Sitting of 29 April 1875

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—The Marquess of Tavistock, for Bedford County.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [April 23] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Education (Scotland) (Sutherland and Caithness) * [145]; [April 28] Savings Banks, &c. * [146].

1819
Ordered—First Reading—Landed Proprietors (Ireland) * [148]; Tenants Compensation * [149]; Northampton Improvement Commissioners* [147].
Second Reading—Municipal Corporations (Ireland) * [41], debate further adjourned; Church Rates Abolition (Scotland) * [26], debate further adjourned.
Committee—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [77]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * [127]; Sea Fisheries * [128].
Considered as amended—Artizans Dwellings * [126].
Third Reading—Seal Fishery Greenland) * [117], and passed.
Withdrawn—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * [48]; Parliamentary Elections (Validity of Votes)* [49].

PUBLICATION OF DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS—EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday-next I will move the following Resolutions:—

  1. "That this House will not entertain any complaint, in respect of the publication of the Debates or Proceedings of the House, or of any Committee thereof, except when any such Debates or Proceedings shall have been conducted with closed doors, or when such publication shall have been expressly prohibited by the House, or by any Committee, or in case of wilful misrepresentation, or other offence in relation to such publication.

  2. "That strangers shall not be directed to withdraw upon notice being taken of their presence; but if occasion shall arise for repressing or preventing disorder, Mr. Speaker may direct their exclusion from any part of the House (save as provided for in the previous Order).

  3. "That strangers shall not be directed to withdraw, during any debate, otherwise than by an Order of the House; and unless notice shall have been given of moving such Order, before the commencement of a debate, the question shall be put and determined without amendment or debate."

ARMY—THE MILITIA—FINES FOR DRUNKENNESS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for "War, If he would state to the House in what way has the fund arising from fines for drunkenness in the Militia been spent?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he had already stated that it was proposed to apply the fund to purposes of recreation. The War Office had been unable, however, to deal with the amount collected during the last training without the permission of the Treasury.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS OF MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, if a Militia Adjutant appointed before 22nd February 1871, willing to perform all the duties of the Brigade Depôt, or any other Military duty he may be called on to perform, and who does not wish to accept the retiring pay, as per Royal Warrant 29th March 1875, will be subsequently debarred from the benefits of the new scale?
  MR. GATHERNE HARDYreplied in the affirmative.

IRELAND—BLACKWATER BRIDGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government has taken any steps to compel the local authorities to open the Black water River for the navigation of masted ships which are now prevented from ascending higher than Youghal, owing to the condition of the drawbridge, which can no longer be worked in consequence of the structure of the bridge having decayed?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that the story of the bridge was a very old one. It was in a ruinous condition, and the question of its repair was under the consideration of the grand juries of Cork and Water-ford, and the Town Commissioners of Youghal had drawn the attention of the Government to the matter. He believed there was some technical defect in the law which prevented the grand jurors making use of the powers conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. If that should prove to be the case, he was prepared to introduce a measure to provide a remedy.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS—THE ANNUAL RETURN.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Annual Return of the number of Electors in Parliamentary Constituencies, moved for at the beginning of the Session, will be presented; and whether it will be printed in time for the Debate of Friday week on the Redistribution of Political Power?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, the Return alluded to had been presented and ordered to be printed, and he hoped it would be in the hands of hon. Members before the debate of Friday week.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ORANGE FREE STATE—RETURNS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When he will furnish to the House, Copies of the Correspondence which he has already promised to produce referring to the diamond fields and the lands in South Africa which have been occupied by Her Majesty's High Commissioner, but which are still claimed to be the territory of the Orange Free State Republic?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Papers alluded to by the hon. Gentleman are in course of preparation, though I am afraid they cannot be confidently promised before the expiration of some weeks.

ARMY—SUPERSEDED CAPTAINS OF THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, on Her Majesty's birthday, any brevet is to be conferred on the remaining old Captains of the Line and Royal Marines who have been superseded by the Majors of Scientific Corps?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the question had engaged a great deal of attention in the Department; but he hoped he should be forgiven if he said it was no part of his duty to forestall or disclose Her Majesty's gracious intentions with reference to her birthday.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, pending the negotiations for the settlement of the French claims to a monopoly of fishing rights on the coasts of Newfoundland, Her Majesty's Government has arranged with the French Government that its cruisers shall not seize the nets of British fishermen, or other
  1822
  wise interfere with them in the exercise of their lawful occupation?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The French Government has instructed its officers commanding vessels on the coasts of Newfoundland to abstain from all forcible action, with a view to any difficulties which may arise being referred to and settled by the Mixed Commission appointed by the French and English Governments for this purpose.

REPORTS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. J. HOLMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is the intention of the Government to publish the Second Report of the Civil Service Commission relating to the out-door departments of the Customs and Inland Revenue; and, if so, when such Report will be issued?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the Government had not received a Second Report from the Commission, and, as far as he knew, there was no such Report in existence.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—FIRE-ARMS.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in some Irish newspapers, that on Monday week an old woman who earned a livelihood by attending on racecourses, and charging a penny a shot out of a toy gun (fired by a percussion cap, without use of powder) at a wooden figure dressed as an ancient mariner, was arrested or stopped by the police at the Mullingar races, and cautioned against such a practice in a proclaimed district, she having "no licence to have and carry arms;" and, if this be so, whether the Government will extend to this old woman such arms licence as will enable her to earn a livelihood as heretofore?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, remarkable stories of this kind were not very rare in the Irish Press. The Government had instituted an inquiry into the facts of the case referred to, and he was almost sorry to spoil the story, but he had to inform the hon. Member that it was without foundation. What happened

1823
was simply this. The Irish constabulary had recently received general instructions to cheek itinerant gamblers at racecourses, and these orders had been carried out with very excellent effect at many race meetings during the present season. This old lady, hearing that the police were warning gamblers against continuing their pursuits, seemed somehow to think it possible she might be included in the designation. She asked a resident magistrate on the course whether she would be allowed to continue the pursuit of her business, and she was at once informed she would not be interfered with. She was not further spoken to nor molested by the police. The question of arms licence was not mentioned, and he was afraid this portion of the story was due to the lively imagination of the reporter.

IRELAND—CORK GRAND JURY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  MR. HERBERTasked the hon. Member for Cork, in consequence of a statement made by him, What was the date of the meeting of the Cork Grand Jury he referred to, the names of the gentlemen who served on it, and the names of the different baronies they represented?
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Sir, after the statement I made on Mon day evening I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have put the same Question to me again. I have told him, as I tell him now, that I cannot tell whether it was the March Assizes of 1872 or of 1873; and my re collection of the gentlemen who served with me is a perfect blank, save one or two of them. The baronies there represented I do not know. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have been satisfied with the statement which I made to him in private on Friday night. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has put the Question again; and I hope I am not violating any Rule of the House when I say that he might be better and more profitably employed in settling affairs with his constituents instead of—["Order, order!"]
  MR. HERBERTrose, but
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: The hon. Member has put his Question and has received an answer.
  MR. HERBERT: I claim the indulgence of the House while I make a
  1824
  personal explanation. The reason why I put this Question was because an accusation was brought by the hon. Member for Cork against a number of gentlemen members of a Grand Jury. The hon. Member stated in this House that these gentlemen actually put a large sum of money on a district because one of these gentlemen had property in the district. I wished to know from the hon. Gentleman who these gentlemen were; because if the statement of the facts be right every one of these gentlemen violated a most solemn oath which he had taken, and I think that bringing an accusation of that kind against a body of gentlemen requires some explanation, particularly when the hon. Gentleman tells me after bringing this accusation against these gentlemen, that he does not remember—although he was the foreman—the date of the Grand Jury nor the names of the gentlemen who served with him.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked whether he might be allowed to explain.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that both hon. Members, it appeared, had been referring to a past debate in that House, which was irregular.

BRUTAL ASSAULTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill in the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the punishment to be awarded to persons convicted of brutal assaults; and, if so, when; and, whether it is his intention to propose any alteration in the Prisons Act, 1865, so as to enable governors of gaols to employ prisoners sentenced to hard labour in industrial labour instead of the so-called first class hard labour?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session to amend the Laws relating to-punishment awarded for brutal assaults, and I propose on Monday to ask leave to bring in such Bill. With regard to the second point, I believe that industrial labour may be used as the Act now stands. The Prisons Act, however, has now been in operation 10 years, and the Government have asked for information as to whether some amendment

  1825
  of that Act may not be necessary. That information is not yet before us; but next Session it may be necessary to introduce a Bill on the subject.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to preface the Question of which he had given Notice by two observations—first, that the subject excited a great deal of interest throughout the country; and, next, that he had been delayed in proceeding with his Bill by the non-production of Papers containing information from Foreign Countries. He would now ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the state of the Order Book, he will consent to the appointment of a Morning Sitting for the consideration of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is always very agreeable to me to assist my hon. Friend in bringing forward any business he may have on the Paper; but at the present moment it is not possible for me to offer him a day for a Morning Sitting. I am, on the contrary, meditating asking the House myself for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and even with that sacrifice of the convenience of hon. Members, I am afraid they must consent to a further sacrifice in the curtailment of their holidays in consequence of the progress—or, rather, want of progress—of public Business. Therefore, at present it is not in my power to make the arrangement that my hon. Friend asks for.
MR. NEWDEGATE: At a later period of the Session I will renew my Question.

MASTER AND SERVANT ACT—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the promised measure for amending the Master and Servants Act and other Acts affecting the relations between employers and employed will be introduced by Government?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope, Sir, that the measure to which my hon. Friend refers will be introduced immediately after the Whitsuntide Recess.

INDIA—CASE OF MR. TORCKLER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AGG-GARDNERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he has considered the grievances complained of Mr. Torckler, Ex-Lieutenant of the Bengal Native Infantry, in a Petition that has been presented to the House of Commons; and if he is prepared to grant the redress for which the Petitioner prays?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the circumstances of Mr. Torekler's case have been frequently under consideration, and are, therefore, well-known. He has received such redress and compassionate consideration as appeared to be suitable, and it is not proposed to institute any further inquiry into the case.

STAMP DUTY ON APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to know, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could lay a memorandum on the Table of the House explaining the working of the present Stamp Duty on Appointments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he would endeavour to do so.

