Sitting of 30 June 1873

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—William Miller, esquire, for Berwickshire; Viscount Grey de Wilton, for Bath.
SUPPLY—Resolutions [June 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Military Manœuvres* [215]; Militia (Service, &c.)* [216]; Public Records (Ireland) Act (1867) Amendment* [217].
Second Reading—National Debt Commissioners (Annuities)* [201]; Public Works Loan Commissioners (School and Sanitary Loans)* [203]; Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption)* [204]; Blackwater Bridge (Composition of Debt) [177]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 4, 5, and 6)* [208, 209, 210]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 4 and 5)* [211, 212].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature [154]—R.P.; Blackwater Bridge (re-comm.)* [176–213]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Intestates Widows and Children* [114–214].
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (South London Tramways)* [192].
Considered as amended—Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [142].
Withdrawn—Prison Ministers Act (1863) Amendment* [13]; General Valuation (Ireland)* [64].

IRELAND—LOANS TO IRISH RAILWAY COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
MR. M'CLUREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, How such Irish Railway Companies as may be disposed to avail themselves of the intimation to the effect that advances of money might be made by the State to Irish Railway Companies at low rates of interest should proceed in order to bring themselves within the scope of that intimation, and in what manner will the Government require to be satisfied that such advances will be attended with an adequate increased facility to the public and development of traffic?
MR. GLADSTONE: I presume, Sir, that the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast is founded upon a declaration made by me at an earlier period of the Session; but I wish he had adverted exactly to the character of that prior declaration. The Question appears to imply that I had stated on the part of the Government, that we were ready to deal with Irish Railway Companies individually and separately, if they asked for loans at low rates of interest. I have referred to the Report
1552
—for which I am not in any way responsible—of the prior declaration made by me in this House. I have no doubt it corresponds substantially with what I said, and I will venture to repeat my words on that occasion:—
"It was quite impossible, however," I said, "for the Government to take the initiative in such a matter"—that of dealing with the railway companies—"because it depended entirely upon the arrangements and upon the economical management of the railway companies themselves. The first and the most essential step would be that the Irish railway companies should agree upon some reasonable principle of amalgamation, and should arrange among themselves for the transfer of the debt; and when that step had been taken, the initiative would lie with the railway companies, because the security could only be accepted in the event of its being perfect."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 1166.]
My hon. Friend will, therefore, perceive that combination and agreement among the companies themselves are of absolute necessity according to the declaration which was made by me.

ARMY—AUTUMN MANŒUVRES—HORSE BLANKETS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that horse-blankets are not to be supplied to the horses taking part in the Autumn Manœuvres at Dartmoor and Cannock Chase this year; and, if it is true, what are the reasons for the horse-blankets being refused?
SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the experiment of not issuing horse-blankets to one regiment of cavalry was tried last year with perfectly satisfactory results. The opinion of the principal veterinary surgeon, as well as that of officers commanding regiments of cavalry and the deputy adjutants general of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, having been unanimously in favour of the non-issue of horse-blankets, the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has concurred in the decision that they should not be issued.

GENERAL VALUATION OF IRELAND— THE DUBLIN AND KINGSTOWN RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
THE O'CONOR DONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When and by whom, and in what form, the remonstrance was made on behalf of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company, which led to the reduction of the valuation of that line by more than one-half;

1553
and when did this revised valuation, amounting to £14,800, come before the Chairman of the county and the Recorder of the city of Dublin on appeal; and in what form did they express their sanction of it?
MR. BAXTER: Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon has rather misapprehended the answer I gave on Tuesday last. As furnished to me, it was so long that I was afraid it would weary the House, and in my attempt to abbreviate it, I have conveyed an erroneous impression to my hon. Friend's mind. The remonstrance on behalf of the railway was made in 1861 by the Chairman and other officers of the Company at several meetings with Sir Richard Griffith, but the revised valuation which followed did not come before the chairman of the county and the recorder of the city of Dublin on appeal. It was the allowances then made which had the effect of reducing the valuation, which at a subsequent period came before these Gentlemen, and with some modifications received their approval in the form of a judgment of the Court. These allowances are still in force, but in consequence of the increased profits of the line the valuation has also been increased.

CRIMINAL LAW—OUTRAGE AT THE BATH ELECTION—QUESTION.
MR. DIXONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any steps have been taken by the police authorities at Bath to discover and prosecute the persons who threw Cayenne pepper at Messrs. Cox and Adams on the 20th instant; and, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of a reward being offered by Government for their apprehension, in order that a stop may be put to a practice which has been repeated on several occasions?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, I have received a communication from the town clerk of Bath, stating that the police authorities of that city have done, and are doing, everything in their power to discover the perpetrators of the disgraceful outrage referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend. They have not been hitherto successful, but they have not abandoned hope, and are still pursuing their inquiries. With respect to the second part of the Question, I beg to say that
1554
rewards to those who may give evidence leading to the detection and punishment of offenders are only offered by Government in the very gravest cases, such as murder, and then only on the application of the magistrates; such rewards, if frequently given, having the obvious tendency to encourage important witnesses to withhold their evidence until they are assured of some pecuniary advantage. No such application from the magistrates has reached me. I understand, however, in this case, that rewards have been locally offered, and I trust that the efforts of the police may be successful, and that severe punishment may overtake those who have been guilty not only of a private injury, but of a public outrage, by this dastardly attempt to interfere with free discussion at a public meeting.

METROPOLIS—KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HOAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that on the night of Tuesday the 24th instant there was almost a total absence of policemen from duty in Kensington; why the gates of Kensington Gardens were open till close on midnight; whether they were so owing to there being no policeman or other official to close them; and, whether it has been reported to him that several robberies were committed that same night in and about the neighbourhood of Campden Hill?
  MR. BRUCE: I presume, Sir, my hon. Friend has not put these Questions without some grounds for believing that the statements they contain are well founded. If so, he has great cause to complain of his informant. The facts are these. The ordinary hour for closing the gates of Kensington Gardens is 9 o'clock. On the evening of the 24th vast numbers of carriages and great crowds of people assembled in Hyde Park to witness the return of the Shah from the Windsor Review, and it being necessary to preserve order, some few of the policemen from Kensington Gardens were withdrawn from their ordinary duties, and detained to a later hour than was expected, so that the north gates were not closed until 40 minutes past 9, and all the other gates between 9 and half-past 9. There was an ample body

  1555
  of police to preserve order, and no robberies nor any irregularities were reported to the Kensington police as having been committed during that night; and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the opportunity of stating a fact very creditable to the vast population of the West End of London and its suburbs, that during the past week not a single larceny was reported to the police as having been committed between Westminster and Staines.

  ARMY—ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY— OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If the War Office object to the First Captains of the Royal Marine Artillery having the same rank as the late First Captains of the Royal Regiment of Artillery; and, if so, if he would explain to the House for what reasons they object?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, a proposal was made to the War Office on the subject of the promotion of a portion of the captains of the Royal Marines generally to the brevet rank of major; in reply to which it was pointed out to what extent that particular proposal would have affected officers in the Army of the same standing, and an arrangement was effected, which it was hoped was satisfactory to both Services. No special reference has been made with regard to first captains of the Royal Marine Artillery.

  NAVY—CAPTAINS OF THE ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is not the case that the companies or batteries commanded by First Captains of the Royal Marine Artillery are of greater numerical strength (viz. 173 Officers and Men) than the average of batteries of the Royal Regiment of Artillery; whether the First Captains of the Marine Artillery have not a greater length of service than the late First Captains of the Royal Artillery; and, whether it is his intention to confer upon the former the same promotion as has been given to the latter; and, if not, if he would explain to the House for what reason he refuses?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, it was true that the companies or batteries commanded by first captains of the Royal Ma-
  1556
  rine Artillery were generally of greater numerical strength than the average of batteries of the Royal Regiment of Artillery; and that the first captains of the Marine Artillery had generally greater length of service than the late first captains of the Royal Artillery; but it did not follow that the duties of the two corps were precisely the same, nor that the number of men generally commanded by officers of the rank of captain were the same in the same corps. With reference to the third Question, a proposal to grant the identical promotion to the Royal Marine Artillery which had been given to the Royal Artillery had never been placed before the Admiralty, and therefore he had never had any opportunity of consenting or refusing. The proposals made had reference to the whole Marine force, both Infantry and Artillery, and, in consequence of representations made to the Admiralty, an arrangement had been effected by which a certain number of captains, both of Artillery and Infantry, had been promoted to the brevet rank of major.

  THE GENEVA AWARD—THE ARBITRATORS.—QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Why the proposed Vote for the purchase of Plate to be presented to certain of the Arbitrators in the Geneva Award has been postponed until this late period of the Session; whether he will inform the House as to the exact day on which he intends to bring forward this Vote; whether any steps have yet been taken with reference to the purchase or selection of the Plate in question; and, if so, what steps; and, further, whether a sum of £15,000 was not voted by Parliament last year to meet the expenses in connection with the Arbitration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am extremely sorry, Sir, that I was prevented by an imperative call from being in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes put the Question down before. The first part of the Question is very easy to answer. It is intended, as my hon. Friend knows, to submit a Vote for the purpose of purchasing plate, to be presented to the Arbitrators, and that Vote will be submitted at a convenient and proper period. [Laughter.] mean to say it will be submitted at a

  1557
  period when it can be conveniently considered by the House, which I have no doubt is my hon. Friend's object; but it is not usual when charges of this kind, limited in amount and of secondary importance, have to be brought forward after the presentation of the ordinary Estimates, nor would it be very convenient to the House to present them one by one. It is more convenient, and certainly according to the usual practice, to wait till the Government can see its way tolerably clear to bring them up with any small group of such charges which it may be their duty to propose to the House, and very shortly we shall be in a condition to do that. I cannot name a day when the Estimate will be proposed, but it will be laid on the Table with certain other charges of no great importance at a very early period. Steps have been taken with reference to the purchase and selection of the Plate in question. This was a case in which, the proceedings not depending entirely upon the action of the Government of this country, we did not, as we should probably otherwise have done, take the opinion of the House of Commons before any step was taken in the matter. The initiative was, in fact, taken at a very early period, as I think the House was informed some time ago, by the Government of the United States; and it would not have been becoming, I think, that the Government of this country should say, in a matter of this description, that they could not make any answer till they had had an opportunity of submitting the proposal to Parliament. It was not necessary to reserve the judgment of Parliament expressly in such a matter; but, of course, the judgment of Parliament is perfectly free. However, I may say that steps have been taken for the selection of the Plate in question, and if my hon. Friend asks what step, I believe the usual step—namely, that of ordering it. With regard to the amount voted by Parliament last year in connection with the Arbitration, owing to some accident, reference has not been made to the proceedings, but no doubt my hon. Friend is correct in regard to the amount.
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will ask the Prime Minister, Whether he, as First Minister of the Crown, considers it consistent with his
  1558
  duty to the constituency he represents, as well as to the Nation at large, thus secretly to expend sums of money unknown to Parliament, and without having previously obtained the sanction of the Representatives of the people?

FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY—BRITISH MINERAL OILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is being done to effect a settlement of the questions connected with British Mineral Oils in France, both as to claims and rates of import duty?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the question relating to British mineral oils, both as to claims and rates of import duty, would have been settled by the Protocol attached to the Treaty of the 5th of November last, and the inquiry into the claims had already been commenced before the mixed Commission at Paris. Her Majesty's Government are not yet informed of the views of the French Government with regard to the future proceedings of the Commission; but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has urged the settlement of these questions relating to mineral oils upon the attention of the French Government, in order that they may form part of any arrangement which may be come to in connection with the Treaty of Commerce of last year.

POOR LAW ELECTIONS (IRELAND)— FORGED VOTING PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether application was made to the Local Government Board during the months of March, April, or May 1873, to institute a prosecution against any persons on a charge of forging signatures to voting papers at the election of a poor law guardian for the electoral division of O'Brien's Bridge, in the Limerick Union; and, whether the Local Government Board refused to undertake such prosecution; and, if so, what were the grounds of the refusal?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that a case had occurred in which the attention of the Local Government Board had been directed to a charge of forging signatures to voting

  1559
  papers at the election in question; but the Local Government Board did not consider that they would be justified in undertaking prosecutions at the charge of funds derived from the Imperial Exchequer in cases of this kind, which were merely of local interest, and when it was open to any person able to prove the facts to proceed before the justices at petty sessions for the penalty.

  DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT 1863—DRAINAGE OF THE RIVERS SUCK AND SHANNON.
  MAJOR TRENCHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the state of the Shannon has been the means of preventing the undertaking of the drainage of the extensive districts bordering the River Suck ever since the year 1848, notwithstanding the frequent efforts of the persons affected to obtain the requisite permission to drain their lands; and, whether, having regard to the fact that there is no other outlet for the waters of the Suck except through the Shannon, and also that the latter river is under the sole control and guardianship of the Government, he will urge upon them the necessity which exists for taking such steps as may be necessary to place the river in a condition to fulfil its natural function; and, if not, whether he will state what steps should be taken, and by whom, to prevent the continuance of this dead lock?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not aware that the state of the Shannon has been the means of preventing the undertaking the drainage of those districts, and I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to urge upon the Government to take any steps in this matter, nor able to give any advice as to what other steps should be taken.
  MAJOR TRENCH: I beg, then, to give Notice that on an early day I shall move for certain Papers, which may make it patent to the right hon. Gentleman that the substance of what is set forth in my Question is in accordance with the simple facts.

GENERAL VALUATION OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government
  1560
  consider that no change of the present General Valuation of Ireland should take place until after the expiration of the twenty years for which the Irish Land Act was passed, and freedom of contract in certain cases prohibited?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am rather at a loss, Sir, to understand what is the precise meaning of the Question, or whether it expresses the precise view of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry County, but I will answer it as well as I can. Most certainly, I do not consider that no change of the present General Valuation of Ireland should take place, that is to say, that the present General Valuation should remain in force for all purposes till after the expiration of the twenty years for which the Act passed. On the contrary, we gave the opinion by the Bill we introduced this year, that some change should take place; but it is one question whether some change should take place for general purposes, and another whether it should take place immediately, or after an interval, for the purposes of the compensations under the Land Act. Perhaps the most interesting part of my answer will be that which has reference to the Valuation Bill now in this House. We were most desirous to proceed with that Bill, but there was a desire very generally expressed by hon. Members that it should be referred to a Select Committee. We undertook, therefore, to consider whether we could propose to refer it to a Select Committee during the present Session with the prospect of a satisfactory and sufficient investigation. We are bound to say we cannot, and under these circumstances, in conformity with the intimation given on a former evening, we do not intend to proceed with the Bill.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—PENSIONS TO WIDOWS OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office intended to do anything for the widow of the late Mr. Abbott, Consul General at Odessa? Mr. Abbott, who had been 32 years in the Consular service—27 in Persia and five in Odessa—had left his widow with nine children, totally unprovided for. As Mr. Abbott's

  1561
  health had been destroyed by his long residence in the East, he trusted that the case of the widow and orphan children would be made an exceptional one.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I am afraid, Sir, that the only answer I can give to my hon. Friend is, that there is no provision made in the Estimates whereby the Secretary of State could out of public funds give pensions to the widows and children of Consular Officers.

SIR SAMUEL BAKER—TELEGRAM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CADOGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can confirm the report that news has been received at the Foreign Office of the safety of Sir Samuel Baker?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I am happy Sir, to inform my hon. Friend and the House that two hours ago a telegram was received from Mr. Vivian, at Alexandria, dated this day, one o'clock. It is as follows:—
  "Telegram just received from Sir Samuel Baker, dated Khartoum, yesterday, reports his safe arrival there in good health, with all the other Europeans. The country as far as the Equator annexed to Egyptian dominion; all rebellions, intrigues, and slave trade completely put down; country orderly; Government perfectly organized; and road open as far as Zanzibar; El Zaraf navigable. Victory on June 8, with only 105 men, over army of Onioso. This mission completely successful."

