lordships were likely to pass could be expected to be returned to them from the House of Commons as little altered as the present Bill had been, neither was it probable that it would come back to their Lordships at au earlier period of the Session.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONdesired to draw attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee, as to the great value attached in the Colonies, and especially in India, to the fact that, presumptively, appeals to the Privy Council were heard by Her Majesty herself, and that the Judicial Committee was composed of the ablest of Her Majesty's legal servants. He had been so much struck with this statement that he had asked many Indian officials about it, and they all confirmed it. He feared that there would not be equal satisfaction with the new Court of Judicature. Since, however, their Lordships had accepted the Bill on the second reading he felt that he could not at that last stage offer any opposition to the measure. He regretted that it had not been considered and debated at greater length when it was before their Lordships on the previous occasion.
  After a few words from Lord DENMAN, which were inaudible,
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 34: Majority 27.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor)

  Cairns, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Congleton, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Dunsany, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Foley, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hamner, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hatherloy, L.

  Devon, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Keane, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenmore, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Morley, E.

  Kildare, L.(M. Kildare.)

  Nelson, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Methuen L.

  Canterbury, V.

  Monson, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery

  Torrington, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  London, Bp.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Oxford. Bp.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Sudeley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and orrery.) [Teller]

  Waveney, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Wrottcsley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chan-dos, D. [Teller.]

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Rutland, D.

  Boston, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Clinton, L.

  Bute, M.

  Denman, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Bothltrst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buecleuch and Queensberry.)