RATING ACT, 1874—ASSESSMENT OF THE RIGHT OF SPORTING.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. MILBANKasked the President of the Local Government Board, How the sporting right is to be assessed under the new Act when a landlord lets his land but retains the shooting and preserves it? Is it to be valued on the principle of what the tenant would give for the shooting, assuming it to be in an unpreserved state, or is it to be valued upon what it would be let for in a preserved state; in which latter case is the cost of such preservation to be deducted from the assessment?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: It is, of course, Sir, impossible for me to say what the decision of the Courts may be, but it certainly was intended that the Assessment Committee should value the right of sporting in connection with the occupation of the soil, on the principle of "what the tenant would give for the right without reference to preservation."

  1827
  If an additional value is proposed to be put upon a right of sporting by reason of the preservation of game, it would seem to follow, on the analogy of the general law of rating, that the cost of such preservation might be deducted. It is obvious that important questions as regards preservation arise incidentally where, by reason of such preservation, the full letting value of the land is depreciated.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state the principle upon which assessment committees are supposed or intended to rate the right of sporting over grass dairy land, on which there is not any game, and which land is let to tenants at its full agricultural value; and, whether it is in conformity with the intentions of the Act that the same class of grass land in different parishes, but within the same union, should be rated capriciously at little or nothing in one parish, and at a considerable sum per acre in another adjoining parish?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend I can only say that the sixth section of the Rating Act, 1874, which states that a deduction from rent may be allowed "if rateable value is increased, but not otherwise," clearly contemplates the case of land on which there is not any game, and over which the right of sporting is of no appreciable value. It certainly was not intended that land should be rated capriciously in the manner pointed out by the Question. If any such inequality should exist, the valuation lists may be objected to before the Assessment Committee, or appealed against at the Sessions.

THE REVENUE—RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there will be any objection to give a Return of the growth or diminution from year to year of the various heads of receipt since 1841, so as to show the normal increase or decrease of the revenue for each year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, there would be some difficulty in giving the Return. He would, however, consult with the hon. and learned Gentlemen
  1828
  as to the adoption of some form on which the Return might be made out.

INDIA—THE GUIKWAR OF BARODA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR SEYMOUR FTTZGERALDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lay any Papers upon the Table of the House with reference to the deposition of the Guikwar of Baroda; and, if so, when the House may expect to be in possession of them?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Report of the first Commission is in the hands of hon. Gentlemen. The Papers connected with Colonel Phayre's removal and the temporary deposition of the Guikwar, and containing information up to the actual assembling of the second Commission, are in the printer's hands, and will be before long upon the Table of the House. The proceedings of the second Commission, the Report, and Papers connected with the final deposition of the Guikwar have not yet been received from India; but when received shall be printed and laid upon the Table of the House as soon as possible.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS-DAT SITTINGS.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. PEASE,
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that it would depend upon the progress made in Committee that night on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill whether it would be necessary to ask the House to consent to a Day Sitting to-morrow. If sufficient progress was made he would not ask the House to meet to-morrow; but, if not, it would be his duty to make such a proposal.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 77.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 77.]

  COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 26 th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Continuance of Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, subject to amendments and modification.)
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, in page 2, line 8, after "modifications," to insert—
  "And to this modification that 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be read as if in section four there were inserted after the word 'gun' the words 'except a fowling-piece or the ammunition for the same.'"
  He said, if the Government would only assent to the Amendment which he intended to propose in reference to the possession of arms it would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill. He had given Notice of two or three Amendments under this head, giving certain rights to certain people; but although the Amendments were of a very simple character he had experienced some difficulty, owing to the way in which the Bill was drawn, in finding a place at which they might be conveniently inserted. One of the objects of the Bill was to restrict the possession of arms, and his proposition was to take fowling-pieces out of the definition of arms. He thought he was justified in moving the Amendment, because they could hardly call fowling-pieces arms in the present day. They were perfectly useless for warlike purposes, being merely bad smooth-bore muskets. As well might the Bill prohibit the possession by Irish farmers of scythes or axes. But if fowling-pieces were useless as weapons of offence or defence they were extremely useful to the farmer to enable him to protect his crops. A farmer said to him in conversation on this subject—"The crows are as stiff on the land as we are ourselves," meaning that it was extremely hard to drive them away; and he added that the British Government had given the crows a right to eat up the seed that was sown on the farms. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would adopt this slight alteration, and that he would give the Committee some information as to the general policy he intended to pursue in reference to these Amendments.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 8, after the word "modifications," to insert the words "and to this modification that 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be read as if in section four there were inserted after the word 'gun' the words 'except a fowlingpiece or the ammunition for the same."—(Captain Nolan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he feared he should be unable to accede to the Amendment, and he did not see how he could make the concession which would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member upon this point. He felt some diffidence in differing from the hon. and gallant Member in respect to a subject on which he was so great an authority—namely, that of the gun—but he could not see how fowling-pieces could be regarded as not coming under the denomination of "firearms." They were firearms, and would be very dangerous weapons in the hands of these who might desire to use them for unlawful or improper purposes. The adoption of the Amendment would be tantamount to the rejection of the principle of the Bill, as far as it related to the carrying of arms. He desired to extend the possession of arms amongst the farm classes in Ireland. Hitherto, there had been a technical difficulty in the law which had rendered it doubtful in the mind of the Licensing Authorities whether they had the power to grant a licence to carry arms over specified lands—such, for instance, as over the land occupied by a farmer. The Bill removed that doubt, and would allow the grant of such a licence. He hoped these licences would be freely granted in the quieter parts of Ireland, and that the present system of restriction might be relaxed until, in the natural course of events, it would disappear altogether. With all deference to the hon. and gallant Member, he could not help saying he considered the difficulty now experienced in procuring arms licences had been much exaggerated. So far as the present Amendment was concerned, it could not be accepted by the Government.
  MR. MELDONsupported the Amendment. It would be absurd to say at the present time that arms should be kept out of the hands of the Irish people for fear of a rebellion. He pointed out several instances in which the present law had proved a great hardship to the people, and urged the acceptance of the Amendment, which would bring about a much more satisfactory state of things.
  MR. HERBERTstated that, whereas formerly no game was sold in Killarney, there was now one licensed shop there doing a flourishing business, although the gentlemen in the neighbourhood

  1831
  did not sell their game—a proof that the police did not carry out the provisions of the Act very stringently. He considered it was at present a great hardship that the Irish farmers were not allowed to kill the rooks. He trusted the Government would provide a means of enabling farmers to get rid of this tiresome foe.
  MR. RONAYNEsaid, what was wanted was to place the possession and carrying of arms in Ireland on some plain and definite foundation, instead of leaving the matter to the decision of the magistrates, who acted on caprice or pique, as he knew many of them now did. He did not ask for petty favours here and there, dependent on the whim of an individual, but for justice all round. His own house was entirely unprotected. He had got rid of gun and dogs, and had not even a cap under his roof, because if he had it would be sufficient to render him liable to a sentence of two years' imprisonment. He could not see any reason why the Government should refuse what was asked by the Amendment unless they thought the farmers of Ireland, as a body, were not to be trusted with such arms. If that was their idea his own experience enabled him to say distinctly that it was a great mistake, and utterly without foundation.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENurged that there would be an advantage rather than a danger in intrusting arms to well-disposed citizens, in particular to farmers who required them for the protection of their crops. Last week a man holding 77 acres of land wrote to him requesting that he would use his influence to obtain for him a licence to carry a gun. Surely it was unreasonable to place obstacles in the way of such a man obtaining a licence. He had himself on one occasion been unable to get a licence for the man whom he employed as a gamekeeper. There ought, at all events, to be a provision inserted in the Bill to the effect that holders of land should be entitled to the possession of a gun if they had not been convicted of any offence.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had done as much as any man in protecting game, and also vermin in the shape of foxes, but he objected, as a tenant-farmer, that his brother tenant-farmers were precluded from carrying arms over their
  1832
  own farms. He had himself applied to be allowed to have a gun in his house, and had been asked who had recommended him. He replied that he was a large landowner, and had never had a stain on his character. The end was that he obtained the licence because the magistrates of his county had recommended him. To show that the restrictions were put in force for the purpose simply of preserving game, he would read from a Parliamentary Return the case of a young man at Dundalk who, after shooting over his (Mr. Callan' s) farms for a week, with his permission, was told by the police that if he went out again he would be arrested. The sub-inspector, on being asked to assist in getting him a licence, replied—"I will do no such thing on account of your poaching over the country;" and on the ground that he had been poaching—for so his offence was called, although he had been shooting with permission—an application which he subsequently made for a licence, supported by the recommendation of two magistrates, was refused. If the Chief Secretary would assent to the use of the words "bonâ fide" in the clause he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise, he would follow him into the Lobby if he divided the Committee.
  MR. SULLIVANwished to point out the position in which Irish Members were placed at that moment in reference to the Bill. It appeared that they were to discuss their Amendments under a sort of coercion. A notice might have been placed over the entrance to the House, stating that all who were desirous of considering the Budget should discourage the Irish Members, and all who wished to discuss any other measures in the hands of the Government must squeeze the Irish Members. While he and these who acted with him meant to discourage any merely dilatory tactics, they would not be pressed, nor squeezed, nor intimidated into shortening, by one word or sentence, the debates they were to have on their Amendments to the Bill. And if the Budget or any other very important measures which were dexterously put after that Bill were postponed, the responsibility must rest on the exceedingly skilful strategists of the Treasury Bench. With regard to the present proposal, here was a great and powerful Monarchy declaring it to