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

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had to offer a few remarks on the important subject mooted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and, if the statement he had to make should be conformable to the views of his right hon. Friend, it might save both him and the House some trouble. His right hon. Friend had proposed that whatever might be the final Court of Appeal constituted under the Bill, the same should be the final Court of Appeal for Ireland and
  1562
  Scotland. With reference to that Motion, it was right that he should recall to the recollection of the House the declarations of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in introducing the Bill respectively to both Houses of Parliament. They stated that it was obvious it could not be considered, in the abstract, a merit in a measure of this kind, that it should deal with the Court of Appeal for one of the three countries only, leaving Scotch and Irish appeals to be still decided by the House of Lords. On the contrary, it was their view, as it must be the view of all, that to establish one Court of Appeal for all three countries was a great object of policy in the improvement of our jurisprudence. That being so, they had to give to Parliament the reason which led them and the Government to think that it was better, as the circumstances then stood, to confine their efforts to the establishment of a Court of Appeal for England alone. That reason was of a simple character, because it relied entirely on the opinion stated to prevail in Scotland and Ireland. They founded themselves on what they deemed to be no uncertain indications of that opinion, for evidence had been taken before the Committee of the House of Lords, to the effect that the "profession" and the people of Scotland and Ireland would greatly prefer that the Appellate Jurisdiction should continue in the House of Lords. That was the reason which induced the Government to adopt the form of the Bill as it now stood. But his right hon. Friend having raised the question anew, the Government had thought it their duty to make new inquiries, under the altered circumstances of the case, for the circumstances of the case had greatly altered. The opinion of Ireland and Scotland, which was unfavourable to the transfer of their appeals, was founded on the supposition that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was to continue in its entirety, and that the House of Lords would not only have the machinery, but the habits and traditions of a Court of Appeal in pretty constant action; whereas, on the contrary, by the introduction of the Bill, the position of the House of Lords would be materially, he might say essentially, changed, not only with respect to the mass of English

  1563
  appeals, but likewise with respect to the residue of business from Ireland and Scotland which would still theoretically and legally remain to it. No one could suppose that if the Bill were to pass, the House of Lords could continue to possess and exercise the same legal force, or to enjoy the same judicial weight in the country. The question which the Government had to put, therefore, was whether, presuming the jurisdiction of the House of Lords to be taken away as far as regarded English appeals, Irish and Scotch appeals should still remain to be decided by it. The question of the removal of English appeals might now be regarded as concluded. In the first place, it had been proposed by the Government to the House of Lords. In the second place, it had unanimously, or, at least, with substantial unanimity, been voted by the House of Lords, there having been no division on the subject, and a Bill removing that jurisdiction had been sent from the House of Lords to that House. In the House of Commons a greater diversity of opinion had been expressed by individual Members; but, after long and interesting debates of a discursive character on various provisions of the Bill, no division had been taken on this subject; and that House, following the steps of the other House of Parliament, had voted the removal of the appellate jurisdiction in English cases from the House of Lords. That being so, those who represented Ireland and Scotland were not only willing but desirous that the jurisdiction as to Irish and Scotch appeals should be removed from the House of Lords, and that the Bill should be adapted to those altered circumstances, o as to give the measure a character of greater completeness and efficiency. The question, therefore, which arose was, whether it would be possible so to adapt the measure without endangering its passing during the present Session, for he need not say that to endanger a measure which had been the result of such prolonged labour and consideration, and which contemplated improvements of such great importance, would be entirely contrary to the duty and inclinations of the Government. Well, the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would be quite practicable to introduce into the present measure the changes necessary for effecting the purpose his
  1564
  right hon. Friend had in view, as the Government understood it, without imposing upon Parliament any such additional labour or introducing any such great alterations into the structure of the Bill as would make it run any serious risk. He understood, however, that both in Ireland and in Scotland certain consequential changes might be found necessary owing to the transfer of Scotch and Irish Appeals to the new tribunal. He was not prepared, however, to say that it would be practicable to deal with these consequential changes during the present year, considering the point of the Session at which we had arrived. The question was, whether it would be possible to give the Court such a constitution and form as to make it a thoroughly satisfactory Court of Appeal for all these cases. That he understood was the object of the Motion of his right hon. Friend, and to that extent they concurred with him, and they would be prepared to propose changes, the precise form of which he could not now undertake to indicate, which, according to their views, and he hoped according to the judgment of the House, would have that effect. Now, as to the form of procedure, he would say one word. It would be possible to proceed in several methods for this purpose. It might be possible to introduce a separate Bill, introducing provisions so as to make the Bill applicable to Scotch and Irish appeals; but he did not ask the House to proceed in that method, because an element of uncertainty might be introduced with regard to the fate of that Bill which he was desirous to avoid. They might also proceed, by way of Instruction, to enable the Committee to change the Bill, so as to apply to Scotch and Irish appeals; but as no Notice had been given, that could not be done with regularity to-day, and though he believed it was not absolutely prevented by the forms of the House, it was not thought desirable to give Instruction to the Committee during the period when the Bill was in Progress. It was better that after the Speaker left the Chair and the House had entered on the details of the Bill, no change of that kind should be made at that stage. There was another course which was perfectly regular, and would be satisfactory to the House to pursue. What he should propose was this—to go through the Bill on the

  1565
  clauses as it stood, without touching in the Committee the subject-matter of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend; but while the House was in Committee, they would give Notice of the provisions they proposed to introduce to give effect to that Amendment, and when they had reported the Bill after Committee, they would propose to re-commit it for the purpose of giving effect to those changes. He hoped he had sufficiently explained to his right hon. Friend and the House the views they entertained, and the satisfaction with which they felt themselves able to accede to the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  DR. BALLsaid, he must express his deep regret that the Government had thought it desirable to abolish the hereditary Court of Appeal in the House of Lords, and he must say that a great opportunity had been lost for preserving that Court. It was a tribunal of high reputation, credit, and authority, and if it could have been retained, no one would have been a stronger advocate for its retention than himself. But, since it was to be abolished, he thought it most undesirable that there should exist several distinct Courts of appeal dealing with the same law, considering the danger of conflicting decisions on the same subject. It therefore became a matter of vital importance that the Representatives of Ireland and Scotland should consider how they would be placed by this Bill. The view taken in Ireland had been modified by the course of circumstances. The Judges there had come to an unanimous resolution, expressing the wish that Irish appeals should be heard by the same tribunal that heard English appeals. The Irish Bar had come to a similar resolution; they had also passed another resolution, that in the Court of Appeal the Irish Bench should have a fair representation in the constitution of the tribunal. With respect to the Statute and Common Law of Ireland, while the latter was the same as that of England, the former was not, in consequence of the legislation of the Irish Parliament, and also in consequence of the practice which had since prevailed of legislating exceptionally for Ireland; and, therefore, a fair representation of the Irish Bench was necessary. If, in the constitution of the tribunal, the Members composing it were small in number, of course the Irish representa-
  1566
  tion would be proportionally small; but if, on the other hand, the tribunal was numerously composed, then the Irish representation should be increased and adjusted in proportion. Then, with regard to Scotland, whose laws were different in many respects from those of England, it would be necessary that Scotland should also have a fair judicial representation in the constitution of the tribunal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not think that they were making any extraordinary or extravagant demands. In asking what he did for Ireland, he felt he only asked what was fair, and that the Irish Judges should have the same salaries as the English Judges.
  MR. BOUVERIEthought the statement of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government must be satisfactory to all those who were disposed to support the Motion of which he (Mr. Bouverie) had given Notice. There was now no necessity for him to make that Motion, the course of proceeding indicated by his right hon. Friend being perfectly satisfactory to effect the object he had in view. On the part of his Scotch Colleagues, who sympathized with the object of his Motion, he would say that they also sympathized with what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball), that to make the Court satisfactory and efficient, it would be necessary to have a fair representation of the Judges of the two sister countries on the Appellate Tribunal. He was glad his right hon. Friend had acceded to his proposal. The Government had originally concurred in the object of the Motion; but they had been deterred from making the proposal by an apprehension that the Representatives of the sister countries would not concur in the change. The fact, however, was, that when English appeals were removed from the House of Lords, it would have been impossible to retain the Irish and Scotch appeals there, because such appellate jurisdiction was a mere off-shoot of the more ancient appellate jurisdiction for England. That jurisdiction, he believed, had existed before Parliament itself, for it was part of flue authority of the Concilium Magnum. It might have been possible under other circumstances to have modified and retained the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. But that time had gone by, when the House

  1567
  of Lords themselves had abandoned all desire to retain the appellate jurisdiction; and it would have been impossible after that to have set it up again by legislation. He should give a hearty support to the Government in carrying out their plan. And with regard to the claim of Scotland and Ireland, he did not think that anyone could have any sound objection to it.
  MR. DISRAELI: It appears to me to be not a very satisfactory proposition that the House should be called on to decide on this important measure upon bringing up the Report of the Committee. I agree that it is an inconvenient, even though it may be a legitimate course, to move an Instruction whilst we are in Committee; but it appears to me that there is a mode of proceeding that would get us out of the difficulty in a satisfactory manner; and that is that this debate should be adjourned whilst Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, and that before we go into Committee these Instructions should be put upon the Paper. Though I do not put my knowledge upon the subject in competition with that of many hon. Gentlemen who have studied it, yet I should feel—and I think the majority of the House would feel great difficulty in deciding upon the many points which we should have to consider without having the distinct propositions of the Government before us. It appears to me that no time would be lost by following the course which I venture to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that he should not ask the House to proceed in the manner that he has indicated, which is, I think, unusual and unsatisfactory; but that he should adjourn this debate before Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair, and that then he should frame his instructions and place them before the House, in complete comprehension of the Bill on which we have to decide.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped the House would not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), which, though it sounded reasonable, would in truth postpone the Bill almost indefinitely. Although the subject was of importance, the absolute changes in the structure of the Bill suggested by the Government were really
  1568
  small in themselves, and would best be carried out in the manner proposed by the Prime Minister; as, if any other course were pursued, it would lead to a considerable prolongation of the Session. The Government did not propose to deal with the Courts of Scotland and Ireland as regarded First Instance, but so to deal with the question at present, as to make the Bill as short and simple as could be. He admitted that what was now proposed should be done upon full consideration by those whose interests were affected, with whom it might be necessary to have some communication upon the subject; but meanwhile there was plenty to do; the Bill might proceed; the full Notice would be given of the changes which would be necessary.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he was desirous to express his strong opinion in favour of the views expressed to the House by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), in reference to a just representation of Ireland in the constitution of the tribunal. He was convinced that the further the House proceeded with the Bill the greater would be their conviction that they had committed a fatal error in abolishing the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. It would be almost impossible to constitute a Court of Appeal which would give the same satisfaction and be as economical; and never had a change of such magnitude been made upon such slight authority, for, excepting the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, there was not a single great authority, living or dead, in favour of the change. It was a great constitutional amendment upon which the country had had no opportunity of giving an opinion; and he believed that when the country and the various Law Societies considered this question they would come to the conclusion that there was no Court of Appeal so efficient and so economical as a properly-constituted House of Lords. Certain accidental deficiencies no doubt existed in that tribunal, but they might easily be remedied—for instance, by the appointment of three Law Lords with salaries, and by providing that the House should sit to hear appeals all the year round. It would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would state to the House what were the changes which he con-

  1569
  templated in reference to Scotland and Ireland; and speaking for Ireland, he would say that the feeling in that country was strongly in favour of the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Another point for consideration was the cost of the proposed Appeal Court. It was understood that the Court in its constitution would include the three Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, and three Puisne Judges, and if so, the additional expense of constituting a new Court of Appeal, compared with the existing tribunal, would be very considerable. He hoped the Government would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and would see that, although the changes to be made were small, they would still require great consideration. Until the House knew what the changes were to be which were to result from the communications between the Law Officers for Scotland and those for Ireland, it would be proceeding in the dark if it passed a single clause of the Bill.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not wish to delay or imperil the Bill, but he saw great difficulties in accepting it as it stood. It was true the proposal to include Scotland and Ireland did not affect the question of Courts of First Instance, but it most materially affected the whole question of the Appellate jurisdiction; and he could not understand how they were to deal with the 6th clause, and the clauses which hung upon it, without ascertaining how they were to deal with the Irish and Scotch elements of the Appellate Court. It affected not only organization, but also the financial clauses, which had been little explained, and were unintelligible until they knew what the, scheme was to be. He concurred in the announced intention of the Government to make one great Court of Appeal for the whole Empire. This ought to be a very great Court, and one with the most consummate authority, because it was to settle the law finally for a great people. He also concurred in the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords ought to be abolished, but he had never concealed from himself the gravity of such a step, and that nothing could justify its being taken, except the substitution for it of a Court most carefully constituted. He concurred, too,
  1570
  in the abolition of the intermediate appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and the Lords Justices; but the very fact of intermediate appeal being abolished made it the more necessary to be extremely careful in considering the character of the new Court of Appeal. How was that Court to be constituted? What was wanted was a Court, homogeneous in its nature, and composed of the most eminent men that could be procured. Well, in the House of Lords we had a Court of a more or less homogeneous character; but that to be established by the Bill would consist of three separate elements, different in character, constitution, rank, and emolument. There were to be three classes of Judges—ex officio, ordinary, and occasional; and that, on the face of it, would be a grave defect in a Final Court of Appeal, and would diminish its authority. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, moreover, proposed to reduce the salaries of the Members to £5,000, and so put thorn on the level of the Court below, from which they wore to be a Court of Appeal. Why, as the Bill stood, there was every element introduced which was calculated to throw discredit upon the Final and Ultimate Court of Appeal in this country. The ex officio Judges were to be the Lord Chancellor, the Chiefs of the Courts of Common Law, and the Master of the Rolls, who were also to be occupied as Judges of the Court of First Instance, where their principal and ordinary occupation would be. Of course, these ex officio Judges would not attend to their ex officio duties any more than other ex officio officers, except on show occasions, such as the hearing of ecclesiastical cases which excited the sectarian mind. How often did ex officio Members attend the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? What were termed the occasional Judges, the Law Lords, were to attend, if they gave their consent in writing; but there was to be no compulsion whatever as regarded their attendance. He (Mr. Harcourt), however, thought that functionaries, however high, if they received pensions from the State, ought to render services if they were able to do so. The unknown quantity of the equation was made up of the Irish and Scotch Judges, of whom they were to know no more until they got into Committee. The result would be,

  1571
  we should have nine ordinary Judges left, and they would be the only Judges who would do work. There would be the three Judges of the present Committee of the Privy Council, who would have enough to do in hearing Indian and Colonial appeals; three more, the Lords Justices, with the Lord Chancellor, would have plenty to do in hearing Chancery appeals and the appeals which now went to the House of Lords; and there would remain to settle the whole law of England three Puisne Judges, who were to be substituted for the Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords. He ventured to think that neither the country nor the profession would be satisfied with such an Appeal Court as that. Why, we might have three Puisne Judges in the Upper Court, over-ruling three Puisne Judges in the Court below; or we might have a greater number of Judges of superior ability in the Court below over-ruled by a smaller number of Judges of less authority. He could not part with the jurisdiction of the House of Lords and of the Exchequer Chamber for such a Court as that. The Court of Final Appeal ought not to consist of fewer than five Members under any circumstances, if there were to be three Members in the Court below. Ex officio Judges were also a mistake; we ought to have Judges whose attendance could be counted upon, and who could be required to attend. One of the great evils of the House of Lords was that there was no power of compelling noble Lords to attend, and, therefore, one never knew who would be there. His Amendment was directed against those distinctions in the Appellate Court, and to make it consist of Members whose attendance could always be relied upon. He would remove the present Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and the Master of the Rolls altogether out of the Court of First Instance, and put them in the Appellate Court, and appoint as their successors the ordinary Judges of Appeal. In that way we should get a homogeneous Court of Appeal, of which the Lord Chancellor should be President, and the Lord Chief Justice of England Vice President. The Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and the Master of the Rolls should continue in receipt of their present salaries, and their successors fall to the level of the rest of the Court. With them, he would associate four
  1572
  Judges of the Privy Council, two Lords Justices, and two Scotch and Irish Judges, and such of the ex-Chancellors as they could command the services of. That would form a fixed permanent tribunal, upon whose attendance we could count, and a Court which would command great respect. If they had three ex-Chancellors to attend, that would give them a fixed Court of 15; without them, it would be a Court of 12, and each division would never be less than five. Having offered those observations on the Court of Appeal, he would now proceed to say a few words with respect to the Court of First Instance, as proposed by the Bill. He apprehended that the object of the authors of the Bill was to do away with all distinctions of jurisdiction—to merge the Courts of First Instance into one homogeneous and harmonious whole, and give it universal jurisdiction, and in that he entirely concurred. That was done absolutely in the first four clauses of the Bill, but what he complained of was that in later clauses, that work of amalgamation was undone. It was like Penelope's web. A web was woven all night in order to be undone the next day. Why, in the name of common sense, were the Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, or the Master of the Rolls to be continued? It appeared if the Bill passed as it stood, the whole attempt which it made towards the fusion of Law and Equity would become in the end, a mere nullity. He was willing to agree to any arrangement of a transitional character to meet the present difficulties; but if they looked at the 5th clause they would find that it perpetuated and stereotyped the distinctions in the existing system. What was the object of these Divisions? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, very truly, that business must be distributed. Of course, it must; but to do that it was not necessary to stereotype Divisions of that character. They left the Court of Appeal to distribute its business according to time and circumstances, and why ought not the Court of First Instance to be allowed to act likewise? The reason for maintaining the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and Master of the Rolls appeared to be a matter of sentiment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he