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Saltoun, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Gainsborough, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Sinclair, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Thurlow, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Powis, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Wynford, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Original Motion agreed to; Commons Amendments considered accordingly; several Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5, line 12, leave out ("The Lord Chancellor").
  LORD CAIRNSobjected to the Amendment, pointing out that the effect of it would be to deprive the Lord Chancellor of that proper status as the head of the Chancery Division of the new Court to which his position entitled him, and that position would be taken by the Master of the Rolls. The Amendment in fact altered materially for the worse the position of the Lord Chancellor, and would place him in the position in which no Lord Chancellor had ever been placed before—that of being a stranger in a Court which had hitherto been called his own, causing him to sit as a mere unit in the Court of Appeal. He therefore asked their Lordships to disagree to the Commons' Amendment, so as to maintain the Lord Chancellor in the Primary Court, and keep up the necessary and useful connection between the Lord Chancellor and Chancery.
  Moved, to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause 5, page 2, line 12, viz., to leave out ("The Lord Chancellor.")—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not assent to the rejection of the Amendment made by the other House. It made, in his opinion, the Bill more symmetrical, and more in conformity with what would be the actual practice.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 36: Majority 12.
  Resolved in the Affirmative; and Commons' Amendment disagreed to; several Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Qualifications of Judges. Not required to be Serjeants-at-Law), after ("person") in line 11, leave out to ("Chancery") in line 13, and insert—
  ("Being or having been a barrister in England or Ireland, or an advocate in Scotland respectively of not less than fifteen years standing, or a Judge of the High Court of Justice of not less than one year's standing.")
  LORD CAIRNSmoved to omit the words inserted by the Commons making membership of the Bar in Scotland and Ireland a qualification for sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The insertion of those words was premature, and he proposed that they should be struck out.
  Amendment disagreed to; clause struck out.
  Clause 10 (Precedence of Judges).
  In line 28, leave out from ("The") to ("thereof") in line 36, and insert—
  "The ex officio Judges of the Court of Appeal shall rank in the Supreme Court in the order of their present respective official precedence; and after them the rest of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, whether additional or ordinary, shall rank according to the priority of their respective appointments to he Judges thereof: Provided always, that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to give such precedence in the Supreme Court 'to any additional Judge who shall have been Lord Chancellor as she may think fit."
  After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
  Amendments made, and Commons Amendments, as amended, agreed to.
  New Clause A. (Pension of Lord Chancellor.) Moved, to agree to the Amendment inserting the said Clause.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he considered that the clause was a most degrading one. The Judges of the Court of Appeal were to have £5,000 a-year; but the clause enacted that if the ex-Lord Chancellor did not attend the Appellate Court he should lose £5,000 a-year—that was to say, be deprived of his pension. That provision would place future Lord Chancellors in a degraded position. It was said that an ex-Lord Chancellor was bound to give his services to their Lordships' House, and he agreed that there was a moral obligation on them to do so—not as ex-Lord Chancellors, but as Peers. That moral obligation had been amply recognized not only by past and present ex-Lord Chancellors, but by his noble and learned Friend who formerly held the office of Lord Justice General in Scotland. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed to correct a clerical error in the clause, pointed out by the Clerk. The clause recited that the Judges were to receive retiring pensions "as provided by the Act of his late Majesty William I." He confessed he did not know what retiring pensions were provided for his retiring Judges by William the Conqueror. He proposed to amend the error by altering it to William IV.
  LORD CHELMSFORDremarked that this would be the alteration of a money clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in this case he thought their Lordships
  894
  might make the alteration without fear of the Commons taking objection on the score of Privilege. As to the clause itself, he should be as ready to render such service as an ex-Chancellor, without any such provision, as if lie were placed under the extremest legal compulsion, and he believed this would be the opinion of others; but lie should be sorry if their Lordships, on a point of so little practical operation, ran the risk of a collision with the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could understand the objection to their Lordships altering a money clause, but thought it must be in their power to strike it out.
  LORD CAIRNSwas of the same opinion; the Act of the last reign regulating the salary of the Lord Chancellor could not be repealed without the consent of both Houses.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhad not said that an objection by the House of Commons in this case would be a sound view of Privilege, but he feared these were days of exaggerated views of Privilege.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  New Clause B. (Salaries of future Judges.)
  Moved, to agree to the Amendment inserting the said Clause.
  LORD CAIRNSexpressed a doubt whether the new clause gave any salary to the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal, for after assigning the Lord Chancellor and Chief Justices, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chief Baron, "the same annual sums which the holders of those offices now respectively receive," it proceeded—" To each of the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal "—nothing —the following line giving to each of the other Judges of the High Court of Justice the sum of £5,000 a-year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was happy to state that after consulting a high authority connected with "another place," lie had found that the correction of a clerical error even in a money clause was not an alarming breach of Privilege. He should, consequently, propose to insert "and" after the words quoted by his noble and learned Friend, thus giving those Judges £5,000.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked that last year the Government proposed £6,000 as the salary of the Appellate Judges, and that though this year they proposed £5,000, the Select Committee substituted £6,000, which sum went down in red ink to the Commons, as an intimation of their Lordships' expectations of the character of the Court to which they transferred their Appellate Jurisdiction. High appointments were declined a short time ago by those to whom they were first offered, because the salary was only£5,000; and £1,000 a-year to a middle-aged man might make all the difference whether he was able to provide for his family or not. The Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and the Master of the Rolls, nominally Members of the Appellate Court, but practically Judges of the Primary Courts, were to have £8,000, £7,000, and £6,000; and if, as was argued by the Government elsewhere, these were the prizes of the profession, the best men would stand out and wait for them—so that the Primary Courts would have the men with the great prizes, and the Appellate Court, which ought to be the strongest, would have no prizes. A man would actually be benefited by being taken out of the Appellate Court and made a Chief Baron or Master of the Rolls. They were going to make a change even more important than the one he had alluded to—namely, to determine that in future there should be only one appeal from the decision of the Primary Courts. If the salaries were fixed as proposed in the Bill, and, as a result, the ablest men sought and obtained positions in the Primary Courts, their decisions, even though unanimous, might be irreversibly overturned by a majority in a Court composed of less able men. The question had been decided in the other House contrary to the opinion of men on both sides of the House who were most competent to give an opinion upon it; and, as it would not be necessary for the purposes of the Act to fix the salaries until next Session, he would suggest that the clause be omitted from the Bill in order to give the other House time to afford to the question the full consideration in all its bearings which it had not as yet received.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped their Lordships would not accede to the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend. The effect of such a decision
  896
  could not possibly be mistaken by the other House of Parliament, and if passed would render nugatory everything else that had been done. He did not believe that the adoption of £6,000 as the salary, instead of £5,000, would make the slightest difference in the ability of the persons who would be induced to accept positions on the Judicial Bench, because £6,000 would still be £2,000 less in some cases, and £1,000 less in others than the salaries paid to the highest class of Judges in the Primary Courts.
  LORD HATHERLEYalso hoped the proposal of his noble and learned Friend would not be acceded to. If the clause was struck out, the House of Commons could not avoid the conclusion that their Lordships' House, instead of simply desiring that the proposal contained in the clause should receive further consideration, wished to fix the amount of salary to be paid. The omission would therefore be fatal to the Bill, for the Commons would certainly not allow their Lordships to exercise their privilege of fixing the amount of the salaries of the Judges. The clause was a money clause, and it was the Privilege of the Commons solely to deal with it.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that to omit the clause would be no interference with the Privileges of the Commons; the effect of the omission would simply be to leave the matter open to the Commons to consider. However, he would not persist in asking the omission of the clause, but would content himself with protesting strongly against the proposal of the Bill.
  The word. "and" inserted.
  Moved, to agree to Clause B. (inserted by the Commons), as amended.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 46; Not-Contents 24: Majority 22.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  New Clauses (C.) (Retiring pensions of future Judges of High Court of Justice, and ordinary Judges of Court of Appeal); and (D.) (Salaries and Pensions how to be paid)) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Power to transfer jurisdiction of Judicial Committee by Order in Council).
  Moved, to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, and to insert in lieu thereof—