  1833
  be a matter of peril to allow an Irish farmer to have a gun to shoot crows with. The Chief Secretary of Ireland had said, from information he had received through the police—the real rulers of Ireland—that there were several murders all ready to come off, and which would be committed if the House of Commons did not pass this Bill. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could name a single attempt at shooting in Ireland which had not been carried out for want of a gun. There had not been one. The Government, by their proposal in this Bill, were inconveniencing honest and peaceable occupants of farms for the hypothetical advantage of stopping one murder out of 50,000. Why did not the Government register the wearer of clogs in Lancashire, and say that John Brown should wear clogs, on the re-commendation of a magistrate, because he was a quiet man, and would not kick his wife to death with them? The time would arrive when military conscription would be the order of the day in Great Britain; and when one of these great cataclysms occurred which the Premier had often warned them was nearer at hand than most supposed—then it would be found that Ireland would be unable to help England in her difficulty, not from disaffection, but because she would be incapacitated through the operation of these Coercion Acts, which denied her inhabitants the right to carry arms.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought that was one of the most impracticable Amendments which could be conceived, as its adoption would necessitate the re-casting of the whole of the Act of 1870. A much more convenient course of proceeding would be to withdraw the present Amendment, and take the discussion of the question it raised on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt).
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, if farmers were allowed to use fowling-pieces, then he would consent to re-frame his Amendment. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he would consent to give compensation to farmers for damage done to their crops in consequence of the occupiers of lands being prohibited to carry fire-arms for the destruction of vermin, &c.?
  MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the fowling-pieces would prove as disastrous as any other kind of weapon in the
  1834
  hands of persons bent on committing agrarian or other outrage, and he did not wish to see an Amendment carried in that form. What he wished for was that any two justices of the peace should be allowed to grant licences for carrying arms to persons fit to be entrusted with them. He thought it absurd that men who were thought fit to serve as magistrates should not also be thought proper persons to be entrusted with the power to grant licences for the carrying of firearms; and he thought it an indignity cast on them to require them to run after a stipendiary magistrate. Personally, he had no complaint to make; he had applied for gun licences for some 20 or 30 of his tenants and others, and none of his requests had ever been refused by the stipendiary magistrates; but he thought that putting justices of the peace beneath the resident magistracy indicated a certain suspicion of the good faith of the magistrates which could not fail to be keenly felt by the people of the country. The Government could not expect the people of Ireland to respect the law, when they felt that they were being watched and suspected on all sides; and he thought that if the Government adopted his view a judicious relaxation would be made,
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken; but, at present, he would not enter into the subject, although the Government were anxious to give it full consideration. The discussion would be better raised by the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway; and as to the question of compensation to farmers, that was a matter on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have something to say if any hopes were held out on that head.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 291: Majority 211.
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "eighty," and insert "seventy-seven," with the view of limiting the operation of the Act to two instead of five years. He said, he considered there were many reasons why

  1835
  the Act should not be continued in force longer than two years. In the first place, he objected to a suspension of constitutional liberties for a longer period, and when the noble Lord at the head of the Opposition supported the principle of the Bill, he did not understand that he intended to vote for its continuance for five years. Under any circumstances, hon. Members on that side would not be bound to support a proposal which would keep the Act in force for a longer period than had been proposed when they sat on the Ministerial side of the House. What did they do with the Mutiny Act? They knew that there was a suspension of liberty in connection with these Acts, and they were never adopted for a longer period than one year. No one had contended that these Coercion Acts were Constitutional Acts, even if circumstances had made them necessary; and he wanted to know, therefore, why they should be asked to pass them for so long a time? They destroyed the liberty of Ireland by these Acts for five years, and there was no encouragement to the people to advance. All hope was crushed out of them, and all their Representatives could do was to bring forward Motions and Bills in favour of repealing the Acts, which would be rendered unnecessary if they were prolonged for only two years. The present Parliament was not likely to last longer than five years, and that seemed to be the only reason for adopting that period.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the word "eighty," in order to insert the word "seventy-seven."—(Captain Nolan.)
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGhoped the proposals would be adopted, and said he believed many of these who had supported the Government hitherto would vote for this Amendment. The House ought to bear in mind the fact that in the state Ireland was in 1870, it was considered sufficient to pass an Act which was to continue in operation for two years. What justification could there be now, when crime was almost unknown in the country, for asking that the Acts should be continued for five years? He believed that the present Government would remain in power during that period of years, and that it was their intention if they were succeeded by a Liberal Administration
  1836
  to leave these Acts as a legacy for them to deal with. At the end of two years, the Bill, or a portion of it, could be renewed, if it were necessary. No case had been made out for re-enacting these laws at all, and he hoped the feelings of the Irish people would not be strained by having these Acts forced upon them for five years.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had on former occasions voted for these Acts being continued for two years rather than one, believing that if re-enacted annually they could be brought forward and accepted as matters of course, like the Mutiny Act, and great difficulty would be experienced in getting rid of them. He, however, entirely concurred with the Amendment, and he would make one remark which appeared to him to come with peculiar force at this time. This Bill was introduced as a relaxation of the code of coercion which had previously existed, and the Chief Secretary had held out the hope that this coercion would be still further relaxed. Why, then, should the House be asked to bind itself to the provisions as they stood for five years? They ought to pass the Bill for two years, and at the end of that time the House ought to have the opportunity of making such further relaxations as the condition of the country would admit of. If they bound themselves for five years, no matter what the state of the country might be, the provisions must remain in force, unless a Bill was brought in to repeal the Act, which, as hon. Members knew, was a very clumsy proceeding. He hoped the Committee would not sanction this very long extension of time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped that the Committee would have clearly before its mind the precise nature of the provisions which it was proposed to continue for five years. The hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way had spoken of taking away all the liberty of the country, and other hon. Members had used similarly extravagant language. Now, the provisions of the existing law, which the Bill proposed to continue, were these—Restriction upon the possession of arms; the issuing on sworn informations of search warrants for threatening letters; the arresting of absconding witnesses; the clauses allowing compensation for agrarian murder

  1837
  or injury; and the special police tax, which had already been discussed at some length. Hon. Members must recollect that the clauses of the present measure were very different from the Act of 1870, which gave power to arrest strangers who were unable to give an account of themselves, which rendered liable to arrest persons who were out after sunset, and which imposed the most arbitrary restrictions upon the freedom of the Press. The main provision which was retained in the present Bill was the restriction upon the possession of arms. He would remind hon. Members of the past history of Ireland on this subject. Since the year 1796 there had only been a period of 18 months during which these restrictions did not exist. That period was in 1846–7, when it was found necessary to re-impose the restrictions which had been temporarily removed, with additional provisions infinitely more stringent than anything now proposed. Was, then, the Committee prepared to say—looking at the fact that these provisions had continued in operation for so long—that there was any chance that in the short period of five years they would become entirely unnecessary, not in certain parts of Ireland, but all over that country? If the noble Marquess who filled the office he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) now occupied were in his place he would, doubtless, agree that no other course could be adopted than that proposed by the Government. They hoped to be able to revoke these restrictions gradually, and they trusted that when the time they had fixed upon had expired—namely, five years—it would be no longer necessary for them, or for any Government, to re-enact them. Still, they did not think that the free possession of arms could be allowed in Ireland generally until the five years had expired. The provisions had, since 1847, been re-enacted at the end of every one or two years. Was it of any real use to continue this mode of proceeding? If the Government were of opinion that these restrictions would be unnecessary in one or two years, they would not make their present proposal; but they had no such hopes, and what they intended to do was this—when the agitation with regard to this measure had subsided—and it was subsiding already—they would gradually withdraw
  1838
  the proclamations in certain parts of Ireland, and in this way relax these laws, until they prevailed over only a small part of the country. Perhaps, as matters progressed, even before the five years had expired the restrictions might be withdrawn all over Ireland. But they felt it their duty to ask Parliament to give them these powers for this lengthened period. They thought that they would have more chance in this way of carrying out their policy of gradual relaxation than if they came to Parliament at the end of 12 months or two years to renew these powers, and thus led to a constant renewal of excitement and agitation upon the question.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved, that if the Government thought it necessary to introduce this measure for the sake of the peace of the country, they ought to declare that they did so on their own responsibility, and relieve other persons from the odium of being supposed to sanction its operations for so long a period.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the fact relied upon by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that restrictions had existed upon the free possession of arms for nearly a century told the other way. The period during which there was no coercion law was during the Irish Famine, in 1817–8, when not a shot was fired in Ireland; while in London, at the time of the Chartist gathering on Kennington Common, the streets were lined with policemen kept carefully out of sight, and the corners were occupied by troops, the officers commanding which did not know who were their next neigbours, so carefully and secretly had the arrangements been made. Would any one on the Treasury Bench venture to propose these restrictions for England? He appealed to the front Opposition Bench to support the Irish Members in obtaining the small modicum of liberty for which they were now contending.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had not heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland any sufficient reason for suspending rights of the character dealt with by the Bill for so long a period as five years. Former Governments in asking for such powers had acted upon a plain constitutional principle which the present Government—and for the first time—asked the House to depart

  1839
  from. That principle was, that the responsible Government of the day should, from time to time, state to the House of Commons that there was an absolute necessity for the granting of the powers for which they asked. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reviewed the history of Ireland for nearly a century; but he had failed to show that any Administration—Liberal or Conservative—had ever made a proposal similar to the present. The argument of the right hon. Baronet in its favour would apply with equal cogency to the English Mutiny Act. That was an annual Act. "Well, it was not likely that Her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to dissolve the Army within the next five years; but what would the House of Commons say to a proposal to continue the Mutiny Act for five years? Such a proposition would not be entertained for a moment. Upon principle, and in accordance with precedent, it would be most objectionable that any Bill suspending important rights of Her Majesty's subjects should be allowed to continue for so long a period as that suggested by Her Majesty's Government. If two years was sufficient in 1847 and 1848, and in the most disturbed times in Ireland, surely a like period would be sufficient now. It was no argument to tell the House of Commons that the Government did not mean to execute the powers which they sought to obtain. The liberties of the subject had never been made dependent upon the discretion of any Government. The House had shown no disposition to support Her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Bill; but he must vote against the present proposal unless a much stronger reason was given for departing from established precedent than had yet been advanced.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that he readily admitted that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had during the progress of the Bill acted towards Her Majesty's Government with great fairness. He assured the House that it would have been a far pleasanter thing for the Government, if they felt at liberty to do so, to bring in the Bill in a shape which would have rendered the Amendment unnecessary. The present was a measure of relaxation. ["No, no!"] Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite who
  1840
  cried "No" must admit that, as compared with the Acts the Bill was meant to displace, it was a measure of enormous relaxation. Within the last few years the larger Act was continued in the Annual Continuance Bill, but last Session Her Majesty's Government gave a pledge that in future, so far as they were concerned, the subject should be treated in a different way if it required to be treated at all. It did require to be dealt with, and the Government had, after full consideration, come to the conclusion that they should ask the House to grant them the powers referred to in the clause for a period of five years. There was no parallel between the present Bill and the Mutiny Act. He had always understood that the Mutiny Act was continued only, from year to year, not so much on account of the provisions it contained for the punishment of offenders, but to reserve to the House of Commons power over that which would otherwise become a standing Army. The Westmeath Act, which was one of a very exceptional character, they only sought to continue for two years; but the power which this clause would confer upon the Government they felt in the interests of the peace of Ireland that they should ask for for a period of five years; and the Committee would remember that they could only be put in operation in districts which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. There were only two clauses thus continued that applied to the whole of Ireland. One of them was the power to arrest absconding witnesses, and the other the power of making presentment in cases of agrarian outrage. Where there were no agrarian outrages this last provision of the Act would not come into force, and he regarded the clause giving the power of arrest as a most useful one. What the Government desired was, that they should have this reserve power for five years, but they hoped that it might not be necessary to keep all these clauses in force for anything like five years. The Government had already shown the Irish people their earnest desire to relax the severity of these laws, not only by repealing the most stringent of the provisions which their Predecessors had found it necessary to ask Parliament to assent to, but also by the manner in which they had administered them. He need scarcely say how gladly Her Majesty's Government would have