  1573
  did not like to change ancient names; but he was not so weak upon the ancient jurisdiction of the House of Lords. The fact was, the Bill had been spoilt by that desire of maintaining the dignity and the existence of these separate Chiefs in separate Courts. Looking at the measure from that point of view, it was not, he considered, that which the Government had originally intended to propose, but it had been modified to gratify the feelings of the Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, and it was rather strange that there would be a Chief Baron without any Puisne Judges. The patronage clause would also show the spirit in which the measure had been framed. By the 80th clause the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, of all the Chief Judges, and of the Master of the Rolls, was to be exercised as heretofore, but the patronage of all the Puisne Judges was to be exercised in such manner as Her Majesty might by Sign Manual direct. Why was all the patronage of the Puisne Judges to be placed at the disposal of the Sign Manual? He ventured to suggest that all difficulty would be removed with reference to the maintenance of the dignity, emolument, and offices of the chiefs of the Divisions by removing them into the Appellate Court. These Chiefs of Divisions were of no use at all. Over whom was the Master of the Rolls to preside? By an Amendment he (Mr. Harcourt) perceived that the Master of the Rolls was to be made President of the First Division of the Court, but the Judges in Equity sat alone. The fact was that as the Lords Justices were going up to the Appellate Court, he would have to preside over himself, no doubt with great satisfaction to himself and the public at large. Why the thing was ludicrous in the extreme. To keep him to do the work of a Vice Chancellor, with no difference but in name, with a higher salary and dignity, savoured much of what might be called a job. A few words as to the financial results of the Bill. He ventured to say that the financial character of the Bill entirely depended upon keeping or doing away with these Divisions. If we kept these Divisions, we prevented that distribution of business to the best advantage, and that economy of labour which we could only get by having all the Judges on an equal footing without Divisions,
  1574
  so as to be able to distribute them to the best advantage. Moreover, if they could weld Equity and Common Law into a homogeneous whole, they would accomplish much, but that could not be done, if these Divisions were maintained. As to the consent of the hon. and learned Gentleman to provide for an increase of the Judicial Staff in Equity, he (Mr. Harcourt) regarded it as a sort of sop to the hon. Member the Cerberus for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). It was absurd to suppose that to enable a Common Law Judge to administer justice in a case in which an Equity question arose, it would be necessary for an Equity Judge to sit beside him to "coach" him in Equity. It was said, that the Common Law Judges knew nothing of Equity, and therefore it was supposed that by such a course, they would have to administer Equity under the guidance of an Equity dry-nurse, placing them very much in the condition of lay Lords in appeals in the House of Lords, who had a lawyer between them, who whispered in their ears what they were to say. The provisions of the Bill did not provide for what he called a fusion of Law and Equity, and the proposal-of an Equity Judge for each of the Common Law Divisions was anything but a complimentary commentary on the scheme for legal education which was proposed last year by the present Lord Chancellor? He (Mr. Harcourt) did not admit that those who had received a good legal education were incapable of administering both Law and Equity. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, who was an Equity lawyer, and had never studied Common Law, never felt any difficulty in giving an opinion on rating or anything else, without a moment's hesitation, although sometimes he was not correct, as in a recent case, when he said that misdemeanour was punishable with three years' imprisonment; but that, no doubt, was a venial error in an Equity barrister. The late Mr. Justice Willes, who had perhaps never been in a criminal Court in his life before his appointment as Judge, was enabled by a few months' study of "Russell on Crime," to become as competent to administer the criminal law as any barrister who had extensively practised at sessions. He, therefore, could not accept the statement, that a Common Law Judge was not capable of admi-

  1575
  nistering Equity without the assistance of an Equity dry-nurse. They had passed an Act to enable County Court Judges to administer Equity business, and yet Common Law Judges were not thought fit to do the same without having a "coach" beside them. If the Common Law Judges were incapable, who was to "coach" them? There must be some additional Judges to teach them their Equity lessons. How and when were the three Equity Judges who were to "coach" the Common Law Judges to be appointed? Were they to wait, until vacancies arose, in which case the public would suffer; or were they to be appointed at once, which would materially increase the working expenses? They could not arrange when the right man was to die, in the right direction, at the right time, to make a vacancy, and two things must happen: either they must create three additional Judges, or if not—four not being able to do the work of the country—the fusion of Law and Equity must come to an end. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire wished to have three additional Judges appointed in Chancery, but there was no provision to that effect in the Bill. If they made the whole of the Courts homogeneous they might do a great deal more work with fewer Judges; but before they proceeded much further with the Bill some estimate should be laid before the House of what was expected to be its financial consequence. He had looked at it very carefully, and he believed that, like all other measures of Law reform, it would only lead to an enormous increase in the Vote for Law and Justice. In all the Law reforms he had witnessed, he had invariably observed them accompanied with the creation of new offices. The same was the case here. The old places were kept up, new ones were created, and the expenditure enormously increased. If they wanted to establish a real fusion of Law and Equity, they must make a real fusion of the Staff as between the Common Law Courts and the Equity Courts. One great matter, which was at the bottom of all Law reform, was not dealt with by this measure at all, and that was the position of the Lord Chancellor. As long as they kept the head of the great judicial system in the position of a political officer, changing according to
  1576
  the vicissitudes of party, they would never have a judicial system worthy of the name. One of the necessary consequences of the passing of the Bill would be a reform in the office of Lord Chancellor; for it was impossible that one man could properly perform the duties of a Cabinet Minister, the Head of the Court of Appeal, a Judge of the First Instance, a man who had to look after clerical magistrates, to appoint clergy, and to see to lunatics, and all the miscellaneous duties which belonged to the office of Lord Chancellor. They were constructing a new system of Appellate Jurisdiction, with a weather vane at the top, changing with all the changes of party, and having decided on abolishing the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords there was no excuse for retaining the office of Lord Chancellor as a political office. The Bill had great merit in the object it aimed at, but it had great defects in its method of attempting to achieve those objects. He should like to remedy the defects of the existing system, but he was not at all disposed to accept the proposal that they should pass anything just because it was a reform. There was an attempt to deal summarily in getting through what might be said to be the only Bill of the Session; but that it was the only Bill of the Session, was the very reason why they should try to make it a useful measure, for the country had been 20 years getting a practical measure of Law Reform at all, and after this Bill passed it would probably be many years before the subject would be taken up again. It was said that the Bill contained powers of transformation, by which a great deal might be effected which the Bill did not do, because there were a number of influences at work which had deterred the Government from proposing to deal with them by the Bill. But would not these very influences prevent the Government from using the powers of transformation which the Bill contained? He wished the Bill had been framed with a bolder hand, and thought it was the duty of the House to strengthen the hands of the Government so as to enable them to make the Bill complete and not to lose the best opportunity Parliament had ever had of passing a measure of Law Reform.
  MR. HUNTbelieved that if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had been proceeded with, the defects of the measure would have proved so glaring that it would have been impossible for the Government to resist the proposal. He was never more surprised than when he heard the Prime Minister ask the House to go into Committee as upon an English Bill, with the understanding that when a particular clause was reached it should be turned into a Scotch and Irish Bill as well. There was some excuse for the faults of the measure in the part relating to the Appellate Jurisdiction, they had not the advantage of the same assistance from the Judicature Commission which they had enjoyed with respect to other portions of the Bill. He had always regretted that the question of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was not referred to that Commission. They had now arrived at the question—what they were to do? The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government invited the House to proceed with the Bill as it stood in Committee, with the intention of entirely altering it, as regarded the question of the appellate jurisdiction, on the Report. If they were to proceed on the assumption that the appellate jurisdiction was only to deal with English litigation, and were afterwards to deal with it as affecting Ireland and Scotland also, the House might just as well not have gone into Committee at all. The course proposed reminded him of a letter which, having given very minute instructions as to what was to be done, followed them up by a postscript saying—"Consider this letter as not written." The right course, as it appeared to him, had been suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)—namely, to adjourn the debate now, so as to give the Government an opportunity of placing such Amendments on the Paper as might in their view make the Bill applicable to Ireland and Scotland, and then to instruct the Committee to alter the Bill accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the hon. and learned Attorney General did not appear at one with respect to what was to be done. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the necessary Amendments
  1578
  might be easily effected, while the Attorney General spoke of them as difficult and complicated. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Important, but not complicated.] He was in the recollection of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman intimated that it would be necessary to have communications with persons in different parts of the United Kingdom as to the alterations to be made, and therefore that there would be delay. If the Amendments to be proposed were many and important the House ought to have them before going into Committee; on the other hand, if the Amendments were few and simple a very short time would suffice to enable the Government to put their views before the House. The greater part of the Bill was based upon the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, and therefore had his entire approbation; but he wanted to deal with the matter in a practical way. With regard to the 6th clause, for instance, which related to the constitution of the Court of Appeal, unless the House discussed it with reference to the appellate jurisdiction of that Court for all parts of the kingdom, it would be utterly impossible to deal with that clause at all. The clause dealt with three classes of Judges—ex officio, ordinary, and additional. The number of which the Court was to be composed must have reference to the business to be transacted, and if the appeals from Ireland and Scotland were to be added to the appeals contemplated when the Bill was drawn, Her Majesty's Government would have to state whether that additional business would not in their opinion require additional Judges. It was proposed that there should be five ex officio Judges of the Court of Appeal—the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron. Then came the question how many ex officio Judges the Court was to have from Ireland and Scotland. If the number of ex officio Judges was increased, then the point would be raised whether their number would not be out of proportion to the number of the ordinary Judges. There was also an important clause, the 50th, which provided that the Court might sit in sections. Now, great difference of opinion existed as to whether the Court should sit in sections; but if it were determined that it should, the

  1579
  question would arise whether there should be a Scotch and Irish Judge in each section. There were no fewer than 26 Amendments on the 6th clause at present, but with the views announced by the Government he ventured to predict that several other Amendments would be added by Scotch and Irish Members. He felt it would be so utterly a waste of time to go into Committee until they had the Amendments of Her Majesty's Government on the Paper, that he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motiom made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. HENLEYwished, before the question of adjournment was decided, to call the attention of the House and the Government to one part of the Bill which seemed to be unfair and unjust to the Common Law Judges, and he had reason to know that those eminent and learned persons had that feeling themselves. By the Bill the Government constituted a High Court of Justice, and it was evidently their intention that those who composed it should be on an equality with regard to salary, because the Government bringing into that High Court of Justice one eminent person who received a much lower salary than the others, had raised his salary to the nominal amount which the other Judges received. The Common Law Judges attached to that Court, however, instead of being in receipt of £5,000 a-year, would, after paying certain necessary expenses, be in the inferior position of receiving only £4,500 a-year. The circuit business was daily increasing, and it was of the greatest importance that the Judges should be the most able and eminent men that could be got; but it was not likely that the services of the best men of the Bar could be obtained for that low sum. Another matter ought not to be lost sight of—namely, that these Judges would have to bear the circuit expenses, not only personal, but of the necessary staff. The salaries were fixed 40 years ago, and had relatively decreased, whilst the business cast upon these Judges had vastly increased. It would be most unfortunate that this experiment in its first trial should be attended by heart burnings, or any sense of unfairness on the part of any of the
  1580
  Members of the new Court; and he would appeal to the Government to consider that for a very small additional expense they might put all the Judges of the High Court upon an equal footing.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that the reason why his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had objected to the adjournment of the debate was, that he apprehended it would interpose no inconsiderable delay in the progress of the Bill, and he hoped he was expressing the opinion of both sides of the House when he said that was not their desire. The sole reason for delay was that it was said, or supposed, that the alterations that would require to be made in the Bill would be of a structural and extensive character, and could not be readily adapted to the Bill after it had passed through Committee. That was not so. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had gone carefully over the Bill; he had himself done the same; he believed only four clauses would require any alteration, and in these four a very slight amount of alteration was all that would be necessary. The Bill dealt largely with alterations in the constitution of the present English Courts of Appeal and First Instance, but the Government did not propose to interfere in the slightest degree with the judicature of Ireland and Scotland. All that was proposed to be done in acceding to the terms of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was to transfer to the new Appeal Court the appellate jurisdiction now exercised by the House of Lords with regard to appeals from Ireland and Scotland. Two or three lines would be sufficient for that purpose; and the other alterations, which were simply with regard to the number of persons and the qualifications of the persons who would have to be added to the Court of Appeal, could be effected by a stroke of the pen. Perhaps the House might be in possession of the views of the Government by the time it arrived at the 6th clause, but even if it were not, it would be perfectly practicable and easy to settle the principle of the clause. It was suggested that there was a difference of opinion as to the Appellate Court sitting in sections, but it would be quite impossible for a single Court to dispose of any reasonable

  1581
  proportion of the business without sectional sittings. Nothing would be easier than to determine the number of the Judges of the Appeal Court having reference to England alone, and, afterwards to decide what addition should be made for Scotch and Irish appeals. There were to be provided for the present English appeals to the Court of Appeal in Chancery, the Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords. It had been said that in the case of the Scotch appeals, a Scotch Judge must be attached to the section which would have to hear those appeals. The number of appeals to the House of Lords each Session did not exceed 25, and it would be easy to place a Scotch Judge in the section before which they would be brought. If the House would go into Committee, they would not find any of the difficulties which had been suggested, insurmountable or even serious. He purposely abstained from replying to the long speech which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had evidently prepared for the second reading of the Bill, both because time would not allow of his doing so, and because he intended to deal with some of its criticisms in Committee. He hoped the House would not delay the Bill merely for the sake of ascertaining beforehand the exact terms of the Amendment the Government wished to make.
  MR. NEWDEGATEprotested against such extensive changes being made in the principle of the Bill, without due Notice having been given. The Amendments which were spoken of as only requiring a stroke of the pen would be essential alterations in substance, as much as substituting the name of the American President for that of the Queen in an Oaths Bill. He hoped the House would not consent to proceed any further with the Bill, at all events, until it should be seen what was the scheme of the Government with respect to the constitution of the Final Court of Appeal, that being the point upon which everything turned.
  MR. MATTHEWSprotested against proceeding with the Bill until the scheme of the Government should be placed upon paper. The hon. and learned Solicitor General would not deny that the Amendments of the Government were important; and surely the Govern-
  1582
  ment were not going to alter our whole judicial system without having a scheme of their own. Did they know what changes they were going to propose? If so, why need any time be lost? Were Scotland and Ireland to retain their intermediate Courts of Appeal—for they had them—while those of England were swept away? Was it intended to do away with the Irish Court of Exchequer Chamber? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I stated that we proposed no such alterations.] In any case, what was the use of discussing Amendments on the subject of the number of Members of the Court of Appeal, if the number must be altered when the whole scheme of the Government was produced? If intermediate appeals were to be retained in Scotland and Ireland, it was manifest that English rules would not be applicable to Irish and Scotch appeals, and the Bill would have to be remodelled in a great measure. Time ought to be allowed to hon. Members to consult their constituencies on the subject. Before the Committee of the House of Lords the Lord Advocate had said—
  "In my opinion, taking into account all I have heard from others upon the subject, to allow an appeal from the Scotch Courts to any tribunal other than the House of Lords would offend the sentiment of the Scotch people."
  He believed that the Irish people would also object strongly to appeals from the Irish Court of Exchequer Chamber going to any such Court of Appeal as that proposed in the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 192: Majority 22.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that, having had no opportunity of expressing his views on the second reading of the Bill, he wished to make a few remarks with regard to the Amendments which he had put on the Paper, as well as on the position in which the House had been placed by the course which the Government had taken with respect to the measure. He presumed from the course which the Government had taken that they were prepared to revolutionize the system of procedure, not only in the English, but also in the Irish and in the Scotch Courts of Law, otherwise we should be placed in the extraordinary