  897
  ("The Court of Appeal, when hearing any Appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes which may be referred to it in manner aforesaid, shall be constituted of such and so many of the Judges thereof, and shall be assisted by such assessors, being Archbishops or Bishops of the Church of England, as Her Majesty by any general rules made with the advice of the Judges of the said Court, or any five of them (of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one) and of the Archbishops and Bishops who are Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, or any two of them (and which general orders shall be made by Order in Council) may think fit to direct: Provided, That such rules shall be laid before each house of Parliament within forty days of making the same, if Parliament be then sitting; or, if not, then within forty days of the commencement of the then next ensuing Session, and if either House of Parliament shall within two months object to any of the said rules, it shall be void and of no effect."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had been taken severely to task for his remarks on this subject; but the surprise he had expressed was not at the transfer of ecclesiastical causes to the new Court of Appeal, but that the transfer should be effected without precautions against the effects of a change which would cause an entire revolution in this respect. There never had been a period at which ecclesiastical persons had not formed part of every Court for the hearing of ecclesiastical appeals.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Several Amendments disagreed to; some agreed to; some agreed to, with Amendments.
  A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be offered to the Commons for disagreeing to several of their Amendments; Committee to meet Tomorrow, at a quarter before Five o'clock.

  PROTEST.
  "DISSENTIENT:
  "1. Because the Bill was returned to this House late on Tuesday night, and the ten pages of important Amendments made by the Commons were only delivered to the Peers in the course of this morning, and the manner in which it might be proposed to deal with any of them either by rejection or alteration was unknown to the House generally until after the Motion was made that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  "2. Because by assenting to this Bill this House abandons its ancient prerogative of being the Supreme Court of Appeal in England when the expediency of having only one such Court for the United Kingdom, which was denied by the promoters of the Bill while it was passing
  898
  through this House, is now admitted by those who then voted against it, and as it must be uncertain whether the Court constituted under this Bill will give the same satisfaction to Scotland and Ireland which it is admitted that this House has afforded, it is important that time should be allowed for further consideration before this House agrees to establish a separate Court of Ultimate Appeal for England, which will justify a demand from Scotland and Ireland for similar Courts in their own capitals if no longer allowed to appeal to this House."
  "REDESDALE, BEAUCHAMP, RUTLAND, SELKIRK, HERTFORD, HOUGHTON, DENBIGH, CLANCARTY, ELLENBOROUGH, BATHURST, THURLOW, DONCASTER, ABERGAVENNY FEVERSHAM, GAINSBOROUGH, SALTOUN, WYNFORD.
  "For the whole protest down to the second England' in the second paragraph.
  "DENMAN." House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.