  1841
  come down and told the House—"For the first time for the last 90 years we fling away these coercion Acts, and we now ask the House to repeal them." But Her Majesty's Government were compelled, unfortunately, to adopt a different course at this moment, and could not indulge in eloquent and heroic speeches of that character. Looking over that unhappy period of 90 years during which this kind of legislation had existed, they always found that there was a rising of excitement among the people whenever measures of stringency were suddenly relaxed. There followed some violent outbreak, and then it was found necessary to resume with increased severity the powers which had been abandoned. Such had been the case in 1846 and in the succeeding years, when famine was accompanied by outrage, and when the money that was subscribed by the people of this country to purchase food for the famine-stricken population of Ireland was spent by the latter in the purchase of arms. [An hon. MRMBER: Name!] If the hon. Member wished, he would read an extract from his authority—
  "In the midst of the most horrible starvation a mania arose for the possession of arms, and the gun trade of Birmingham had experienced a great revival."
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the hon. and learned Gentleman to name the authority from which he was reading.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET): From The Annual Register of the year 1846, which was an authentic contemporary record of what had occurred, and which was not drawn up subsequently for controversial partizan purposes. In that work it was stated that, in Clonmel, so many as 1,138 stand of arms were disposed of in a few days, and in many cases were paid for in the silver just received by the Public Relief Committee. He was happy to think that there was not at present a chance of the recurrence of such a terrible state of things, for now we lived in a period of prosperity. Again, what was the state of things in 1870? These things occurred when they had tried the experiment of renewing the code for short periods. To avoid doing this, and to avoid the necessity of having to make the code more and more severe when they had to renew it, the Government had determined upon this occasion to adopt a different
  1842
  course—that was, that whilst they relaxed measures of extreme stringency, they retained these parts of the code that were of a precautionary nature for a longer period. They believed that it would be more satisfactory if they took a renewal of the legislation for five years, so that they might be able to enforce it if necessary, instead of again within a short period raising this sad and vexed question in the House. The Government holding this power in reserve, would, it was hoped, be able to relax from time to time such sternness as even the revised Acts might possess by withdrawing their proclamation of the districts, whenever they found that they might do so consistently with the preservation of the public peace. Such was the programme Her Majesty's Government hoped to be able to carry out, and the manner in which these laws had been administered by them was a guarantee to the people of Ireland and the Irish Representatives in that House that these Acts would be enforced in the most conciliatory, cautious, and fair-dealing manner. An hon. Member (Mr. Downing) had suggested that the term of five years was fixed by the Government, in order to bequeath to their Successors the disagreeable, but inevitable task of passing another Peace Preservation Bill. But if the view taken by the majority of the Irish Representatives who had spoken on the subject were correct, then a Peace Preservation Bill would certainly not be wanted for Ireland at the end of five years. It seemed to him that each of these arguments cut the throat of the other. He need scarcely say that it was greatly to the regret of himself and of every Member of the Government that they felt themselves obliged to ask for a renewal of these Acts; but after having given the subject the most careful consideration, they felt that by doing so they would be taking the safest and surest way of securing peace and tranquillity in Ireland.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would state in the briefest manner the reasons that induced him to support the Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that he had received every support and every courtesy from that side of the House during the progress of this Bill, and he therefore trusted that hon. Members opposite would permit him to say a few words on the subject under

  1843
  discussion. In reference to what had just fallen from the Solicitor General for Ireland, he wished to remark that the point involved was not a mere question of passing on the consideration of this subject from one Government to another, but was that of the propriety of transferring the important responsibility of ultimately repealing these Acts to another Parliament. Surely it would be wiser for the present Parliament, which imposed these Acts, to retain in their hands the power of either renewing them, or of letting them drop? But if this Parliament were to have the ultimate determination of this question, it was of the greatest importance that it should deal with it before the last days of its existence, inasmuch as it would not be desirable that it should have to discuss a Peace Preservation Bill for Ireland on the eve of a General Election. Under these circumstances, if no middle term between the five years and the two years that would be acceptable to all parties, could be found, he thought that it would be better that the power should be renewed for two rather than for five years. It was most desirable that the people of Ireland should know that the present Parliament would again consider within a limited time whether they might not further relax these restrictions. It was fortunate that the Act passed by the late Government was restricted to two years, as it had given the right hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of proposing to the House a Bill better suited to the present circumstances of the case. The present Parliament and the Government would not be sorry if, after two years, they might be able to make these relaxations in the Bill which both sides of the House generally desired. The Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken most fairly on the subject, and, on the other hand, he trusted that the Government would not misinterpret the vote he was about to give.
  MR. VANCEremarked that the late Government had received every assistance from hon. Members sitting round him in their attempt to carry these measures; but hon. Members opposite had not shown any reciprocity in that respect towards the present Government. On the contrary, they had joined with certain Members from Ireland in opposing this Bill and to prevent its being carried into law. One reason why it was desirable
  1844
  that the measure should be passed for five years was, that by that means they would prevent a recurrence for a considerable time of the sort of debates and scenes they had lately witnessed, which greatly impeded the general business of the country.
  MR. RONAYNEsupported the Amendment. He thought passing a Bill for five years but poor reward to the Irish people for being peaceful and contented for so long a time.
  Question put, "That the word 'eighty' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 144: Majority 86.
  MR. FAYmoved, in page 2, line 11, after "eighty," to add—
  "Where any person shall be licensed or entitled to carry arms under the above-mentioned Acts, or any of them, he shall he at liberty to unite with with others so licensed in forming volunteer regiments, and such volunteers shall have in all respects the same rights, and he subject to the same laws and regulations, as the volunteer forces of England are now subject to."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the Committee that, as the Amendment stood, it was outside the purposes of the Bill, and would require a separate Instruction of the House before the Committee could entertain it, because it would, if carried, have the effect of repealing certain clauses of the Acts relating to Volunteer corps in England.
  MR. FAYsaid, he would mention the subject on the Report.
  MR. BUTTmoved, in page 2, line 11, at end, to add—
  "Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall have the effect of continuing the eleventh section of the Act as passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the better Prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland,' until the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament; and from and after the passing of this Act the said section shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
  The hon. and learned Member said, his object was to take away from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power of preventing persons from having arms in their houses, but to leave to him the power of preventing persons from carrying arms outside of their houses. The powers of the Lord Lieutenant were now only optional, but he had the power of

  1845
  issuing notices, the effect of which was to disarm the whole people. Not only were they not allowed to carry arms out of doors, but they were bound to deposit any arms they had in their houses at the police barracks. This being so, of course it was necessary that there should be the power of search for arms, and his Amendment, if carried, would enable them to escape the odious power of domiciliary search, which was so liable to abuse, and which in many cases had been actually abused. That power of search as it now existed amounted practically to a general right for any policeman to enter every man's house in a proclaimed district whenever he thought fit, by day or by night, and to ransack every room in it under the pretence of searching for arms. In doing that he might break open every door in the house. He asserted positively that the power of searching for arms as now exercised was nothing less than a power given to every policeman to break into any house he pleased in Ireland. He proposed to limit that power of search. Any concession which the right hon. Baronet thought it within his duty to make would be received in the spirit in which it was offered. He had not been able to give him the credit which he claimed for the relaxations of the present Bill. It was more severe in its provisions than the Act of 1856, although it was not so severe as the Act of 1870. The Committee had now decided that the operation of the measure should be extended to five years; it was therefore necessary carefully to scrutinize every provision in detail. He did not think there were any Amendments which had been placed on the Paper for the purpose of obstruction or raising a discussion, and they might fairly challenge the decision of the Committee on every one of them. It was a delusion to speak of these Acts as temporary measures—they were, in fact, perpetual. The first Act, that was introduced for two years, had been in existence for 33 years. He wished it to be clearly understood—he said it deliberately from information received since the Bill was introduced—that every one of the clauses to which objection was taken, was part and parcel of a most grinding and despotic system of police tyranny, which would be exercised under this Bill in many districts of Ireland.
  1846
  He wished by this Amendment to prevent the importation and carrying of arms, but not to meddle with the sacred-ness of home. He hoped, although the Committee had decided against the last Amendment, they would not be deprived of the opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the duration of the Bill on bringing up the Report.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word "eighty," to insert the words "Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall have the effect of continuing the eleventh section of the Act as passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the better Prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain Parts of Ireland, until the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament,' and from and after the passing of this Act said section shall he and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Butt.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would not discuss the statements which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made with regard to an alleged system of police tyranny, or the special case of improper exercise of the power of searching for arms to which he had referred. All he would say on that subject was this—that if these cases were officially brought under his notice, they would be thoroughly sifted and justice done; but he was bound to observe that he could hardly remember a single instance of a complaint being made to him on the subject. These portions of the hon. and learned Member's statement which related to future Amendments would be fairly considered when the time arrived. The present Amendment was proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a a mitigation of the present restrictions on the possession of arms; and he seemed to think if the Committee adopted it, the law would be still sufficient for the purpose required. But if it were adopted, the very foundation on which restriction was based would be destroyed, because the people would be able to keep their arms concealed, and take them out and use them for all practical purposes, without the police being able to detect them, precisely as if no proclamation had been issued. There could be no better way of getting rid of restrictions to carry arms than by supporting the Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted, these arms that had been delivered