  1583
  position of having new rules which would have effect under the Court of Appeal in England, but would not have effect in the Irish and Scotch Courts of First Instance, so that decisions in the latter would often be quashed in the former. The Bill also provided for an alteration of the law which had hitherto prevailed in the Admiralty Courts. In fact, upon that subject a change of law was proposed, largely affecting international questions, and at variance with the rules generally recognized by civilized nations, so that there was danger of our getting involved in all sorts of international difficulties. In like manner if they were to make the new Court of Appeal the Court of Appeal for Ireland and Scotland, they would also have to make the 22nd clause extend to the proceedings which had to be taken in all the inferior Courts of both countries, and that would necessitate the re-modelling of the whole Scotch law of which that House was profoundly ignorant. Another point required careful consideration. There was a general opinion that a Minister of Justice was required in this country, and there was an almost equal consensus of opinion that the Lord Chancellor should be that Minister. But that duty could not be imposed upon him when the Bill burdened him by making him President of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court of Justice. In his opinion, it should have been the object of the Bill gradually to withdraw the Lord Chancellor from judicial functions, and concentrate his attention upon his political duties. He had, therefore, given Notice of an Amendment to take the Lord Chancellor from the High Court of Justice, and leave the Lord Chief Justice of England as President of that Court. In the course of time, the Lord Chancellor might probably come to be as little connected with the Court of Appeal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was with the Court with which he was nominally connected. One anomaly would strike most hon. Members. The Court of Appeal was to supersede the Privy Council for Indian Appeals, and yet it was to be so constituted that Her Majesty would be unable to call to it any Judge who had been a Judge in India until there had been a death vacancy among the first Members of the Court. He therefore proposed that it should be competent to Her Majesty to
  1584
  nominate as additional Members any Judges who had held judicial offices in India qualifying them now to be Members of the Judicial Committee. Another anomaly in the Bill was, that it ignored the head of the Common Law in Ireland, and made him ineligible as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. That slight ought not to be cast upon him. He submitted that in addition to the Judges named, the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland should be appointed to take part in the judicial proceedings of that tribunal. He was glad to see that the Attorney General proposed to remove the business of the Court of Bankruptcy from the already overworked Court of Chancery; but he regretted that it should have been transferred to the Court of Exchequer, instead of to the Fifth Division, which might be made a much more useful body than it would be under the Bill. The Fifth Division would consist of the Judges of the Probate and Admiralty Courts, whereas each of the other Divisions would consist of five Judges. He proposed to transfer three Common Law Judges to the Fifth Division, and assign to it the Bankruptcy business and the trial of Election Petitions, as well as the Probate and Divorce cases. That Court would then have to decide upon the personal status of parties; it might almost be called a Correctional Court. He had taken this opportunity of explaining his Amendments en bloc, hoping that they might thus be more clearly understood and better considered.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, the questions in issue were of great importance, requiring consideration, and he would therefore move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question before the House was, that he do now leave the Chair.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  MR. BOURKE,in proposing as an Amendment, that the Act should commence in November, 1875, instead of 1874, said, he thought the Bill could not be satisfactorily framed, unless the House knew exactly what was going to

  1585
  be done with the County Courts. The question of the County Courts had been considered by the Judicature Commission, and dove-tailed into the larger question of the Supreme Courts. The Bill proposed to introduce great changes with regard to the circuits. The arrangements recommended by the Judicature Commissioners with reference to the County Courts would materially interfere with the circuits. Therefore, he thought no alteration ought to be made in the circuits until those arrangements had been considered. By the Bill Law and Equity were to be fused in the Superior Courts; but the County Courts were to continue to sit as Courts of Law and as Courts of Equity. If, however, the jurisdiction of the County Courts was to be changed, that would alter the opinion of hon. Members as to the necessity of appointing additional Judges. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had recommended that commercial cases should be tried by Tribunals of Commerce in connection with County Courts. He should like to know whether that recommendation was likely to be adopted, because if it were adopted, the number of County Courts would have to be doubled, and the necessity of appointing additional Superior Judges would be diminished.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four," and insert the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five,"—(Mr. Bourke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that with the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could hardly think he was serious in proposing that the operation of the scheme for the improvement of the Superior Courts should be delayed until an alteration was made in the County Court system.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 25: Majority 40.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Union of existing Courts into one Supreme Court); and Clause 4 (Division of Supreme Court into a Court of original and a Court of appellate jurisdiction), agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Constitution of High Court of Justice).
  SIR. RICHARD BAGGALLAYproposed as an Amendment in page 2, line 12, after "follows," to leave out the words "the first Judges thereof," and insert "there shall be five ox-officio and eighteen ordinary Judges thereof; the ex-officio Judges." The object he had in view in proposing that and other Amendments, to follow in the same clause, was in the first instance to define the constitution of the Court, and then to declare who should be the first Judges appointed to it. This was the course proposed to be adopted in Clause 6, with reference to the Court of Appeal, and it was desirable that there should be uniformity. If the Amendments were carried the Court would include the additional Vice Chancellor provided for in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,in opposing the Amendment said, that as to the appointment of an additional Vice Chancellor, the Government were of opinion that it would not be expedient to make such an appointment. No mention was made of it in the Bill as it originally stood, and the provision with regard to it was made on an Amendment moved in the other House of Parliament by Lord Cairns, under a misapprehension by that noble Lord of what was intended to be done as to the Master of the Rolls. He had since looked into the question very carefully, and he was quite prepared to admit that if an additional Vice Chancellor were needed, considerations of the mere saving of money ought not to be allowed to enter into the matter. The cost was, at the same time, by no means an immaterial element in the question, and he found that an additional Vice Chancellor, including his staff of clerks, secretary, train-bearer, and other officers, would cost £15,815, besides a charge for pensions which would not be immediate, of about £4,000, making a total of nearly £20,000 a-year. The next point to be considered was, was the now Vice Chancellor wanted? For, if so, even £20,000 a-year ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of his appointment. Lord Cairns gave several reasons in favour of his proposal, alleging, among other things, that there was a large accumulation of business and very large

  1587
  arrears, which were increasing, in the Court of Chancery. He thought, however, he should be able to satisfy the Committee that the business of the Court had not increased, and the arrears were not increasing. In a letter to The Times from a practising solicitor, it was stated there were 507 cases standing for hearing before the Court of Chancery, and that it would take three years to get through them. Now, at the average rate of proceeding, the Court of Chancery disposed of upwards of 1,000 long causes in each legal year, or nine months' sittings, and instead of occupying three years, the 507 causes in question would occupy only four months and a-half. In proof that there was no increase of arrears within the last five years, the Master of the Rolls had twice to his certain knowledge, and he believed thrice, risen for want of business; and Lord Hatherley's experience when a Vice Chancellor was of a similar character, for he had also risen during that period from the same cause. Again, the Government intended to appoint three lawyers acquainted with Equity to the Common Law Courts, and if there was any accidental pressure, it would therefore be possible to relieve it by sending an additional Judge to the Chancery Division. Another objection raised, was that when evidence was taken vivâ voce, this would necessarily lengthen the time occupied by causes, and therefore they would not be able to dispose of as many causes in the Court of Chancery as they had been in the habit of doing. But he was not at all certain of that. The great causes which took a long time in hearing were generally of two or three classes, such as infringements of patents, obstruction of ancient lights, and the like. Those, however, were properly Common Law actions, and ought never to come into Equity at all. Under the new Bill, they would be tried in the Common Law Courts, and he did not believe, when they took away from it all the Common Law actions, that the business of the Court of Chancery would be at all increased by introducing vivâ voce evidence in the rare cases where it was wanted in an Equity suit. Moreover, the Chancery Division was not meant to be permanent, but merely transitional; and it was hoped in a short period, perhaps about 10 years, to obtain this result—that both practi-
  1588
  tioners and Judges would have become sufficiently familiar with the principles of Equity to administer it in a satisfactory manner in all the Courts. Something might be done in the meantime to diminish the arrears. Even now the whole number of causes ready for hearing could be disposed of in about four months. The number of arrears must be distinguished from the number of causes set down for hearing, and if the Judges sat six weeks more, in two years he believed they could dispose of the whole of the arrears. The Court of Chancery sat 27 weeks, and it would be no great hardship if it sat three weeks more in each year. The Return which he had obtained would bear out his statement that the business of the Court of Chancery was not increasing. The total number of causes set down for the five years ending Michaelmas, 1871, averaged about 2,000 a-year. The number set down for 1867 was 2,108, and for 1871, 2,194. Of those about three-fifths were long causes. The average number disposed of each week was 82, of which 50 were long causes. Then, again, the Petitions filed, and which were what was called Attendable—that was to say, not Petitions of Course—amounted in 1863 to 2,673, while in 1871 they amounted to 2,430, being 600 below the highest number reached in any intervening year. The total number of special orders of all kinds made on Motions, Causes, and Petitions in 1862 was 5,753; in 1871 it was 5,853; and it varied between those figures from 1863 to 1870. The Return as to bills filed further bore out the assertion that the business of the Court had not increased. In 1862 the number of bills filed was 2,177, whereas in 1871 it fell to 2,015. He might be told that, although the work to be done had not increased, there were at the beginning of Easter Term 46 causes more in arrear, but that had arisen from the fact that one Judge had retired from failing health, and another was, unfortunately ill. The Returns showed that there had been no increase worth mentioning in Chamber business during the five years from 1868 to 1872. The Court of Chancery had been for some years oppressed by orders for winding-up public companies, but that business also was slowly wearing out. The result of his statistics was that in no branch of

  1589
  Chancery business had there been any increase, and that there had been no increase of arrears except during the last five months, and no increase even then when compared with the commencement of the previous five years. There had, therefore, been no increase in the total business in Chancery requiring the aid of an additional Judge. The increase in the last few months had been partly owing to the painful circumstances which he had already mentioned, and partly to accidental causes and the great complaints had arisen from the fact that at Trinity Term this year there was set down for hearing the largest number of causes that had been known for some years, being 74 more than at Trinity Term last year. He did not believe there was any great Court of Judicature in the world which could give so good an account of itself with respect to arrears as the English Court of Chancery. A single cause might from various circumstances get behind; but the average length of time a cause remained in that Court was not six months from the time it was set down—an interval which his learned friends in the Common Law Courts told him would compare very favourably with the progress of business there. He submitted, then, that no case had been made out for the appointment of an additional Judge. He was satisfied, with Lord Hatherley, that with ordinary industry on the part of the Judges, and with the ordinary run of causes, there would be no necessity for this additional Judge. And he saw no reason to doubt the possibility that by the time this Bill came into operation as an Act—namely, by November, 1874—the Judges might rise before Christmas in that year for want of business. For these reasons he trusted the Committee would negative the Amendment.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was very much surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and he had no doubt the public would be equally surprised. That was said to be a Bill for the fusion of Law and Equity, and for the relief of the suitor, by saving him from being bandied about from one Court to another. But was that a Bill for the fusion of Law and Equity? It could not for a moment be thought so. For what did the hon. and learned Gentleman say? That we were to hope that, by means of the Bill, in the course of 10
  1590
  or 12 years the practitioners would be so educated in its principles that they would be able to carry them into effect. Therefore, that was a Bill for the education of Judges at the expense of the suitor, who in the meantime would be bandied backward and forward, as it was said he was now. He ventured to think that the discussion which had occurred that evening would give the public a very different opinion regarding this Bill from that expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General with a feeling of astonishment. It appeared to him to be an apt illustration of the saying that there was nothing so fallacious as figures except facts. He had undertaken to prove two propositions—first, that there was no present block in the Court of Chancery; and secondly, that the business of that Court had not sensibly increased of late years. Now, in the Court in which he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) practised—that of Vice Chancellor Wickens—they had not touched a single new cause since Easter, having been occupied for the last two months and a half in disposing of Motions, Petitions, and Further Considerations. During the same period the Court of Vice Chancellor Malins had been occupied in hearing nothing but Motions, Petitions, and Summonses. The fact was, there never was such a block in the Court of Chancery as at present. The number of causes set down for hearing last Term were no fewer than 600; 150 more than were ever set down for hearing at the same time of the year before. With regard to the increase of business in the Court of Chancery, his hon. and learned Friend had quoted Returns for five years only, beginning with 1867, which was an exceptional year. But a wider area should be taken. During the last nine years the number of causes set down had steadily increased from 1, 844 in 1863 to 2,275 in 1871—an increase of 431, or 23 to 24 per cent. Such an increase would justify an increase of the staff to the extent proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Surrey (Sir Richard Baggallay). But it was in Chambers that the chief pressure of business had been felt during the last few years. The amount of business transacted there had in-

  1591
  creased between 60 and 70 per cent, and it was obvious, seeing that there had been no increase in the staff of officials, that the same amount of care and time could not have been bestowed on the work done. The Judges were worn out with Court work before they went into Chambers, and the rapid way in which the work done there—sometimes quite as important as that which was transacted in Court was disposed of—had given rise to a wide-spread belief that business in Chambers was being "scamped" The business had increased to so great an extent that some of the Judges had absolutely broken down under it—they could not go on any longer under such a terrible strain. Tinder these circumstances, he thought it a most reasonable demand that the strength of the Court should be re-in-forced in proportion to the increase of business.
  MR. C. E. LEWIS,after referring to the sweeping character of the changes made in 1852 in the Court of Chancery, said, that Bill went to the opposite extreme, crystallized the present system in its worst possible form, kept everything in the old groove, and even aggravated matters by allotting to Equity, causes in which Courts of Common Law exercised an effective jurisdiction—such as the rectification and cancellation of deeds and cases of specific performance of contract. If the 31st clause were to stand, moreover, no case was made out for the appointment of an additional Vice Chancellor. Three classes of cases were mainly chargeable with delays in the Court of Chancery—namely, patent cases, air and light cases, and cases connected with the sewage arrangement of large towns. He wished to refer to one scandal connected with the transaction of Chamber business in the Court of Chancery. Few hon. Members were aware of the way in which Vice Chancellors were driven to conduct their business. They had to dispose of it at 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, after a heavy day's work, and some of the business was really important—such as the custody of infants and the maintenance of wards, and it ought to be transacted by a Vice Chancellor sitting in Chambers one day a-week. He, therefore, hoped that some provision would be made for compelling Judges of the Chancery Division to sit regularly in Chambers, not at the fag
  1592
  end of the day's work in Court, but separately, on certain days throughout the legal year. He was not impressed with the statistics of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. At least, it would be a novel experience to find 507 litigated causes disposed of in four months and a-half. Neither did he agree with him that they ought to congratulate themselves upon the speed with which business was disposed of in the Court of Chancery. The fact was, that the state of business in that Court was most unsatisfactory, though no doubt there were now exceptional causes for that state of things. Unless the 31st clause was altered in Committee—and he did not anticipate it would be—he could not vote for the appointment of an additional Vice Chancellor.
  MR. HINDE PALMERwished to know whether the House of Commons ought to reverse the decision of the House of Lords, with respect to having an additional Judge of the Court of Chancery? He believed that an additional Judge was absolutely essential to the fair working of the measure; and in order to get rid of the arrears which had accumulated; and, therefore, although he was strongly opposed to any unnecessary expenditure of the public money, he should vote for the addition, believing that the expense of delay in the Court of Chancery was of more importance than the expense of the additional Judge.
  DR. BALLsaid, he should support the proposition in favour of the appointment of an additional Judge, because he thought if two changes were made in other parts of the Bill, everybody would perceive that there ought to be an additional Judge in the First Division. There were six Judges in the Chancery Division, whereas the other Divisions only had five. Now, he would remove the Lord Chancellor from the First Division, because he held a strong opinion that the Appellate Judges ought not to sit in the Courts of First Instance, from which the appeals came. Under the present arrangement, the Lord Chancellor of England would actually be liable to have his judgment reversed in that Appellate Court by three Puisne Judges taken out of the Law Courts, and appointed to the office of Lord Justice. He maintained that the Lord Chancellor ought not to be brought into so humili-