  1847
  up in the proclaimed districts would have to be returned, whilst the proclamation would remain in force. No result could be more absurd.
  MR. BIGGAR,said, the present law was altogether inoperative, since it affected only the well-disposed these who wished to make an improper use of arms could still obtain them in spite of any proclamations.
  MR. BUTT,quoting the original Act, contended that it contemplated the carrying of arms as something entirely distinct from the possession of them in a dwelling, and therefore there was no difficulty in separating them now.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was obvious that the object of the Government was to entirely disarm the Irish people. The present law had not been efficacious, he contended, not the slightest proof being forthcoming that the power of search had prevented a single outrage from taking place. What was the use of maintaining these powers when they (the Government) were admitting by their silence that they were not efficacious. The evil, on the other hand, of imposing such laws as these on the people was very great, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in his Amendment, was no doubt, striking at the most objectionable part of the Bill—namely, these horrible domiciliary visits. This power given to the police amounted to dire oppression and insult, and its exercise tended continually to impress the people with the feeling that they were governed by an authority which considered itself hostile to their sentiments. His Predecessor was put out of the representation of Louth because the people there, especially the farmers and their wives, objected to the great power which was placed in the hands of the police. There had been no lack of instances showing the evils of the law. He remembered a case in which some love letters belonging to a young lady were taken by the police in the course of one of these visits. The friends of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, were caught tripping, and the young lady was advised to bring an action against the police-officer. She did so, and the result was that she recovered £250 damages. But what did the officer plead? Why, he pleaded the Coercion Bill. In conclusion, he declared that the Government were not
  1848
  powerful to render their law efficacious—they were, indeed, powerful to madden the people.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, there was no country in Europe where the Government possessed the power of depriving individuals of the power of protecting their own households and families. Even in Russia the idea of conferring such a power would be scouted. He appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland not to put such an indignity upon the people of that country, or do them so gross an injustice.
  MR. CONOLLYconsidered that these provisions were absolutely necessary, and he should have thought that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt), from his great experience in the defence of criminals, would have had some idea that this was so. The millenium had not yet arrived in Ireland. The late Mr. John Martin, who had represented the county of Meath, said he never would be happy until he saw every Irishman armed. The possession of arms was the most dangerous possession, in his opinion, that the Irish people could have. First, because there was the danger which always existed to a peasant of a brother peasant endeavouring to rob him of them; secondly, because the Ribbon societies might insist upon his using them in a manner he would not like; and thirdly, because they were allowed to get rusty, were kept in bogs and ditches, and were therefore quite as likely to go off backwards as forwards. A peasant who sat with arms in his house sat in reality upon a barrel of gunpowder.
  MR. FAYcharacterized the arguments used by the last speaker as weak and illogical. He had said that the first reason why a peasant should not have a gun was that his brother peasant would take it away from him. But one would be as strong as the other; in fact, the man with the gun would be much safer from intrusion than he would be without it. Then with regard to Ribbonism, it was now admitted on all hands that the organization was a myth. The peasantry were Conservative, for since the passing of the Land Act they had a stake in the country. As to the third point—the rusting of the guns—if the arms were kept in the bogs and dykes, surely there was no need of domiciliary visits.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he did not believe in the existence of Ribbonism at present, but supposing it to exist in such perfect organization as the Government would have them to suppose, then the effect of disarming all well-disposed persons in a district would encourage evil-disposed persons to attack them, knowing as they did that their intended victims had no weapons with which to defend themselves. The evidence given before the Westmeath Committee showed that a Ribbon murder was never committed by any person residing within the barony—it was always perpetrated by some person who came from a distance. The effect of the 3rd clause was to encourage ill-disposed persons to commit outrages, and to leave well-disposed persons at their mercy.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 116; Majority 53.
  MR. O'SULLIVANmoved, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from after "lawful for," to and including "authorise," in line 16. He stated that the object of the Amendment was to enable persons who had a licence to possess arms, to carry and use them on their own land.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the hon. Member did not quite appreciate the probable effect of his Amendment, which would be to limit rather than to increase the number of licences granted to persons to have arms in their houses for self-protection. He thought that the hon. Member's object would be attained by the proposal which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had already inserted in the Bill.
  MR. MOOREsaid, that these who administered the law in Ireland did not appear quite to understand what they were administering. In the counties of Meath and Louth, and in other parts of Ireland, resident magistrates gave permission to persons licensed to have arms in their houses to carry these arms over their own grounds, and also permitted employés to carry their masters' guns so long as in their employ, and no longer; whereas other magistrates of experience refused to give any such permission.
  MR. BUTTsaid, there could be no doubt about the law as it stood, and under it only two classes of licences
  1850
  could be granted—the first class that of persons licensed to keep arms in their houses, and the second class a general licence to carry arms abroad. Although it would be regarded as a boon by occupiers of land having licences to keep arms in their dwellings if they were allowed to carry them over the lands in their occupation, yet the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would probably be to limit still more than at present the number of persons to whom licences of the first class would be granted.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLTTNKET)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, because it would limit the number of these to whom licences were granted.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, a licence to a man merely to have arms in his house would prevent him from defending himself with a gun outside of his house if he were attacked. He believed that the whole object of the restriction in question was to protect game, and he should feel bound to press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government, but, as it was unrepresented on the Treasury Bench, and hon. Gentlemen generally seemed to feel little or no interest in the matter before the House, he begged to call attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, and to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUS-RET)apologized for his temporary absence, as he did not, at the moment, know that the Chairman had returned to the Chair, and expressed his readiness to deal with any observations which the hon. Member desired to make.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had merely moved to report Progress in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman time to return to the House. He now appealed to the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), which he thought only a fair and reasonable concession to be made to the Irish farmers. He begged to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he hoped that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment, as he thought it a very reasonable one.
  MR. BUTTsaid, this matter was a very important one. He thought perhaps the question might be fully weighed by the Government before the Report on the Bill, as he was sure the right hon. Baronet would do well to take the subject into consideration.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was prepared to consider the subject before the Report; at the same time, he could give no promise as to what course he would take with reference to the matter.
  CAPTAIN NOLANobserved, that licences could not keep a man from shooting his landlord, if he were so inclined, or prevent an insurrection, and the object of the Bill, he contended, must therefore be the preservation of game.
  MR. CALLANsaid, during the time the debate had lasted that evening the Government had not yielded one iota to Irish Members. The clause was really in the interest of the game-preserving population and not in the peace-preserving interest.
  MR. CONOLLYasked whether the clause would allow farmers to carry arms over their own farms? It was a matter of great importance that farmers should be allowed to carry arms. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find it possible to assent to the clause.
  MR. MELDONsaid, there was no reason why the Committee should come to a decision on this point to-night. The simple issue was if a person was licensed to have arms in his house, why should he not be allowed to carry arms over his grounds? He hoped the Amendment would be carried.
  MR. VANCEhoped, considering the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that the matter would not be pushed to a division. If it were, he should vote with the Government.
  MR. CALLANwas not surprised that the hon. Member who had just spoken did not appreciate the hardship of the Bill, seeing that his constituents were allowed to carry arms to the public detriment. The only time he (Mr. Callan) had been shot at was in the city which the hon. Member represented (Armagh) on the 12th of July last. He happened
  1852
  to be standing in the garden of the college attached to the Roman Catholic cathedral by the side of the clergyman, when a shot was fired, and the sexton was struck down, and the shot was fired by one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He did not object to the inhabitants of Armagh being prevented carrying firearms, but he did object to the peaceable farmers of Ireland being placed on the same footing with them.
  MR. VANCEsaid, there had been a previous discussion in the House on this question, and there was a grave difference of opinion as to the person from whom the shot came; but he did not think there was any proof that it came from one of his constituents.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTjoined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Limerick county (Mr. O'Sullivan) for the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he would withdraw it if the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave him a positive promise that he would re-consider the matter.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he could give no assurance that the hon. Member's views would be adopted. All he could say was that he would look into the matter again in deference to the wish which had been expressed that the licences should be extended as widely as possible.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the object of the clause was to enable persons to have arms in their hands for the purposes of defence, but not of aggression.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYurged the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGpointed out to the hon. Member the necessity of deferring to the expressed wish of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. Butt), in the interests of the Home Rule Party.
  MR. SMYTHalso deprecated the pushing of the Amendment to a division, as it would alienate from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Sullivan) a section of the Irish Members.
  MR. O'SULLIVANassented to the request made to him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTTmoved, in page 2, line 20, at end, to insert—
  "The person appointed to grant licences to have or carry arms in any district shall he bound

  1853
  to grant a licence to have arms or to have and carry arms upon any specified lands, or a licence to have and carry arms generally, to any person resident within the district who shall produce to him a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence respectively."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwelcomed the Amendment as a proof of returning confidence in the magistrates of Ireland on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and these with whom he acted. He would accept the proposition on the understanding that the certificate should be signed by magistrates residing in the same petty sessional division as the person applying, because he thought that personal knowledge ought to be secured. He moved an Amendment with the object of carrying out this view.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he thought this would give rise to considerable difficulty in some parts, where but few magistrates resided, and he suggested that the certificate should be signed by magistrates residing in the same quarter sessional division as the applicant.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he was sorry the Government had accepted this Amendment. There were such people as popularity-hunters, and Benches of Magistrates in Ireland were not always free from this taint. In a large body like the magistrates of Ireland they could not all be angels, and some of them, he was sorry to say, had nothing angelic about them at all. Two magistrates would have the power of frustrating the design of the Act, and a person might obtain a licence upon the certificate of two of the greatest Numskulls in the county. The House had, in fact, got itself into a nice "mess," and he would try and extricate it by dividing the House against the Amendment.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGremarked that a magistrate in his county certified in favour of a man holding a considerable portion of land on the seaboard, whose crops were being destroyed by sea-fowl and rooks, and the certificate was signed by a gentleman of rank in the county; but when it was presented to the resident magistrate he refused to act upon it, although he had not a word to say against the man's character. The Amendment which had been accepted, with a modification, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was really the only
  1854
  concession which had been made since the House went into Committee on this Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) would not go to a division on the subject.
  MR. CALLANobserved, that there were many petty sessional divisions in which it would be impossible to get the signatures of two resident magistrates. He would suggest that the signatures of two magistrates in the quarter sessions division or in the barony should be sufficient. It ill-beseemed a Member sitting upon the Conservative benches to call the Irish magistrates "numskulls."
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he was quite satisfied at the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government, and he had no sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly).
  MR. COLLINSappealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to restrict his good intention unnecessarily, and that he would consent to introduce the words "baronial division."
  Amendment amended and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 9, after the word "endorsement," to insert the words "any order made after the passing of this Act for the revocation of any licence or licences granted to any person or persons to have or carry arms shall state in such order the reason for the revocation of same."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he could not accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member. Revocation of licence was only made after careful inquiry, on the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, and he could easily imagine circumstances under which it would be highly inexpedient to publish the information so obtained.
  MR. BUTTsuggested that the Amendment should not be pressed by his hon Friend. He (Mr. Butt) must, however, protest against the power which the magistrates would have under the Bill of branding a man's character in private without affording him an opportunity of knowing and probably of repelling the charge made against him.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he thought that the magistrates of Ireland might safely be intrusted with the duty which the clause would impose upon them.
  MR. CALLANprotested against the assertion that Irish magistrates might safely be allowed in secret to decide upon the character of a man and the course which the Government ought to adopt towards him.
  MR. STACPOOLEstated, without fear of contradiction, that the magistrates of Ireland were as independent and straightforward a body of men as could be found in the Three Kingdoms. The Government would, he believed, do a service to the country by acting upon any suggestion they might make.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 199: Majority 117.
  MR. R. POWERmoved, in page 2, line 20, at end, insert—
  "Every person appointed to grant licences under this Act shall keep a true and perfect list of the names and residences of all persons applying for such licences, and shall on the first day of every month deposit with the clerk of the peace of the county a true and perfect copy of such list, adding thereto to the name of each applicant a statement showing whether the licence has been granted or refused, specifying also the nature of the licence applied for, and the nature of the licence, if any, granted, which list shall be kept by the clerk of the peace among the records of the county."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment' provided the words "true and perfect', were omitted, and that for "month" the word "year" was substituted.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, in page 2, line 20, at end, insert—
  "Every person duly licensed to kill game shall be entitled as of right to obtain a licence to have and carry arms under this Act."
  This would restore the law to what it had been prior to the Act of 1870.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 20, after the word "endorsement," to insert the words "every person duly licensed to kill game shall be entitled as of right to obtain a licence to have and carry arms under this Act."—(Mr. Downing.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpointed out that the Amendment would simply have the effect of taking away the discretionary power of the licensing authority in the case of persons who chose to pay £3 3s. for a game licence.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsupported the Amendment. He thought that persons
  1856
  who would pay £3 3s. for a game licence would not belong to the "dangerous" classes.
  MR. GOLDNEYmaintained that if the clause were passed as it was it would entirely remove all discretionary powers from the county magistrates.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped the Chief Secretary would agree that persons having a licence to carry arms in their own county should, if they had also a game licence, be permitted to carry arms in any part of the country. At present they could not join a shooting party in a neighbouring county.
  MR. RONAYNEstated that he had suffered inconvenience personally as a sportsman under that clause. After paying £3 3s. for a game licence he had gone out shooting without having also a licence to carry arms, being ignorant of the alteration of the law which rendered the latter licence necessary. In that way he understood he had made himself liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour every time he had gone out shooting, and it was in the power of any policeman to have arrested him. When he became aware of the real state of the law he got rid of his dogs and his gun because he could not bring himself to go and ask a magistrate for permission to carry arms. That grievance might be a sentimental one; but it was keenly felt by the highly intelligent constituency which he represented.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he thought the Representative of an intelligent constituency ought to look into the Acts of Parliament relating to his country, and if he found that he had infringed the law and that the Government had not come down upon him for it, he ought to be grateful to them for their clemency, and not complain of it as a sentimental grievance.
  MR. SULLIVANreplied that in such a case it was the first duty of a Viceroy to know the laws he had to administer, and not to break them. Was it becoming for the son of a Viceroy who, ignorant of the laws he had sworn to maintain, had rendered himself liable to prosecution as a felon, to tell an hon. Member that, as a simple Representative, he ought to study the uncodified laws of the British Empire? He (Mr. Sullivan) believed that if the noble Lord was examined, he would prove to be well able to preach, but not to practise.
  MR. RONAYNE,in explanation, could only refer to the complicated state of English legislation, and of the penal enactments.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: Will the hon. Member for Louth state the laws of which the Viceroy was ignorant and which he had broken?
  MR. SULLIVAN: With the greatest pleasure. I was referring to these portions of the Act of 2 & 3 Vict. which the Government is now about to amend, as it provides that every unregistered Freemason in Ireland is liable to be prosecuted as a felon. I hope that no one will deny—no brother Mason certainly will deny—that the Viceroy of Ireland is a Freemason. I am not aware that his name is on the return of registered Freemasons. If it is, I make the most profound apology to him, not only as Viceroy, but also in his other character, in which I highly respect him, as an Irish gentleman and a nobleman who is extremely popular in our country. If it be true that these Acts have been so absurd and complicated that a Viceroy was ignorant of their provisions, I put it to the House whether it is to be wondered at that the hon. Member for Cork should be ignorant of the law for three months? I should be glad to hear now that the Viceroy was registered, and not a felon. We are now about to amend the law, so that there shall no longer be felons in high quarters in Ireland through ignorance of the law.
  THE CHAIRMANwished to remind the Committee of the Question before it. It was proposed to insert words to the effect that every person duly licensed to kill game should be licensed to carry arms.
  DR. O'LEARYspoke in favour of the Amendment, and said that he himself had similar experience of the difficulty of understanding the Act to that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Cork. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consent to modify the clause.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERappealed to the hon. Member for the county of Cork to press his Amendment to a division, and he should have his support.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAmoved a verbal Amendment in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.
  MR. MELDONopposed the verbal Amendment, and stated that the law, as it now stood, in relation to game licences, authorized any man having a game
  1858
  licence to go through any proclaimed district in Ireland with his gun.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood the hon. Member who had just spoken to state that a person having a licence to carry arms and also a game certificate, was thereby authorized to carry arms in any proclaimed district; and he believed this to be correct.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Then, Sir, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTTsaid, there was no instance wherein it could be shown that men possessing game licences had turned their arms to improper uses. The present Bill was going beyond the Act of 1847.
  MR. BIGGARmoved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. BIGGARagain rose, and said he had intended to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, which he made simply because the House would not hear him. He must be heard or would repeat the Motion.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that it was not competent for the hon. Member to renew a Motion which had been negatived.
  MR. CALLANprotested against the unseemly conduct of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. They were sent to Parliament to express their opinions freely and fully, and they ought not to be interrupted by unseemly noises. He would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFappealed to the Chairman to know whether it was in Order for one hon. Member to say that other hon. Members had been guilty of "unseemly conduct."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not understand the hon. Member to apply the term "unseemly conduct" to hon. Gentlemen, but to use the words "unseemly noises," and he must point out that even that term was not desirable.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he did not think it was fair that hon. Members should be interrupted in their observations by noises which were not seemly, and if the noises were not seemly they were unseemly noises; and therefore, in spite of the hon. Gentleman who had

  1859
  just risen to Order, he begged to repeat his remark.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out that the words "unseemly noises" were not a desirable term to use; and he must also say that it was not the practice of hon. Gentlemen to repeat expressions after they had been ruled to be undesirable.
  MR. SULLIVANquite understood that the Committee should evince a little impatience at listening to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but he desired to say that up to the present both sides of the House had evinced the fairest disposition to carry on the discussion. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) would withdraw his Motion, and that the hon. Member for Cavan would be heard.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he intended to be heard. If hon. Members did not like it they had their remedy—and he had his. All he wanted to say was that the Excise in Ireland had power to grant licences for the sale of spirits, and he did not see why the gun licences should not be in their hands also.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Chairman had misunderstood him if he thought he had repeated anything which it had been ruled was undesirable to be used in debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGinquired whether it was intended, as he believed it was, by the clause to prevent a man who held an arms licence in his own county carrying arms into an adjoining county which was proclaimed?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)replied that in the case referred to, a licence to carry arms in the proclaimed district, or in some other proclaimed district, would be required.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 250: Majority 166.
  MR. BUTTmoved, in page 2, line 26, at end to insert "between sunrise and sunset." There was no reason why search warrants should be used at any hour of the night. For any legitimate purpose the power of search in the daytime was sufficient. What he wished was to restore the law to what it was before
  1860
  1870. At the present moment every man's house washable to be broken into without warrant at any time. There was such a thing as lawless law, and this was one. In England they had given household suffrage; in Ireland they gave household search. That was the law in 31 counties of Ireland. Every house was at the mercy of a common policeman.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick he could well understand how it was that there was so strong an opposition on the part of some hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House to this measure, the cause of their opposition being a want of knowledge of the provisions of the law as it now existed. Neither in law nor in fact was it true that in 31 counties in Ireland any man's house could be searched at the will of a common policeman. No policeman could search the house of any man without a warrant issued by the proper authorities; and, in the second place, no search warrant had been in force in Ireland except for searching houses specially named since June last, with very few exceptions, as in the case of certain ports where there was reason to fear that arms were being imported. Under these circumstances, the eloquent denunciation of the existing law by the hon. and learned Member appeared to, be a little exaggerated. Having looked at the matter very carefully, however, he felt that the existing law respecting the search for arms might be fairly amended in several material respects. He therefore proposed to accede to certain of the Amendments which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member and his Friends. Thus, he would assent to the proposal that the search for arms should only be between sunrise and sunset—a concession which he believed would be of very material importance. A great deal had been said about the dreadful way in which the houses of the Irish peasantry were invaded at night. He was willing to secure them against any such danger. He was also prepared to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman that search warrants should not be executed except in the presence and under the direction of some responsible officer. The third Amendment provided that such