  1593
  ating a position, and consequently he would take him out of the First Division. There was another change which ought to be made. The 14th section excluded from the operation of the Bill the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster. Now, if the business of that Court were transferred by the Bill to the new Court, there would be an increase of business which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had not alluded to at all, and if the business were not transferred, why should it not be? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said the original jurisdiction remained.] If that were so, the 22nd section made ten changes in the law which would not operate in the Palatine Court. Why should the exceptional jurisdiction of that Court be preserved? He submitted to his hon. and learned Friends, that they would promote justice by making the changes he had indicated, and they might then leave the additional Judge who had been introduced by the Lords.
  MR. W. FOWLERthought the taking of all the evidence in Chancery vivâ voce would involve a large amount of additional work in the Court, and strongly condemned the proposal that actions might be directed to be tried at Law after proceedings had been commenced in Equity. Having listened to the statistics of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and to the practical argument of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. E. Lewis) he was decidedly of opinion that the additional Judge was necessary. The bankruptcy business would require another Judge unless the present block in that part of the business was to continue, and if business which properly belonged to a Judge was no longer to be transacted by Registrars. He was informed that the Government had a new plan in reserve by which Chamber business was to be conducted by gentlemen perfectly competent to discharge the duties, although they were not so highly trained as were the Judges, and he trusted that some legal authority on the Treasury bench would explain that plan to the Committee. In his opinion, the present state of the Chamber business of the Court of Chancery was discreditable to the country; and, unless something was done to effect a satisfactory clearance of that business, more Judges must be appointed. He would suggest
  1594
  that it would be better if the vote were taken on the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, instead of on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes).
  MR. F. S. POWELLhoped that the Equity jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Lancaster would not be abolished. As a native of the county, he could assert that its abolition would be regarded with dismay.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, much might be said in favour of the retention of the Court of the Counties Palatine of Lancaster and Durham; but at the same time, if there was to be a fusion of Law and Equity, he could not see why these Courts should be preserved. As to making an additional Vice Chancellor he did not see the necessity for that if the Bill should pass in its present form.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAY,in reply, said, that nothing could be more delusive than the hon. and learned Solicitor General's statistics. In opposition to those statistics, he submitted the actual number of cases in arrear on the same day in the years 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1873, and they were respectively 302, 461, 431, and 536. A Court of Equity, disposing of 50 cases a-week, with the evidence already taken, and a subsequent reference to Chambers to take voluminous accounts, was altogether a different thing from a Court of Common Law taking evidence and disposing of a matter once for all. The Judges ought to spend more time in Chambers, and they ought to do work which was now done by the chief clerks. He thought that the course which the present discussion had taken showed the inconvenience of proceeding with the consideration of the constitution of the High Court, before the Committee wore in possession of the views of the Government with regard to the Court of Appeal. It was proposed that the Master of the Rolls should be made a Judge of the Court of Appeal, as well as a Judge of the High Court of Justice. In that case, either the Court of Appeal would lose the services of one of the Equity Judges, or they would have one of the Equity Judges shorn of the proper amount of time necessary for dealing with Equity cases in the first instances. With regard to the suggestion thrown out by some hon. Gentlemen, it certainly did appear to him that

  1595
  it would be more convenient to take the decision of the Committee on the specific proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General than upon his own Amendment. Accordingly, if the Committee deemed it desirable to decide the question upon a subsequent Amendment, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment. He did not himself desire to do so, but he placed himself in the hands of the Committee. ["No, no!"]
  MR. VERNON HARCOURThoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. and learned Member was prepared to withdraw it; but the head of the Government had expressed his determination to prevent him withdrawing it, and so a division must be taken.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought it would be highly inconvenient that the division should be taken on the Amendment, because some hon. Gentlemen, who might be disposed to go with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Surrey (Sir Richard Baggallay) on the general proposition, would not be able to vote with him. At the same time, if the Government preferred that course, which was not generally considered the most courteous course, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would allow his Amendment to be negatived without a division.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) for the construction he put upon the motives of the Government; but there was no discourtesy in any hon. Member objecting to an Amendment being negatived, and there might be good reason for exercising the right on this occasion. The Business of the House would be seriously impeded, if a proposal was to be debated at great length and then withdrawn, without any opinion being expressed upon it.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RAIKESproposed, as an Amendment in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "Lord Chancellor," with a view to restoring the Bill to its original form, in which the Lord Chancellor was not named as a Judge of the High Court of Justice. To save the salary of a Vice Chancellor by requiring the Lord Chancellor to sit in the Court below, was like
  1596
  saving the salary of a Secretary to the Treasury by requiring the Prime Minister to discharge the duties of a Secretary. He thought it would not be conducive to the dignity of the Lord Chancellor to occupy the position of a Judge of First Instance, and be liable to have his judgments overturned by Judges of inferior dignity. The inconvenience of such a state of things might be seen in the practice of the existing Lord Chancellor who combined the function of Judge of a Court of First Instance and also of Appeal, for at present he was also acting Master of the Rolls, and by the present Bill there was a possibility of perpetuating such a system.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could take no exception to the Amendment, as the Lord Chancellor was placed in that position by an Amendment proposed by Lord Cairns, in the other House, with the object of preventing the Lord Chancellor from being a stranger in his own Court. It was not an important matter, and although he preferred the Bill as it originally stood, it would in its altered shape, only leave the Lord Chancellor in the position he now occupied. At present, he exercised an original jurisdiction, and was liable to have his judgments appealed against to the House of Lords. There was nothing derogatory in the clause, and he thought it would be better to retain it as it was.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Mover should wait until the Committee had decided how the 28th clause was to stand.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTpointed out that the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill stood, was not made President of the High Court of Appeal; but there was only a clause that the Lord Chief Justice should preside in his absence. He thought the original proposal of the Government was a far better one than the alteration made by the other House.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that there existed a power in the Bill, by which the Divisions could be done away with by Order of Council. The Divisions were only temporary, and were intended to bridge over the time till the Act got into full working. There were several reasons why they should retain the Lord Chancellor in the clause.
  DR. BALLsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr.

  1597
  Raikes) holding that it would be well to keep the Appellate Judges in their own sphere, and leave the other Judges in theirs.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that although he desired to defer as far as possible to alterations in the original Bill, made on the recommendation of so high an authority as Lord Cairns, he was not prepared to oppose an Amendment which agreed with the original view the Government took of the matter, and which met with the general concurrence of the Committee.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 13, the omission of the words "the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer." If the Committee adopted the clause as it stood, they would maintain and perpetuate Divisions of the Court which would virtually leave matters just as they were at present; for the clause not only referred to the high judicial functionaries in question now in office, but also to "their successors." It was, therefore, no temporary provision, but one that might be, and he believed would be, continued. His object was to make the Court of First Instance a homogeneous Court, and to strengthen the Court of Final Appeal by removing to it entirely, the Judges named in his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words, "the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsupported the Amendment on the ground that if the Divisions were retained, they would simply result in a change of name. The principle of the Bill was the so-called, or he should say miscalled fusion of Law and Equity, and that object would be defeated, if its provisions were not altered in the direction which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had pointed out. If the proposed Divisions were established Equity and Law would be as distinct in the future as they were at present, and the Bill, if it became law, would simply
  1598
  be a delusion. For who would commence an Equity suit in any of the Common Law Divisions whilst there was the Equity Division subsisting with its Judges specially versed in Equity learning, with all its officers and administrative arrangements adapted to Equity purposes just as at present? He differed from the Solicitor General in his interpretation of the 29th section. Under that section Her Majesty in Council it was true might, on the Report of the Judges, increase or diminish the present number of Divisions; but the same section gave power to increase as well as reduce the number of Judges attached to any Division, and there was nothing to limit the increase of appointments recommended by the Judges. It was said that in the course of time the Judges of the Common Law Courts would acquire such a knowledge of Equity as would qualify them to administer it; and, on the other hand, that the Judges of the Equity Courts would become equally competent to administer the Common Law; but he denied that the objects which the advocates of this part of the Bill had in view would be attained. He was willing that the Bill should have a trial, but if it passed in its present shape, he believed that all the hopes and aspirations which had been so long entertained of bringing Law and Equity under one common jurisdiction would be disappointed. He believed that the Bill, unless it were amended in this respect, would prove inefficient, and would fail to fulfil the purposes which it purported to effect. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend who had just addressed the Committee had fallen into a great mistake in the views he had expressed on the question of the fusion of Law and Equity. He had, with others, erroneously argued as if the transitional state of things under this Bill would be permanent. Many attempts in the nature of a fusion of Law and Equity had been made during the last 10 or 12 years, but there was a broad distinction between the Bill and all previous legislation. The object of the Bill was to bring about a fusion of Law and Equity, so that the suitors might have complete justice done to

  1599
  them in any one of the Courts to which they might go, and to have one Court of Appeal so constituted that all the most learned and eminent of the Judges should be members of it. Let the House consider what the fusion of Law and Equity meant. It was a system of jurisprudence under which any Court should administer complete justice from the beginning to the end of a suit or cause. The meaning of keeping up these Divisions was, that in the state of transition it would suit the convenience of the suitor to go to a certain Court for one species of relief and to another Court for another species of relief; but it mattered nothing whether the proposed Divisions remained, or whether the number of Judges would be diminished, because if any suitor went into the Common Law Division to ask for some equitable relief the Court would be bound to give it, and if he went into the Equity Division for relief at Common Law the Court would be bound to administer the Common Law, or else it would be set right by the Court of Appeal. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) would by depriving the Appellate Court of the presence of the Chief Judges weaken its authority. The object, however, of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that the services of the Judges of the Appellate Court should be confined to that Court; but that, in his (Mr. Walpole's) opinion, would impair the influence of the Court instead of increasing it. The two important elements of a Court of Appeal wore that the Judges should be independent of the Court below; and, secondly, that they should be familiar with the practice of those Courts; and to take away either of those elements would impair the whole. Entertaining those opinions he could not concur in the views of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, or in those of the hon. and learned Serjeant who had just spoken.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANalso opposed the Amendment. It was acknowledged that the present number of Courts of First Instance were not sufficient to transact all the business, and yet the hon and learned Gentleman would cut the staff down still further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated two reasons why the attempts which had been
  1600
  hitherto made to bring about a fusion of Law and Equity had failed; but there was a third reason, and that was that we had not men who had been trained in the principles of both Law and Equity, so as to enable them to deal with the questions of Law and Equity that came before them. During a period of transition the Judges must be taken as they were. By degrees both the Bench and the Bar would obtain the necessary training, to enable them to deal with all questions indiscriminately, and perhaps by the time the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained his seat on the Woolsack the Judges themselves would be able to carry out, what in the abstract he would admit to be the true and correct scheme—namely, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. HINDE PALMERobserved that the Amendment was directed to sweeping away all distinction between Law and Equity by getting rid of Divisions in the Court. Now, if those Divisions were to be in any sense permanent, he should be inclined to agree with those who thought it would be a great disadvantage to sanction them, but he looked upon them simply as necessarily of a provisional character. He did not think that without those Divisions, by way of initiation, they could possibly get such a scheme as this to work at all. He pointed out that the Divisions offered no obstruction to the general principle of the Bill—namely, the concurrent administration of Law and Equity, for the Bill expressly provided that the suitor should have full relief given to him by whatever tribunal to which he might resort. For those reasons, he could not support the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) proposed to omit the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from the operation of the clause. In doing that he would destroy the divisions of which he complained. As far as that matter was concerned, the Bill represented no more than the direct recommendations of the Judicature Commission, carried into effect by the present Lord Chancellor, and sanctioned by Lord Cairns, Lord Hatherley, and Lord Chelmsford, none of whom could be called bunglers in legislation. It was

  1601
  in vain, he supposed, for him to say over and over again that the Bill regarded these Divisions as only temporary, for the purpose of bridging over a period of transition. The Bill was to come into operation on the 1st of November, 1874, and at that time there would be in existence the Court of Chancery, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Admiralty, and the other Courts, all having business brought to a certain state of completion, and a number of suitors pressing to have their causes brought on. To talk of the fusion of Law and Equity was to talk ignorantly. Law and Equity were two things inherently distinct, and the distinction was not capable of being destroyed by Act of Parliament. All they could do was to secure that the suitor who went to one Court for his remedy should not be sent about his business without the relief which he could have got in another Court. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) wish that, without regard to common sense and the nature of things, one single Court should be made into a sort of hotchpot, and all property should be handed over, without respect to the nature of the business, now to one Judge now to another? What was intended was not to destroy the Courts of Equity or the Courts of Law, but to take care that in every Court, whether of Law or Equity, if the Equity case raised legal questions they should be there decided, and if the legal case raised equitable questions they should be there decided. In fact, the 21st section laid down in the plainest terms what was to be done if the Bill became law, and showed that the object was not that Law and Equity should be fused, but that they should be concurrently administered. Her Majesty in Council was to be empowered to reduce or increase the number of Divisions, or the number of Judges in any of the Divisions; and it was also provided that all causes commenced in or transferred to the High Court should be distributed among the Divisions in such a manner as might be from time to time determined by rules of Court, or orders of transfer made under the authority of the Act, in such a manner that there should be no longer conflicts of opinion upon the subject. Then came the section which enacted
  1602
  that subject to the rules of Court, the different Divisions should have those matters assigned to them which common sense would assign to them. This was not bungling, but simple, intelligible, common-sense legislation. There were different matters to be dealt with, and they were to be assigned to the Courts which were eminently fit to deal with them, subject only to the great improvement that there should not be a conflict of jurisdiction, but that the Court should yield a perfect remedy to everybody who had recourse to it. It was said no change was made in the names of the Courts; but what necessity was there for doing so when the nature of things was changed and an entirely new jurisdiction introduced to prevent a great waste of time and money and acute suffering to suitors? Then, again, it was of greater importance than people generally supposed that there should be places which would tempt the more eminent men in the legal profession to leave the Bar and go to the Bench; but the Amendment for the gain of £2,000 a-year to two people would sacrifice historical positions which were among the most valued prizes of the profession. Under the influence of those opinions, he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. JAMEScordially supported the Amendment, which he regarded as of great importance in the public interest. The demand for reform in the judicial system arose not so much from the cost as from the delay of the present procedure; and unless they could increase the judicial strength by numerical addition, or by economizing the power at their disposal, the evils the Bill professed to remedy would remain intact. They had at present 18 Judges; but their respective duties were so arranged that their legal business was in a most unsatisfactory condition. He could see no necessity for insisting upon dividing the Court into three Divisions and perpetuating the distinction between the different Courts of Common Law. His hon. and learned Friend put his objection to the Amendment, on the ground that if it were to be adopted in that transition state of things, a chaotic condition of affairs would be produced. But we should have this chaotic condition of affairs of which his hon. and learned Friend was so much afraid whenever the change was made. The Bill was one of