  1861
  warrant should not be executed except by the authority of a justice of the peace acting for the county within which it was to be executed, specifying the house or place to be entered. To that Amendment he must object, because it would place the authority of a justice of the peace over that of the Lord Lieutenant, and therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it. Under these circumstances, he asked the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and his Friends to meet the Government in the same conciliatory spirit, and to accept the compromise he had suggested.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the right hon. Baronet in assenting to these Amendments had done much to mitigate the evils of this coercive legislation, inasmuch as it might now be said with truth that the general right of domiciliary search no longer existed. He need scarcely say that the Irish people would fully appreciate the action of the right hon. Baronet and of the Government in the matter; and, for his own part, he could with a clear conscience return his sincere thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he had made.
  The two first Amendments were then put and agreed to.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that after the generous spirit shown by the Chief Secretary, he was unwilling to interrupt the general harmony, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that he should have the power to move it on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FAYmoved, in page 2, line 36, to leave out "one year" and insert "forty-eight hours." He thought 48 hours' imprisonment was sufficient punishment for a person found in the possession of arms, especially after what had been stated by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) as to the character of some Members of the Irish magistracy.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHopposed the Amendment, which seemed to savour somewhat of a ridiculous character.
  MR. CONOLLY: I wish to deny emphatically having depreciated the local magistrates of Ireland as a body. I did say some of them were not angels. ["Numskull."] I did say there were
  1862
  Numskulls among them, and I will say further, that there are Numskulls in this House.
  MR. RONAYNEsaid, that the hon. Member had shown that there were Numskulls in the House, and the Government had evidently thought that there were Numskulls amongst the local magistracy, because stipendiary magistrates, who in many cases knew nothing of the law, were placed over them.
  MR. SULLIVANsuggested that three months should be inserted instead of 48 hours.
  MR. FAYasked permission to withdraw his Amendment. ["No."]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcomplained of the language of the Irish Secretary, and expressed the hope that the original Amendment would be allowed to be withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. and learned Member, not having been successful in his operations against the Bill in the earlier part of the evening, had now, after he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had spent a long and fatiguing evening in the Committee, come down, without hearing a word of what he had said, and accused him of using improper language. He would appeal to the Committee, whether he had used any language justifying the implied censure of the hon. and learned Member? He had only said that the Amendment would tend to make the Bill ridiculous. If the original Amendment were withdrawn, there would at any rate not be this objection to the substituted Amendment. The penalty had already been reduced from two years to one year, and he had hoped that this concession would have received more acknowledgment.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had hoard no improper language attributed to the right hon. Baronet; and, indeed, his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) had spoken in a conciliatory manner. He hoped that the original Amendment would be allowed to be withdrawn.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, as a general rule, he should like to meet the wishes of the Committee, and as far as he had any influence in that House, he should use it to try and induce the Committee to consent to the withdrawal of the hon. Member's (Mr. Fay's) Amendment. With regard to the progress of the Committee

  1863
  with the Bill, there appeared to he a misconception, not only in that House, but out-of-doors; but so far as it appeared to him, he must say that he thought the progress made with the Bill was satisfactory, and the spirit in which the discussion had been carried on by the Committee so business-like and encouraging, that by meeting today at 2 o'clock they would, no doubt, make considerable further progress with the measure. It was a proposition which he had no doubt would be generally popular, and he hoped the remaining parts of the Bill would be discussed in the same well-intended feeling as the preceding parts had been. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONproposed to omit "one year" in order to insert "three months for a first offence, and not exceeding one year for any subsequent offence."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three months for the first offence, and not exceeding one year for any subsequent offence."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  Question put, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 120: Majority 59.
  MR. SULLIVANmoved that Progress be reported, and suggested that the discussion should be resumed on Monday.
  MR. DISRAELIacceded to the Motion for reporting Progress, but remarked that the Committee so thoroughly understood the subject of the Bill now that they could dispose of it more easily at a Morning Sitting to-morrow than at an Evening Sitting on Monday.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUTHERLAND AND CAITHNESS) BILL.
  Resolution [April 23] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of STAFFORD, Sir JOHN SINCLAIR, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, and Mr. WHITBREAD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]

  SAVINGS BANKS, &C. BILL.
  Resolution [April 28] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

  LANDED PROPRIETORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. P. J. SMYTH, Bill to facilitate the creation of a class of small Landed Proprietors in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. P. J. SMYTH, Mr. P. MARTIN, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]

  TENANTS COMPENSATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir THOMAS ACLAND, Bill to secure compensation to outgoing Tenants of Agricultural Holdings for outlay on the soil in certain cases, and facilitate and define the application of Capital in the Improvement of Land, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS ACLAND, Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, and Colonel KINGSCOTE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 149.]

  NORTHAMPTON IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MEREWETHER, Bill to confirm certain acts and transactions of the Northampton Improvement Commissioners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MEREWETHER, Mr. CART-WRIGHT, and Mr. HEYGATE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Lovel and Holland, after the death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* (74); Explosive Substances * (75); Bank Holidays Act (1871) Extension and Amendment* (76).
Second Reading—Saint Paul's Cathedral (Minor Canonries) (60); (£15,000,000) Consolidated Fund *; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (55); Exeter Union of Benefices (58) * discharged.
Committee—Public Entertainments (Hour of Opening) * (51–77).
Committee—Report—Glebe Lands (Ireland) * (47).
Report—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (No. 2) (46); Justices of the Peace Qualification* (72).

ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL (MINOR CANONRIES) BILL.—(No. 60.)
(The Lord Bishop of London.)
ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL (MINOR CANONRIES) BILL.—(No. 60.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the direct purpose of the Bill was to extend the provisions 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, so as to authorize certain arrangements with reference to the minor canonries in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul; and next to secure the efficient performance of the cathedral services by the appointment to the office of minor canon of men thoroughly competent to perform the duties. The 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, provided that after the passing of that Act there should not be more than six, nor fewer than two minor canons in each cathedral and collegiate church. At that time the minor canons of St. Paul's were 12 in number, and were a body incorporate by a Royal Charter. For this reason, and because no power was given by the Act to deal with the estates of minor corporations, no regulations had been made pursuant to the Act for limiting the number and fixing the emoluments of the minor canons; but excepting as to the last two the vacancies of their canonries had been from time to time filled up. But doubts having arisen as to the legality of these appointments, the Bill had been introduced to remedy the inconveniences that had arisen. It provided that all past appointments to minor canonries were confirmed, and the right of existing minor canonries preserved: it limited the appointment of future minor canons until the number was reduced to six, which was hereafter to be the establishment: they were to continue a body corporate under the old style, and the corporate property was to vest in the corporation. The separate estates of the minor canons were, as they became vacant, to vest in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of their "common fund." The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the other hand, were to provide residences for the six minor canons, and were authorized to prepare schemes for regulating the office and duties of minor canons, for their residence, and for their enforced retirement on pension when no longer able to perform their duties. It was to this last provision he referred when he spoke of the Bill as intended to provide for a more efficient performance of the services of the cathedral church. Under the existing arrangements, the minor canons were not compelled and had no
  1796
  inducement to retire when disabled by age or other circumstances from the efficient performance of their duties. The consequence was that they sometimes continued to hold their appointments long after their retirement had become desirable. In fact, the senior minor canon—a venerable gentleman in every sense of the word—was now 94 years of age. He wished to speak with every respect of the minor canons, and the only fault he could find in them was their tendency to grow old, which was not an uncommon or unpardonable weakness: but when minor canons became old they were no longer able to sing. Three of them at St. Paul's were laid up from various causes; it was more than half-a-century since the senior minor canon had performed service in the cathedral church; another of the minor canons was 70 years of age, and two others were almost entirely incapable of discharging their duties. This condition of affairs would not be desirable at a cathedral in a small city, but it was still less tolerable at St. Paul's, which could no longer be accused of being useless, and was devoted to a most important part of the spiritual work of the present day. On Sunday, besides the early service, which was not choral, there were three full services, attended by congregations varying from 1,000 to 6,000 or 7,000 persons. The week-day services were well attended; while classes and lectures had been established for young men, who formed a large proportion of the residents in the City, as well as lectures for the younger clergy. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Dean and Chapter should ask Parliament, as they did by this Bill, to give them the means for providing for a succession of competent, able minor canons, in order that the services might be made as efficient as possible, and that there might be a body of clergy ready to assist in all the other work of the diocese. He might add that the minor canons were themselves anxious for the proposed change—and in fact they might well be, for they would be secured in all their present rights and privileges, while all future minor canons would on appointment be entitled to an income of not less than £300 a-year with a residence; and when the number was reduced to six, each would receive an annual stipend of £400, The Bill provided

  1797
  that no benefice could hereafter be held with the minor canonry; but probably no grievance would be felt by any clergyman from the loss of his canonry on being appointed to a better benefice. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Bill be now read the second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 66.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 66.)

  REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the peculiar circumstances under which the Bill had been brought in, and also the peculiar character of the Bill itself, had naturally prevented discussion on its previous stages, either of the questions involved in the clauses, or of the still larger questions which were opened by the Bill as a whole. He, and those who thought with him, believed that they sufficiently discharged their duty to the House and the country by merely saying Not-Content to the leading provisions of the Bill, without asking their Lordships to divide against them; but they never would have reconciled themselves to that course, if they had not anticipated that there would be a fitting opportunity for stating their view of the principles involved in this measure;—because the questions which it opened, whether as a merely provisional measure, or as one which might influence permanent legislation on the subject, were, in his opinion, such that—especially after the experience of the last two years—there were very cogent reasons why their Lordships should not part with the Bill before there had been a full discussion upon it. Their Lordships knew that the opportunities which had been expected for a discussion of the subject with which the Bill dealt had been suddenly and unexpectedly lost to the House; and that circumstance made it important that the present occasion should be made use of, for contributing suggestions
  1798
  which might be taken into further consideration when this question might again be occupying the attention of Her Majesty's Government, or of that House, or of the country. For himself, he did most heartily desire that, in the interval which would elapse before the subject was again brought under the notice of their Lordships, the country at large should have its attention directed to it and to the great interest which all classes of Her Majesty's subjects had in its being settled on sound principles. With this object in view, he would pass in review, first of all, the arrangements of the Act of 1873, which the present Bill suspended; next, the modifications of those arrangements which were proposed to their Lordships last year and in the early part of the present Session, and, so far as their Lordships knew, not relinquished without regret by Her Majesty's Government; and, lastly, the manner in which the present plan would operate as a provisional measure during the year while the question of the Final Court of Appeal was in suspense, and what its operation would be if it were made the basis of a permanent scheme. He held now, as he held in 1873, that the good and sound working of our altered system of judicature must depend, if not entirely, at all events mainly, upon the constitution and the working of the Court of Appeal. He was, therefore, bound to admit that if the appellate arrangements of the measure of 1873 were not what they ought to have been, it was important that there should be a rearrangement; but, at the same time, he must say that the more consideration he had been able to give to the matter the more had he become convinced that the arrangement made for appeals in the Act of 1873 was not only good in itself, but better than anything which had been since proposed, or that was likely to be proposed, as a substitute for that plan. When framing the Act of 1873, he did so with the conviction that to have a large number of highly-qualified Judges available for the business of the Court of Appeal was one of the most important requisites of a sound judicial system. Accordingly, the Act provided that the ordinary Judges should, in the first instance, at all events, be nine in number. In addition to those, there were five ex officio Members of the