  1603
  transition, and time was given for effecting the change, for the Act would not come into operation until 1874. The hon. and learned Attorney General also said that the Bill simply introduced a transition state of things; but if the Committee looked to the 80th clause, the effect was quite otherwise; it was to perpetuate the patronage of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron to all time, while the same consideration was not shown to the Puisne Judges. Higher salaries were to be retained for these inferior Courts, while no allurement was held out for members of the Bar to join the less adequately paid, though superior Appellate Tribunal. He quite admitted that the members of the legal profession would be in favour of retaining those high names to which the Bill gave its sanction; but the Members of that House, when passing a measure of legal reform, ought to put the interest of the public before that of the legal profession. He would prefer the Amendment to apply to the Court of Chancery rather than to the Common Law Courts, and in that sense he hoped it would be pressed to a division.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he should like to know what right the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had to arrogate to himself the monopoly of public spirit among the members of the legal profession? What right had he to tell hon. and learned Gentlemen that they preferred the interest of their profession to that of the public? What right had he to insinuate that they were influenced by greed, by avarice, by desire of personal aggrandizement, and were not desirous as far as in them lay to legislate in the interest of the public? He altogether denied the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to make any such insinuation. If he believed that any Member of the Committee would impute to him any such motives, he would never have the face to address the House again. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had said that certain things to which he objected were put into the Bill to please the Chief Justices. But what was the answer that the Attorney General gave him? Why, that it was contrary to what he ought to have known to be true; these things
  1604
  were put into the Bill simply to carry out the recommendations of the Judicature Commission. His hon. and learned Friend had, on a former occasion, proposed that there should be two Chiefs, one with £8,000, and the other with £7,000 a-year. But he had since abandoned that proposition, and now he wanted only one Chief. Was it for his hon. and learned Friend who had changed his own opinion so often, to reproach those who had shown some little deference to the Report of the Judicature Commission? If his hon. and learned Friend was at liberty to change his opinion twice in the course of 12 months, they could not be accused of wilful blindness if they adhered to their first opinion. Now as to the public, he had always held that the legal profession existed for the benefit of the public—for the effectual economical and speedy administration of justice. He believed that, even taking the lowest and the most avaricious view of the matter, it would be found that to improve the administration of justice would increase the gains of the profession by causing an increase of litigation; but taking a higher view—namely, the interest of the public, it was of the utmost importance that the seats on the Bench should be placed in such a condition as to attract the very best legal talent. Besides, they must have the rub of seniority, unless they had Chiefs, and that meant that as a rule the most aged and not the most efficient Judge should preside. The Judges must have a president, and by retaining the Chiefs they secured the most successful advocates, that was the largest experience and the greatest talent for the administration of justice. There could be no greater mischief either in the interests of justice or of the public, than to agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford.
  MR R. N. FOWLERmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  MR. GLADSTONEhoped the Motion would not be pressed.
  Motion negatived,
  DR. BALLsaid, he adhered to the opinion that the Master of the Rolls might be left out of the Appellate Division. He objected strongly to the Bill as tending to aggrandize the Members of the Court below, and to place them in a higher position than that occupied by the Members of the Court above. He would have the great places in the Appellate Court. He regarded it as injurious to the Judges themselves that they should have their minds confined to any one particular branch of inquiry. He thought that the Equity principle should be kept separate in respect to testamentary questions—at all events, from the merely legal one. With regard to the Court of Admiralty, his opinion was, that shipping cases, commonly tried in that Court, might be tried on circuit instead of being confined to the Court of Admiralty.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, in deference to the appeal which had been made he would not insist on excluding the Master of the Rolls, and would confine his Amendment to leaving out the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
  Proposed Amendment amended accordingly.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt).
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 96: Majority 56.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BLACKWATER-BRIDGE (COMPOSITION OF DEBT) BILL. [BILL 177.]
  (Mr. Baxter, Mr. William Henry Gladstone.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HUNTasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation of the object of the measure. A similar Bill was brought in two years ago, but was withdrawn. No reason had been assigned why the former settlement should be disturbed.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had himself objected to the Bill introduced two years ago, because it was a Private Bill, and in his (Mr. Baxter's) opinion, the objection was a very proper one. The present measure was proposed as an Amendment of the Act passed in 1867. It had been found impossible to obtain the sum of' £2,500 mentioned in that Act, and the bridge was falling into decay. The object of the present Bill was to enable the Treasury to sell the bridge and its approaches for such sum under £2,500 as they might decide upon.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Bill for making provision for facilitating the Manœuvres of Troops to be assembled during the ensuing autumn, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Sir HENRY STORKS, and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 215.]

  MILITIA (SERVICE, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Bill for extending the period of Service in the Militia; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Sir HENRY STORKS, and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]

  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend "The Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867," and to make provision for keeping safely certain Parochial Records in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Canada Loan Guarantee* (183); Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* (184).
Second Reading—Government of Ireland (147), negatived; Crown Private Estates (175); Marriages (Ireland) Legalization (94).
Select Committee—Pollution of Rivers (59), The Earl of Aberdeen added in the place of The Earl of Lauderdale.
Report—Agricultural Children (165–185); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)*(177).

ARMY—RECRUITS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, before you proceed to the Business on the Paper, I beg that you will permit me to make a statement of a somewhat personal character. I am the more anxious to do so, because I think that in the interest of the public service it is right that no false impression should be allowed to exist for any length of time respecting any matter which affects the efficiency of such an important branch of the public service as that of the Army. Personally, a high official like myself feels some discomfort, when anything is publicly stated of a questionable character in his Department which is not explained as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, I venture to throw myself upon your Lordships' consideration, whilst I as briefly as possible state to your Lordships what really has occurred, and how far I am
  1524
  mixed up with it. Some little time ago the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) moved for Returns of chest measurements of soldiers recruited since 1870. That Return has since then been presented to your Lordships, and you have had it, no doubt, in your hands. A few days ago a letter appeared in one of the newspapers, in which reference was made to that Return, and a question regarding it has been asked in "another place." From that letter, and from what has occurred in the other House, it would appear that the Return had been designedly prepared, with the object of creating a false impression in this House and before the country. I do not for a moment suppose that any of your Lordships or the country imagines that I, or any officer in my Department, would wilfully put forward any erroneous Return; and I think, when I explain the circumstances, your Lordships will exculpate me, and the officers acting under me, of any intention of doing anything beyond carrying out the wishes and directions of this House. The preparation of all military Parliamentary Papers rests with the Adjutant General's department, and a branch of that department, under the authority of the Inspector General of Recruiting, was directed to prepare the Return. Several of the points connected with this Return were of sufficient importance to be referred to me, and I urged that no delay should take place in its preparation. The Deputy Adjutant General, General Armstrong, a most efficient and zealous officer, on whom, in the absence of my gallant Friend, Sir Richard Airey, the whole duties of the Adjutant General's department have for some time devolved, came to me one morning, and incidentally stated that in preparing the Return it had been found that several regiments had put down under one column, as not coming up to the proper measurement—men who, in his opinion, ought to have been given under another, because, as far as the records showed, they were of the proper measurement. He thought it incorrect that they should be returned as under regulation chest measurement, and for that reason he did not consider the Return as accurate. It was certainly irregular that men should have been passed as being of the regulation chest measurement who were now returned as not being so, and I at once said that if

  1525
  the Regulations had been properly carried out, I did not know how such a thing could have occurred, and that it was only fair and right that the Return should be prepared according to Regulations. From this, it followed that if the Regulations had not been observed, the Return could not be handed in, except with explanations. In fact, I never contemplated that officers when called upon to carry out the Regulations, should be asked to sign anything but what was strictly in accordance with them. Now, when recruits are enlisted—and I presume the reference is entirely to that—they are measured by the superintending officer in the presence of the medical officer, and that measurement has to be verified by the field officer in charge of a recruiting district. When the latter is satisfied that the two officers have taken the proper measurement, it is inserted in pencil on the attestation paper, which is sent down with the recruit to his regiment, and it is the duty of the commanding officer of the regiment to verify the measurement. If the recruit does not come up to it, he is bound to report it for my information, and to ask whether the man is to be retained; so that it will be seen that it is the commanding officer, and not the surgeon, who would be held responsible for the measurement. The Regulations require a special report of any deficiency in chest measurement to be made to the Adjutant General, for submission to the Commander-in-Chief as to the final disposal of the man. Nothing can be clearer than the Regulations; yet it appears that the men to whom reference is now made have been sent to regiments, and that the regiments now do not accept the chest measurement sent clown with them, but have never reported the circumstance to the Recruiting department or the Adjutant General. Here, I venture to say, a great mistake has been made. I think I can assure your Lordships that nothing more than a mistake has been made. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that intentional misrepresentation has been attempted; I do not believe that it is anything more than an ordinary office mistake. When the matter was brought to my knowledge, I certainly understood it was only a few men who had been irregularly accounted for in that way, and when, therefore, the Deputy Adjutant General told
  1526
  me he thought it was only fair they should be returned as of the proper measurement, on the ground that it was only just and according to common sense that men who might have been two years with regiments, without their measurements having been questioned, should not be disturbed, I acceeded to it; but it was never expected or intended that officers should be asked to sign an incorrect Return, and if any officers chose to say men were not of the proper measurement of course it was our duty to inquire into it. It turns out, however, that a considerable number of men are of a different measurement from the proper one. I never saw the Return or the Circular that went out in my name on the subject, and I never intended any Circular to go out. I thought it was a mere ordinary correction, which must frequently occur in an office. Had I been aware how the Return was prepared, I should not have authorized what has been done. As it is, I must throw myself on the indulgence of your Lordships and the country. It is utterly impossible for the Commander-in-Chief to have knowledge of every detail, and until I saw the letter I had not the remotest suspicion that there was anything wrong in the Return. To show your Lordships how very delicate this measurement is, I may mention that I have seen a letter from the surgeon of a regiment, who says that in measuring recruits he is careful to get the minimum circumference of the chest, and measures after expiration, and before inspiration has commenced, and he always finds his measurement less than that pencilled on the attestation sheets by two, three, and sometimes even four inches. When measurements are reported as incorrect, we invariably send down and verify them; but if officers do not report, and do not attend to the details which ought to regulate these proceedings, an unfortunate mistake of this sort may occur. So far as I and the officers who made the Return are concerned, there was no intention of doing anything but what was in accordance with the facts, with the Regulations, and with the objects of the noble Duke in asking for the Return. I hope you will permit me to add, that if there is any subject which would specially attract my attention it is recruiting. Whenever recruiting is bad nobody is so immediately interested in

  1527
  the matter as the Commander-in-Chief, and I should be the last man to approve men being allowed to enlist who are not what they ought to be.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I am certain that you have all listened with much satisfaction to the straightforward statement just made by His Royal Highness. It is only what might have been expected from His Royal Highness, and it is not necessary for me, therefore, to say anything with regard to that statement. The subject to which the illustrious Duke has referred is, however, one of very great importance, and one upon which I should like to have an opportunity of saying a few words; but as no Notice has been given of the introduction of the subject, it is proper for me perhaps that I should give Notice that I shall to-morrow evening call attention to the Return respecting chest measurements which I have moved for.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  (The Earl Russell.)

  (NO. 147.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Russell.)
  [No noble Lord rising to address the House, the LORD CHANCELLOR put the Question, and declared that The Not Contents have it. But it immediately appeared that Earl Russell had intended to make his address to the House on the Question and not on proposing the Motion, and was unconscious that the Question had been put and negatived. The proceeding was, by general consent, treated as a nullity, and is not entered on the Minutes or Journals of the House.]
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he wished their Lordships to consider seriously, not so much the Bill he had introduced, as the question to which it related. In 1851 he brought into the House of Commons a Bill for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, and the transfer of the duties to a Secretary of State, a measure which was supported by Sir Robert Peel and other distinguished men. The arrangement which then existed, dating from the Union, was that the Lord Lieutenant communicated with the Cabinet, especially with the Home Secretary, as
  1528
  to the state of the country, and the measures which appeared necessary. Afterwards an arrangement was made by which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant communicated with the Home Secretary. That Sir Robert Peel described as a very clumsy arrangement, for it gave the Chief Secretary, who was naturally and properly a subordinate of the Lord Lieutenant, the power of consulting his Colleagues in the Cabinet, and in fact of transmitting orders to his superior. Moreover, the duty which would be performed by a Secretary of State in England, and which should be performed by a Secretary of State in Ireland, was not performed at all. In August last a riot occurred at Belfast in which 152 persons were wounded and received hospital treatment, one of the constabulary being killed and 73 members of that force wounded, 12 of them very seriously. Upwards of 250 houses, moreover, were wrecked or injured, 257 persons claiming compensation to the amount of £14,000, and 837 families were compelled by force to leave their dwellings. These facts were stated at the Assizes by Mr. Justice Lawson, who went on to say—
  "Now, I have no hesitation in stating that this meeting constituted an unlawful assembly. A great number of men marching in procession, many of them armed, carrying disloyal and treasonable emblems, is calculated to create terror and alarm, and is an unlawful assembly, even though there be no opposing force with whom there may likely be a collision. It was the duty of those charged with the preservation of the public peace to take steps to prevent this procession from marching, to require them to disperse, and, if necessary, to disperse them, and to arrest the ringleaders and bring them to justice. This procession was, nevertheless, allowed to take place; it met at Carlisle Circus; its character was then apparent; even there, at 10 o'clock in the morning, the first indications of riot presented themselves; stones were exchanged between the processionists and those of the Protestant party. Nevertheless, the procession was allowed to march to Hannahstown. A meeting was held there; fire-arms were frequently discharged, and one man lost his life by the accidental discharge of a pistol, according, at least, to the verdict of a coroner's jury; and this armed body of seditious persons was allowed to return in the evening to Belfast, to parade their emblems of disloyalty, and to flaunt their banners before the eyes of the loyal and well-affected subjects of the Queen. In the evening, on its return, an engagement took place. The spirit of evil was thoroughly roused, and then arose a series of riots and battles which raged for several days."
  Mr. Justice Lawson added that the assembly was unlawful at common law,

  1529
  and that if, at the moment its unlawful character was placed beyond a doubt, it had been dispersed and the ringleaders arrested, the riots would not have happened. The omission to take this course was a serious neglect of duty. In England such a procession would have been dealt with summarily and by way of precaution. The parties intending to take part in it would have been warned that the proceedings were unlawful, troops would have been sent to prevent the procession, and the leaders would have been arrested and held to trial. That was the course pursued when he (Earl Russell) had the honour of being Home Secretary and the late Lord Campbell was Attorney General. Orders were sent to General Sir Charles Napier, who was commanding officer in Lancashire, where an illegal procession and not were apprehended. Both were prevented. Sir Charles Napier told him afterwards that he always on such occasions ordered out twice as many troops as might be required. Had that been done at Belfast, the embittered feeling and the great mischief which followed the riots to which he referred would have been prevented. Had such a not occurred in England, caused by similar neglect of duty on the part of the Home Secretary, loud complaints would have been made. He knew no greater duty of a Government than that of protecting life and property, and it was a serious thing if the Government of Ireland were unable to discharge that duty, and viewed it with indifference. He believed, therefore, that the substitution of a Secretary of State for the Lord Lieutenant would be a much more effective and satisfactory way of dealing with Ireland. Another evil prevalent in Ireland was the difficulty of convicting persons for murders and agrarian offences. In many cases the criminals could not be traced, and even when they were brought to trial there were generally on the jury one or two of their near connections and friends, who took care that there should be such disagreement that the offenders escaped conviction. In a recent case a man who, in the opinion of persons of sound and temperate judgment, was a murderer was acquitted, and immediately went off to America, though he believed it was not true that the Government gave him the means of doing so. In the clearest ease of assassination there was very little
  1530
  chance of obtaining a unanimous verdict, and in one case a Judge, convinced by the evidence that two women had been guilty of murder, proposed to the jury to find them guilty of manslaughter. That conviction was secured, and they were sentenced to penal servitude for life. He proposed in his Bill that, when a jury tried a case which was not capital, the verdict of eight jurors out of the 12 should be sufficient. Certainty of punishment was far more effective than severity of punishment. There was also the question of education in Ireland, which required the attention of the Imperial Parliament. There was, in his opinion, no longer in Ireland that wholesome system of education which used to prevail. For instance, it was well known that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin, Dr. Whately and Dr. Murray, agreed as to the piety and utility of certain books for the use of children; but the Board of Education had since excluded those books, and, according to Dr. Macaulay's Ireland in 1872, the whole power was vested in Cardinal Cullen and those who followed him, while, instead of books of a pure and simple religious character, many of the books used were pervaded with the grossest superstition. So far from wishing the Education Commissioners to retain office, he believed it would be a great blessing to Ireland, and more especially a blessing to England, if they all resigned. He had no doubt, as urged in defence of his vote by a Friend of his, the Chief Baron, that the Board had always replaced a parish priest who had been manager by another parish priest without inquiry, but such precedents involved the management of schools not by the men best fitted to be managers, but by the men whom the Roman Catholics deemed fittest to be priests. It was not the business of Parliament to consider who were fit to say mass, but when voting £400,000 from the money of the three kingdoms for Irish education they were bound to inquire who were fit persons to receive that money. One man might be fittest for parish priest and another for the management of a school. He proposed that any person who thought himself wronged might appeal to the English Committee of Council on Education. He next came to the question whether the Government of Ireland as at present conducted was a fit

  1531
  Government for the Queen of England. His conviction was that it was a Government conducted entirely according to the orders and inspiration of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not regard that as a proper Government, and he therefore proposed to declare that no Pope, or any other foreign Sovereign, had any jurisdiction in these realms. Some of the opinions recently expressed by Irish Judges were not reconcilable with the English law. He did not believe any Papal Bull or Rescript could over-ride that justice to which every subject of the Crown was entitled. He thought his Bill would give Ireland a better Government than it now possessed. The Irish were distinguished by their love of justice and their strong sense of religion, but these good qualities had been perverted by the Government, whether conducted by the Lord Lieutenant or by Roman Catholic clergymen, and he wished to apply the principles which had long prevailed in England. He did not believe the badness of the Government was owing to the anarchy and disorder of the people. Compare it with the sister country, and they would find that Andrew Fletcher, writing in 1678, gave this description of Scotland—
  "There are at this day in Scotland—besides a great many poor families very meanly provided for by the church-boxes, with others, who by living upon bad food fall into various diseases—200,000 people begging from door to door. These are not only no way advantageous, but a very grievous burden to so poor a country. And though the number of them be perhaps double to what it was formerly, by reason of this present great distress, yet in all times there have been about 100,000 of those vagabonds, who have lived without any regard of subjection either to the laws of the land or even those of God and nature. … Many murders have been discovered among them; and they are not only a most unspeakable oppression to poor tenants—who, if they give not bread or some kind of provisions to perhaps 40 such villains in one day, are sure to be insulted by them—but they rob many poor people who live in houses distant from any neighbourhood. In years of plenty, many thousands of them meet together in the mountains, where they feast and not for many days; and at country weddings, markets, burials, and other the like public occasions, they are to be seen, both men and women, perpetually drunk, cursing, blaspheming, and fighting together. These are such outrageous disorders that it were better for the nation they were sold to the galleys or West Indies than that they should continue any longer to be a burden and a curse upon us."
  1532
  The Scotch were now a moral, industrious and peaceable people, and that was largely owing to the wise measures adopted by statesmen in former times. Lord Chatham took care that £1,500,000 should be laid out without repayment in improving the roads of Scotland; but in Ireland large tracts of land were still annually flooded and their productions destroyed. In the case of Ireland, Edmund Burke and Henry Grattan had pointed out how Ireland should be governed; their suggestions, however, were treated with contempt, and he feared that if other great men were to recommend a similar policy their proposition would be regarded with the same indifference. He would, notwithstanding impress upon the Government the necessity of carrying out the recommendations of those eminent men, for unless a wise policy were extended to Ireland, it would never attain the peace and prosperity which it was capable of enjoying.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrose to speak; but was called to Order by
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD,who remarked that though the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill had, by the indulgence of the House, made an interesting statement, the Bill had previously been negatived, so that there was no Question before the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE,admitting that the Question was put without the noble Earl (Earl Russell) being quite aware of what was going on, thought the discussion should be allowed to proceed.
  EARL STANHOPEconcurred in this, but wished Questions were put with a little more deliberation. On Friday night he was himself precluded from saying a few words in reply by the Question being put before he had an opportunity of rising.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdisclaimed any desire of putting the Question prematurely. As no Peer rose to speak he was bound to put the Question, but he did so as slowly as he could, and delayed as long as possible before saying "The Not-Contents have it."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDcould quite confirm what the noble and learned Lord had just said. He had never heard the Question put with more deliberation. He agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was probably unaware of what

  1533
  was occurring, and, considering the position he held, it would have been wrong to take advantage of that circumstance. He hoped, therefore, the discussion would proceed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that the noble Earl had commenced his speech by calling attention rather to the general state of Ireland than to the provisions of his Bill; but he (the Earl of Kimberley) proposed to direct his observations principally to the latter, for it was easier to point out evils in any Government than to propose satisfactory remedies. Indeed, his noble Friend had seemed conscious that the Bill was scarcely one which Parliament could accept; at all events, in its present shape. Beginning with the first portion of the Bill, he must deny that the Government of Ireland was dictated to by the Roman Catholic Church. It was vaguely said that Cardinal Cullen exercised too much influence on the Government of Ireland, an expression which might mean a great deal or very little. It might mean that particular measures taken by the Government might be too much in the interest of the Roman Catholic population; but the noble Earl should not have made such an accusation in that House without specifying the instances in which he deemed that the Government had not done its duty, in order that their Lordships might have had a better opportunity of judging whether there was any truth in the allegation. The noble Earl's remedy was a declaration that neither the Pope nor any other potentate had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this realm. Those were familiar words, which many of their Lordships had repeatedly uttered at the Table; but it could not be supposed that that form of oath, now abolished, made the Pope's authority, direct or indirect, less or more than it otherwise would have been. The law forbade the interference of any foreign authority, and no declaration was needed to make the fact clearer. Whether it would be a message of peace to Ireland, and would be likely to conduce to good government, might be a question; and that would be a singular time to make the declaration, when the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which his noble Friend was chiefly instrumental in passing, had been recently repealed, because it had been found that declaratory laws of that kind, though
  1534
  easy to pass, were not of much effect. Turning to the more practical part of the Bill, he admitted that there were arguments of considerable strength in favour of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, but there were arguments which could not be overlooked on the other side. As his noble Friend had said, the proposition was not a new one, for it had been before the other House some years ago, when it met with some considerable degree of favour. His noble Friend's chief argument had been that riots would be better put down without a Lord Lieutenant; but he had always understood that the presence of a Lord Lieutenant in the country admitted of greater promptitude in dealing with riots. The argument of his noble Friend was not the strongest that might have been adduced in favour of his proposal. He might have recommended the measure on the ground of the incongruity of a high officer at Dublin with a nominal subordinate, but real superior—if the Chief Secretary was a Member of the Cabinet—and also on the ground of drawing England and Ireland more closely together. He submitted that a measure of this kind, which proposed to effect a very considerable change in the system of the administration in Ireland, should be introduced on the authority and on the responsibility of the Government of the day. It was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept the measure. He must further say that whenever the subject should be undertaken—if it ever was—various other measures would have to be introduced also. The Bill of his noble Friend went on to propose very serious changes in the present system of administering justice in Ireland. It was unfortunately the case that occasionally great crimes escaped unpunished in Ireland; but he did not think that the proposal of his noble Friend would remedy the evil. Offences which the law of the land ranked next to murder his noble Friend proposed should by some contrivance be reduced in degree and punished with penal servitude, and that convictions in such cases should be obtained by taking the verdict of the majority. He submitted that such a proposal, if adopted, would be equivalent to the abolition of capital punishment altogether. He could not understand why juries were likely to be

  1535
  unanimous in cases involving capital punishment, and yet were not likely to agree in cases involving a lesser punishment. There wore many difficulties in the way of carrying out his noble Friend's proposal. Unfortunately, in Ireland the population was divided by a very marked line into Protestants and Roman Catholics, and a case in which a conviction was brought about by means of a Protestant or a Roman Catholic majority on a jury would lead to great dissatisfaction, and possibly to great danger. He did not believe that it would be possible to get a jury to do their duty under such circumstances. At the same time, the proposition to take the verdict of the majority deserved serious and fuller consideration. In deciding, however, upon the question it must be recollected that very strong excitement sometimes existed in Ireland in reference to certain particular crimes, and in such cases it would be exceedingly difficult to get a juryman to expose himself by giving a verdict in favour of a conviction. It was, however, only just to say, as regarded Irish jurymen generally, and the administration of the law in Ireland, that with regard to ordinary crimes they did their duty admirably, and that it was only in the case of a certain class of crimes, where, owing to the neculiar social condition of the country, the feelings and passions of the people were enlisted on the side of the criminal, that there was any difficulty in obtaining a conviction where the guilt of the accused was satisfactorily established. The last subject with which the Bill of his noble Friend dealt was that of education, and he must confess that his noble Friend's suggestions did not commend themselves favourably to his mind. His noble Friend said that there was great reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the present Commissioners of Education in Ireland, and he passed upon them a sentence of very severe condemnation, such as honest and upright men, as the Commissioners undoubtedly were, did not deserve. Even admitting that all that had been urged against the Commissioners in reference to the O'Keeffe case were quite true, and that the Commissioners had erred in their judgment, he should submit to the House that those gentlemen had not deserved the censure which his noble Friend had cast upon them. The Commissioners had held an
  1536
  important position for a considerable time, and they had had to deal with difficulties of which but few of their Lordships could form an idea. Under their management the system of national education in Ireland had attained great success, and the public were much indebted to the men who, by means of a considerable expenditure of their own valuable time, themselves being unpaid, had reduced the system into such good working order. It was, perhaps, possible to conceive a system under which grants of money for the purposes of Irish education might be made direct from the Privy Council in London. Whether or not Ireland would willingly sacrifice her present system of separate national education might be doubted; but he felt quite sure that nothing could be worse than to have a body in Ireland administering such grants subject to the authority of the Privy Council in London, because the two authorities were certain to clash, and the authority of the body in Ireland would be so impaired as to render it powerless for good. Therefore, their Lordships would be just as indisposed to adopt that last proposal of his noble Friend as they would be indisposed to adopt his previous suggestions. His noble Friend had said that more weight should be given to the opinions of distinguished Irishmen with regard to the government of Ireland than had hitherto been the case, and in that view he (the Earl of Kimberley) entirely concurred. He was, however, convinced that if any Irishman like Burke or Grattan were to come forward, speaking with the eloquence and the authority of those great men, they would at the present day command the attention of Parliament and of the country. Ireland had no cause to complain that England had neglected her interests during the past few years. We had done our best sincerely and honestly to administer the affairs of Ireland impartially, and he trusted that the time was coming when the wishes of his noble Friend with regard to that country would be fulfilled, when she would feel better disposed towards this country, and the Three Kingdoms would be perfectly united. Indeed, the Government had reason to believe that much improvement had already taken place in Ireland in consequence of recent legislation.
  EARL GREYsaid, that though he had long agreed with his noble Friend (Earl Russell) that the office of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland should be abolished, still he very much doubted whether that Bill was the proper mode for effecting that object, and, secondly, whether that time was the best for making the change. He would suggest whether it would not be a good arrangement if, instead of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant, they were to confer the office upon the Heir Apparent to the Crown; but, of course, Parliament would have to relieve His Royal Highness from all personal responsibility. Under such an arrangement there would be a real Court in Ireland. His chief object in rising, however, was to say that while he concurred with his noble Friend who spoke last, in believing it to be inexpedient that the Bill under discussion should pass into law, he could not forbear from expressing his disappointment that the Government had not evinced any sense of the grave situation in which Ireland was now placed. It was only a short time ago that in discussing another subject, he (Earl Grey) ventured to state that while that country showed in some respects gratifying symptoms of material improvement, there were other respects of a political and moral aspect in which her condition was far more unsatisfactory than it had been for a very long period. He made a comparison between the state of Ireland as it was admitted to be at present, and that which it was described to be five years ago by the then Chief Secretary, Lord Mayo, who, in a remarkable debate in the other House, gave a history of her position which was not contradicted. If that statement were compared with the existing state of things, no one could fail to be struck by the change which had since occurred. What he had said on the recent occasion to which he had just referred, there had been no attempt made to controvert; and he therefore remained persuaded that the condition of Ireland was such as to create a great sense of uneasiness, if not of actual alarm, and he believed some of the evils to which she was now exposed were the direct consequence of the policy in her regard which had been pursued during the last five years. He could not, that being the view which he took, allow the Bill before the House to be rejected, without saying
  1538
  that while o disapproving the measure he heartily concurred with his noble Friend in the opinion that the state of Ireland called for the most serious consideration of the Legislature.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for trespassing briefly on your attention, when you remember that I am one of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. I should feel myself unworthy of my position in this House, and unfaithful to my colleagues who have been so vehemently, and, in my judgment, so unwarrantably, condemned by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), if I did not offer some words in vindication of their conduct. But before I do so, I must shortly advert to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Earl on the cross bench (Earl Grey). I do not deem it necessary, especially after the observations of my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) to enter on any discussion as to the general state of Ireland; but I am bound to say that, coming recently from that country, and having some knowledge of its actual condition, I have heard the statement of the noble Earl with the utmost surprise. That condition is not, in many respects, such as it ought to be; but I deny that it is greatly worse, or worse at all, than it was five years ago. I believe that it is better. I believe that the Irish people are advancing rapidly in the path of material progress. They are growing in wealth and the comforts which it brings. They have gained a stake in the soil from that wise policy so much denounced to-night, which, according to all our experience of humanity, will give them an interest in social order, and make them a law-abiding and loyal community. Popular education under an admirable system which, on the one hand, secures their religious rights, and, on the other, receives the liberal assistance and the wholesome inspection of the State, is spreading intelligence to every corner of the island; and if your Lordships will only consult our judicial statistics, you will find that Ireland, relatively to her population, is at this moment the most crimeless country of the world. These things should be taken into account when noble Lords are inclined to indulge in excessive lamentation as to the results of recent measures, which

  1539
  can only find, in the lapse of years, their true and full development. I have been astonished to hear the noble Earl institute a comparison between Scotland, as described by Fletcher of Saltoun, and the Ireland of the present day.
  EARL RUSSELL: No, no!
  LORD O'HAGAN: The noble Earl referred to the progress of Scotland from a miserable condition, as giving, at the time in which we live, hope of a similar progress for the Irish people. There is no analogy between the cases. If I remember rightly, Fletcher of Saltoun actually proposed the introduction of slavery into Scotland, as a means of rescue from her semi-barbarous state. Ireland needs no such assistance to advance her civilization. On another matter, I must say a word. The noble Earl has spoken of Irish Judges as having given expression to terrible opinions, with reference, as I understood him, to the temporal power of the Pope within these realms. On behalf of those Judges, I repel the imputation. It is founded altogether in error and misconception. There has been lately a discussion in the Irish Court of Queen's Bench as to a Statute of Elizabeth, affecting the validity of Papal Rescripts in these countries. The Judges differed—three of them holding that that Statute was still in force, and the fourth, as I believe, that for certain purposes, and within certain limits, the course of modern legislation must be held to have impliedly repealed it. But it never entered into his contemplation, or that of any of his brethren, to imagine that, however the spiritual power of the Pontiff might affect the subjects of the realm, submitting to it of their own free will and unfettered conscience, it could interfere, in the smallest measure, with the sovereignty of the Queen. For many a year, the Catholics of Ireland, clerical and lay, have repudiated and denied any temporal or civil jurisdiction of the Pope within these kingdoms; and there is no Judge on the Irish Bench who has not pledged his oath to that repudiation and denial. Parliament has wisely dispensed with official swearing, which was felt to be useless and an insult to those of whom it was required. And the attempt of the noble Earl to induce your Lordships to pass a declaratory Act is wholly unnecessary, as its success would be mischievous.
  1540
  You declare the Law only when it is questionable. But here there is no doubt; and the declaration would be worse than idle. Why should you offend the Catholics of Ireland by making such a declaration. Apropos of what will you make it? How has their conduct rendered it necessary? How have they demonstrated any doubt of the plenary jurisdiction of Her Majesty in all matters temporal? How have they indicated forgetfulness of the multiplied oaths by which they have denied, in such matters, the jurisdiction of the Pope? The noble Earl once before unhappily initiated legislation of this description. For his purposes, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was a dead letter, until it ceased to cumber the Statute Book; but it has had, and to this hour it has, most evil operation in severing socially the chief ministers of the religion of the masses of Ireland from the Executive Government, and depriving it of legitimate influence which might be often used for the most beneficial purposes. One word only as to the Lord Lieutenancy. I am not of those who desire its abolition. I know that my opinion is, among politicians, unpopular; but I cannot cease to hold it, because I do not desire to increase the evils which Ireland has endured from excessive centralization; and because I believe that a strong Executive is, and will be, for many a day, most needful in her metropolis. I do not think that her interests can, without such an Executive, be as well protected from a parlour in Whitehall. The noble Earl once succeeded in carrying a measure for the abolition of the Vice-royalty through the House of Commons; but, in this House, it was encountered by the prescient wisdom of the Duke of Wellington, and it was rejected by your Lordships. Subsequent events have justified your decision. When the cattle plague raged in England, and threatened devastation to Ireland, it was repelled from our shores by the instant action and unwearying vigilance of my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then Lord Lieutenant. When Fenianism disturbed the kingdom, it was struck down by a like action and a like vigilance. And I more than doubt whether, in either of those cases, the same results would have been achieved by a Minister in London, without similar means of gauging opinion, of collecting

  1541
  information, and of guarding, with prompt decision, the great interests committed to his care. I have paused too long on topics on which I did not mean to dwell; and I pass to that which prompted me to address the House. The suggestion of the noble Earl as to the education of Ireland is, that the control of it shall be transferred to the Lords of the Council in England. I take leave to say, with all respect, that a proposal more uncalled for, more incapable of practical operation, or more gratuitously offensive in its character, has never been presented to your Lordships. It is not called for by the people whom it would affect. It could not work if it were adopted; for it would relegate to the English Committee of Council appeals against the acts of tens of thousands of patrons, managers, and teachers, and of the Board of Education itself. And it conveys the gross imputation of incapacity on a Commission which has established, with earnest effort and unexampled success, a great national system, vast in its proportions and beneficent in its results, and never so flourishing as at this moment. I do not think that such a suggestion needs much discussion; but I refer to it because it is connected with the charges of the noble Earl against the National Board. I trust your Lordships will bear with me when I tell you that not here only, but in a work printed for general circulation by the noble Earl, the majority of its Commissioners have been assailed with the greatest violence. Reckless accusations have been scattered broadcast against us—the worst figments of the newspapers have been gathered together and embalmed in that curious work—We have been charged with "grievous wrong;" with "violation of the spirit of Magna Charta;" with "allowing an Irish Archbishop to proclaim the jurisdiction of the Pope, a foreign Prince, over the Queen's Kingdom of Ireland;" and, finally, with "violation of Divine and human law." These are grave charges, which should not have been lightly made against the meanest people in the community; but they have been launched without a shadow of justification, against the foremost men in Ireland—its chief Judges, Members of your Lordships' House, and others eminent in various walks of life, who are engaged in a difficult and thank-
  1542
  less task—without fee or reward, with great expenditure of time and labour, and often at the cost of obloquy from conflicting parties, maintaining a scheme of liberal and impartial education, which, under their auspices, has had signal and ever-increasing prosperity. And they have been made by the noble Earl not in the excitement of debate, or amidst the ringing cheers of your Lordships, but deliberately in the quiet of of his study. In such a case, surely, excessive strength of language becomes excessive weakness. As to the matter of Mr. O'Keeffe, which has been the subject of denunciation to the noble Earl, out of 20 Commissioners, seven only have adopted his views, and on the inquiry lately instituted by the House of Commons no single person ventured to impeach, as he has done, or to impeach at all, the motives of the majority. The Commissioners have simply done their duty, according to their convictions, with absolute freedom from all external influence, and in strict accordance with the precedents and practice which have governed their conduct for 40 years. If the imputations now made be well founded, they affect, equally, great and good men who have departed. Archbishops Murray and Whately, Baron Greene, and their co-labourers in earlier days—who marked out the course which their successors have faithfully followed—if they wore living, would all protest against the slanderous injustice with which those successors have been assailed. Who, my Lords, are the Commissioners represented as subservient to the Pope and disloyal to the Queen? The staunchest Protestants and Presbyterians in Ireland—a learned Judge who has been the trusted adviser of the Protestant Prelacy in rehabilitating the Disestablished Church—noble Lords, the purity of whose Protestantism even the noble Earl will not venture to question—and the trusted representatives of the Irish Presbyterian clergy and laity. The charge is simply—I say it with all respect—absurd; and is it less absurd to say that such men as the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald—certainly not the least honoured members of the Irish Judicial Bench—have violated Magna Charta, and trampled on Divine and human law? For myself and on behalf of those distinguished

  1543
  persons, I enter my humble protest against the use of language so outrageous; and I have a right to utter that protest, as, for 15 years, I have laboured earnestly to sustain our system of national education in its integrity—sometimes in opposition to friends whom I esteem, and sometimes with unpleasant exposure to misconception and misrepresentation. I can speak with some authority as to the conduct and motives of those with whom it is my pride to have been associated in this great work. But they need not stand for defence only on their position and reputation. Their conduct in the matter for which the noble Earl has abused them has been in strict accordance with precedent and practice, and the purpose regulating that conduct has been perfectly sound. When Lord Derby wrote his famous letter—which, in itself and its consequences, will be one of his highest titles to the respect of posterity—he proposed that Ireland should enjoy a united secular and a separate religious education. He did not design to eliminate religion from the instruction of the people; and the Commissioners—acting in the large and liberal spirit of that letter—set themselves to avoid the lamentable failures of the Charter Schools and the Kildare Place Society by conciliating and comprehending the clergy of the various denominations; and, very much through their instrumentality, popularizing the novel system which was to be substituted for those abortive institutions. They have done so with perfect fairness and impartiality, and they have conquered difficulty, and removed obstruction of no common kind, until that system has attained its present great proportions and pervaded Ireland from the centre to the sea. And pursuing this course, they tacitly pledged themselves to all denominations—Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic alike—that those having the control of the schools should be of such a character as to make their management safe for the children of the several creeds in a religious point of view. And hence it came to pass that, to a very large extent, the clergy of the various churches assumed the direction of the schools, not from any absolute legal right, but because they were, for manifest reasons, the fittest to inspire the people with confidence in the instruc-
  1544
  tion offered to them, and make them regard that instruction as sound and satisfactory. And hence, also, the parson, the priest, or the minister, who was so chosen, by reason of his peculiar position, has always been displaced, when that position was lost, on his degradation or suspension by the authorities of his Church. This has been the practice, uniformly and universally; and this the principle on which the practice has been founded. It was a practice essential to be maintained in a country, all of whose people, whatever be the variances in their forms of belief, are, in their several ways, essentially religious. It gave the guarantee relied on by the heads of the religious bodies, and the system could not have succeeded or endured, if that practice had not been honestly maintained. This was the simple ground of all the proceedings in the O'Keeffe case. They were taken at the bidding of no ecclesiastic, and they would have been exactly the same whatever had been the confession of the clergyman—Presbyterian, Baptist, or any other—who had been degraded. If they had been other than they were, in my opinion they would have exposed the Commissioners to the charge of a breach of faith; they would have shaken the system to its foundation, and perilled all the advantages it has conferred on Ireland, and, through the education of Ireland's masses, on the entire Empire. There may be controversy about the propriety of the practice; suggestions may be made as to attempts at its improvement hereafter, with full notice to all the world; but, as matters stood, the Commissioners were bound to enforce it as they found it, and they did absolutely nothing more. If they had done anything else, they would have destroyed the confidence alike of the Churches and the people, in the protection afforded for the purity of separate religious teaching by authorized clergymen; and the result would possibly have been the secession from the Board of myriads of children, and the establishment of inferior schools in no relation with the State, deriving from it no aid, and submitting to no inspection. Anyone who knows Ireland will not need to be told how gigantic might have been the calamity so inflicted upon her. Very many of those who rail at the Commissioners do not understand that the success of their efforts would establish that very clerical domination

  1545
  over the Irish schools, which of all things, I take it, they desire to avoid. I do not go into any detail as to the case of Mr. O'Keeffe, because on a former occasion I troubled your Lordships with many observations upon it. I have only now been anxious—the occasion having arisen—to defend my colleagues against charges which could never have been made, if their own high character, or the settled practice of the National Board, or the plain principle by which it is justified, had been duly regarded. I desire no conflict with the noble Earl. I lament some of the courses of his later life, but I have a grateful memory of the services which he rendered, in other days, to the good old cause of civil and religious liberty. I know how often he contended for that cause, and how of him and the Catholics of Ireland it may be said, that for it
  "In many a glorious and well-foughten field, They stood together in their chivalry!"
  I have sought only to vindicate those he has mistakenly assailed; and I trust your Lordships will, at least, believe they have striven to do their duty.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble and learned Lord who had risen to reply to the speech of the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) had left that speech virtually unanswered. Indeed, throughout the debate there had been no indication from any Member of Her Majesty's Government, or from any one connected with that Government, that the state of Ireland was such that it deserved the consideration of Parliament. On the contrary, the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord O'Hagan) stated that the state of Ireland was not only not worse now than it was five years ago, but that it was not so bad. But did their Lordships remember that at that moment the Press of Ireland was placed under the most extraordinary restrictions, and that a large proportion of Ireland was proclaimed and under a kind of military law? Did Her Majesty's Government forget that to be a supporter of the Government was a disqualification for Parliament in the eyes of the electors of Ireland—that the preference was given to Home Rulers who all but advocated a repeal of the Union? His noble Friend had been, therefore, amply justified in the remarks he had made upon the point. In his (the Earl of Carnarvon's) opinion that
  1546
  was a very serious state of things, and he must again express his disappointment that no one connected with the Government had admitted that the condition of Ireland was unsatisfactory. If it were in one sense better than it was in 1854, the improvement was due to military pressure and measures of repression. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that the present was not a time to make great constitutional changes such as those proposed by the Bill, especially by way of experiment; but he must add his protest to that of the noble Earl on the cross benches against the condition of Ireland being regarded as satisfactory.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not wish to weaken that which he and his noble Friends near him regarded as the emphatic contradiction his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had given to the assertion that Ireland was a most crime-ridden country. He merely rose to correct the statement made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that a large proportion of Ireland was under military law.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: What I meant to say was that large districts of Ireland were proclaimed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had to give an equally strong contradiction to the statement that Her Majesty's Government favoured those who professed Home Rule principles.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had never made such an assertion. What he said was that the electors of Ireland favoured Home Rulers to the exclusion of Government candidates.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDassured the noble Earl that what his noble Friend said was, that Government candidates were rejected by Irish constituents, who accepted those who were in favour of Home Rule.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had also so understood the statement of his noble Friend.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that in the Irish schools, as they were established by Lord Derby, Scripture extracts used to be read, although no child could receive religious instruction whose parents objected. Now, those Scripture extracts were no longer read, and Archbishop Whately's Evidences of Christianity was excluded from the school. He had had a school, and for 16 years neither parent

  1547
  nor priest had objected to the instruction given. Now the rule was, that no child should receive religious instruction unless his parent came forward and signed a paper that he agreed to the instruction proposed to be given. With regard to the loyalty of the people of Ireland under the present state of things, he asserted that it had not increased, but diminished. The Irish people thought they would be safer with the United States or with France than with England. Anything would be better than the existing state of affairs in Ireland, and if the noble Earl went to a division he should divide with him.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

  SIR SAMUEL BAKER'S EXPEDITION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would no doubt be gratifying to their Lordships if he stated the substance of a telegram from Mr. Vivian, dated Alexandria, that day—
  "Sir Samuel Baker reports safe arrival, with all Europeans, at Khartoum. Country come under Egyptian dominion. Route opened to Zanzibar. Slave trade in process of being suppressed. El Zaraf proved navigable. Victory on June 8 of 105 men over army of Onioso. Country orderly and quiet. Mission quite successful."
  A subsequent telegram from Mr. Vivian, dated Alexandria, 3 30 P.M., said—
  "3 P.M. Telegram from Governor of Soudan to Cheriff confirms safe arrival of Baker and his expedition at Khartoum; but states that Mr. Higanbotham (sic) died at Gondokoro. Baker comes here at once."

  AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)

  (NO. 165.) REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Further Amendments made.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had endeavoured to carry out the wishes of their Lordships, expressed in the Committee of this Bill, in the clauses he had brought up. Their Lordships would find all the Amendments which had been made in the House of Commons to Clause 6, carried out by the words now before the House, and the clauses after Clause 7, he believed, carried out the expressed wishes of their Lordships' House. He wished to introduce words into the second new clause, to avoid
  1548
  any misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause, for it might be construed, as it stood at present, as if the Provisos affected the first part of the clause; and this was not intended. The first part of the clause respecting the exemption of children who were employed in harvest, hay harvest, and so on, was intended to be an absolute enactment; whereas, as the clause now stood, the Provisos might apply to the first part, as well as the second part of the clause. He (Lord Henniker) wished to say a few words in explanation of the clause relating to reformatory and industrial schools, which he had introduced, as he was bound to do on bringing up a new clause on the Report. He thought their Lordships would agree to this clause to exempt reformatory and industrial schools from the operation of the Bill; for the chief object in those schools was to teach habits of work, as well as to bring the children into a school of education, under the ordinary acceptation of the term. Suppose a boy, badly brought up, as most children were who came under these Acts, he would not, perhaps, settle down to school work for a time, but, by degrees, and by means of putting him to field work, he would do so. Then attendances at school, taken by the rules of the Education Department, was very difficult to calculate in this case; the two hours of attendance was seldom, if ever, made up in these schools in each school-time. The schooling was in almost every case ample, but the advantage taken of a wet day, and other reasons, made the attendance at school necessarily, and rightly, irregular. The children who came under these Acts were of a different class from those affected by the Bill, and the course of instruction was different, too. It must be wrong to put any obstacle in the way of the working of those schools. Financially, it would affect them; for in many instances, the labour of the children was let out in the neighbourhood, and in one instance, £100 a-year was gained in this way in Northamptonshire. Great power was given under the Industrial Schools Act, almost amounting to a stringent system of compulsion; and, surely it would not be right to put other restrictions upon such children. He (Lord Henniker) had imagined those schools would not come under the provisions of the Bill, as they

  1549
  were under special Acts; but he found on investigation, that although they were virtually under special Acts, they were not so actually; for no special provisions were laid down for the instruction to be given, and this fact would bring them under the Bill. They were really under special provisions; for they would not be certified schools unless they were under Government inspection, and the rules were sanctioned by the Secretary of State. He hoped their Lordships would consent to the introduction of the clause, as if these schools were brought under the Bill, it would very much interfere with the good and effective work they were doing in the country.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause 8 insert—
  ("Nor shall the said provisions apply in the case of any child for the time being detained in a certified reformatory school or in a certified industrial school within the meaning of the Reformatory Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872, and Industrial Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872 respectively.")—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the Bill had no doubt been improved since it came up from the Commons, but he doubted whether the Amendment would not place reformatory and industrial schools in a better position than the parents of the children who were not permitted to go to work under a certain age. He understood that the noble Lord behind him proposed the addition to the clause because certain industrial schools in Northamptonshire earned not less than £100 a-year by letting out the children to farmers in the neighbourhood, and that if they were prevented by this Bill from doing so, they would suffer a considerable pecuniary loss. If that were so, he thought their Lordships ought not to agree to the clause at the present moment, as he objected to an industrial school letting out children to the neighbouring farmers.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONhoped his noble Friend (Lord Henniker) would postpone his Amendment till the third reading.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he was quite willing to act on that suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.—(No. 185.)

  CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 175.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its principal object was to make it clear that Her Majesty, or any future Sovereign, should have the power of transmitting her private estates to any member of the illustrious family that now ruled this country, and that they should continue private estates in the event of the person who held them succeeding to the Crown.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  MARRIAGES (IRELAND) LEGALIZATION BILL—(No. 94.)
  (The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in moving, that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the disestablishment of the Irish Church had rendered such a measure extremely necessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Government had no serious objection to raise against the Bill. There were however, so many inaccuracies throughout it that perhaps it would be as well for the noble Marquess to draw up a fresh measure, and introduce it next Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he entirely approved of the object of the Bill, but agreed that it was so faulty in several particular's, that it would be better it should be replaced by a more perfect measure. He would, moreover, suggest that it was not desirable to proceed with special legislation, especially when it was considered that the whole question of the marriage law of Ireland might well be dealt with.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock 'till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.