  1799
  Court of Appeal, who were also to be the heads of the different Divisions of the High Court—namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, and the Master of the Rolls. The Lord Chancellor was to be the head of the whole system. Of the ordinary Judges, four were to be taken from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by virtue of the powers given in the Act appointing four paid Members of that Committee; two others were to be the present Lords Justices, and three were to be nominated by the Crown. He thought it must be admitted that those materials must go far to constitute a strong Court of Appeal. But in addition to these elements, which were fixed in number, there was another which he had always regarded as one of great importance. It was the element composed of such retired Lord Chancellors and Judges of Her Majesty's Courts as, being selected by Her Majesty, might express their willingness to serve in the Court of Appeal. That provision, if acted on, would practically contribute to the Court of Appeal the same Judges who now administered justice in their Lordships' House, and also the effective unpaid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In that element he should have hoped to see included such men as his noble and learned Friend, with whom he had the misfortune to differ on this Appellate question (Lord Penzance), and Sir Henry Keating, who was at present giving his assistance to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With such materials, he thought they would have a Court as strong as imagination could conceive in respect of knowledge and experience both of Equity and of Common Law; and the whole strength of that Court would have been available for all the Appellate business of England, if the Act of 1873 had been allowed to come into operation in its integrity. If authority were wanted in support of that view, it might be found in the published opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion on all subjects was of great weight and value, but on this question of especial value, not only because of his experience and eminent qualities, but also because of the close attention which he had given to the question in 1870 and 1871, during which years the Lord
  1800
  Chief Justice was one of the most jealous critics of the proposals which were then made to their Lordships' House. The Lord Chief Justice favoured the country in those two consecutive years with the expression of his opinion on the subject; and the conclusion at which he arrived, after the best consideration he could give the matter, was that there should be only one Court of Appeal, and that it should consist of the materials which had just been described to their Lordships, and which in the Act of 1873 constituted the Appellate portion of the Supreme Court; with this exception—that the Lord Chief Justice then suggested that there should be four, and not nine ordinary Judges. He did not know whether, when suggesting that number, his Lordship contemplated that the Privy Council Appeals would not be heard by the new Court, or whether his Lordship might have counted more than he himself had thought it safe to do upon the constant attendance of some of the ex-officio Members. For the present he postponed the question of the appeals from Scotland and Ireland, and also the question of the Privy Council appeals—what he wished now to bring under their Lordships' special consideration was, the enormous importance of giving the strongest possible constitution to the Court which was to hear the first appeals. He used the term "first appeals" on the supposition that there might be a second appeal. At present, first appeals constituted the great mass of the Appellate business of the country. It would be an error to suppose that the further appeals which came to their Lordships' House generally represented business of special legal importance. It was quite true that important cases, in respect of which great difference of opinion existed, or in which large interests were at stake, would from time to time be brought to the Court of Pinal Appeal, whatever that Court might be; but from his long experience at the Bar of the House, and his more limited experience as one of the Law Lords, he believed that by far the greater number of appeals to their Lordships' House did not involve very important questions, either as regarded points of law or as to the value of the property involved in the decision. But what was the number of appeals

  1801
  brought to the First Court of Appeal, and what was the number brought to that Pinal Court, their Lordships' House? Taking the year 1873—a year in which there were a greater number of appeals in their Lordships' House than there were this last year—he found by the judicial statistics for 1873 that in that year the number of errors and appeals disposed of by the Court of Exchequer Chamber was 51; the number disposed of in Chancery, including Bankruptcy appeals, was 189; and the Admiralty appeals which went to the Privy Council were 13. Those figures gave a total of 202 cases from the English Courts to the First Courts of Appeal. On the other hand, in the same year, the whole number of errors and appeals disposed of in the House of Lords was 32. That was the proportion—32 to 202; and that proportion was, he believed, quite as true in respect of the importance and value, and as to the legal questions involved in the litigation, as it was with respect to the mere number of cases. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the law was mainly built up by the decisions of the Court of First Appeal, and consequently the constitution of that Court and the operations of that Court were of the greatest importance. If that were so under the existing system of judicature, he asked their Lordships how much more must it be so under the system introduced by the Judicature Act, in the carrying out of which system all the branches of the Supreme Court and all the Judges were to administer Equity as well as Law? He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend Lord Coleridge, and he had himself always said, that it was an error to talk of the fusion of Law and Equity—the true expression was a "fusion of the administration" of Law and Equity. When framing the Act of 1873, he gave full credit to the Judges of this country for capacity to administer the new system; but, at the same time, he was perfectly conscious that in the first working of it a great number of questions in Law and in Equity must arise, which would necessarily lead to frequent recourse to the Court of Appeal. An efficient Court of First Appeal was, therefore, essential—one capable of grappling with all questions of Law or of Equity, and with all questions relating to the working of the Supreme Court. For the discharge of such a duty, the Appeal
  1802
  Court constituted by the Act of 1873 was well qualified. Well, having regard to the amount of business which that Court would have had to discharge, he had thought it necessary that it should be capable of being sub-divided, and sit in two, or perhaps three Divisions. He was still convinced that with the amount of business likely to arise under the Judicature Act, it would be impossible to prevent arrears, unless the Court were able to sit in Divisions, and did so. Some persons thought that to have a Court of Appeal sitting in Divisions might result in conflicting decisions and a confusion as to the state of the law. That objection was not consistent with his experience, and in these matters one grain of fact was worth an ounce of theory. There was no difference, in this respect, between having a Court of three Judges sitting in one room and a Court of three sitting in another room and exercising Appellate Jurisdiction at the same time, and having a Court of one set of three Judges sitting to-day and a Court of another set of throe other Judges sitting to-morrow and hearing appeals. The system would not be at all like that of the pre-sent Court of Exchequer Chamber: you would not have the same Judges continually sitting together elsewhere as members of a particular Court, by the traditions or prevailing views of which they might be, or supposed to be, in some cases, biassed. You would have had, in principle, the same state of things which was now found in their Lordships' House and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It might, for instance, and it did sometimes happen, that on one day three Law Lords—say, his noble and learned Friends Lord Chelmsford, Lord Penzance, and Lord O'Hagan—might sit to hear appeals, and on the next day throe others—say, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley, and himself. And this happened without any inconvenience, because the Law Lords in that House and the Members of the Judicial Committee were not persons who continually sat together or who were sorted in classes. As he understood the proposal of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) it was intended that the ordinary Members of his Court of Appeal should sit three at a time. His noble and learned Friend seemed to contemplate

  1803
  that only three would sit at a time; so that some of them might always be free, this relaxation being taken by the Judges in turn. Experience, he thought, showed that there would be no inconvenience, but might often be a great practical convenience in adding to the numerical power of a Court of Appeal, and therefore he must express his opinion against the Rule of Three in this matter, which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack told them on a former occasion had been favoured by the late Lord Kingsdown. That noble and learned Lord appeared to have held that three Judges were the best number for a Court of Appeal. For the ordinary business of appeal three might do, and in the Act of 1873 he (Lord Selborne) himself proceeded on that principle; but in cases of great importance, on which judicial minds had differed, he thought that five Judges at least were desirable as an Appellate tribunal. He now proposed to show that, in the Act of 1873, the principle of a rehearing, or what some noble Lords liked to call a second appeal, was not overlooked. He retained to the full all the opinions which he formerly expressed on that subject, and he took the liberty of now vindicating the arrangement for re-hearings made in the Act of 1873. Section 53 of that Act was in these terms—
  "Every appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be heard and determined, cither by the whole Court or by a divisional Court consisting of any number, not less than three, of the Judges thereof. Any number of such divisional Courts may sit at the same time. Any appeal, which for any reason may be deemed fit to be reargued before decision, or to be re-heard before final judgment, may be so re-argued or re-heard before a greater number of Judges, if the Court of Appeal think fit to direct."
  The meaning of that was, that, in cases in which there was a difference among the Appeal Judges, or in which their decision would reverse on important points the opinions of other Judges, or in which there were serious questions of law or great interests at stake, the Court would have power to order a rehearing before a greater number of Judges. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) the other day had represented that as a provision for a second hearing "when the Court wished for it." The correct way of putting it was, that it was a provision for a second hearing where the Court gave leave for it. The parties,
  1804
  who desired it, would in all cases make the application; and he had not the slightest doubt that under such a provision the second hearing would have been granted in all cases in which it ought to be granted; and his only doubt in respect of it was, whether it might not have thrown an invidious duty on the Judges in some cases. He had no doubt, that the interest of the public and the suitors would be much better promoted by such a system, than by establishing the right to a second appeal, as a general rule—a principle which seemed to be so strongly favoured by some of their Lordships? That was not now and never had been the law. The fact was, that there were great inconsistencies and discrepancies in the present state of the law as regarded appeals. There was no such thing now as an obligation on any one appealing from the Court of Chancery in England to bring his case to any Court of Intermediate Appeal. From one of the Chancery Courts a suitor might go, and not unfrequently did go, direct to their Lordships' House, and thus deprive the other party—who might have succeeded in the Court of Chancery, but might fail in this House—of a second appeal. The late Lord St. Leonards remarked that not a few decisions had been pronounced by their Lordships' House which were open to much criticism; and it was said to be the opinion of the Profession that if there had been a further appeal from their Lordships' House to some other tribunal, some at least of these decisions of their Lordships would probably have been reversed. Again, from the Court of Admiralty there was but one appeal, which was to the Privy Council. He did not refer to these things as if it were an advantage to have discrepancies in the law as regarded appeals—he referred to them because, in practice, no one had been dissatisfied with the finality of one appeal, when the law made it final. Suitors never cried out and complained that they were unjustly dealt with, because they had not another appeal in these cases. The real truth was, that in the great majority of cases finality was the greatest boon you could give to suitors. The system established by the Act of 1873 had these great merits, above every other which had yet been proposed:—it was the best for maintaining the authority of the Court;

  1805
  it interfered least with its available strength; it would have worked rapidly, easily, and cheaply; it gave the least opportunity for excessive litigation and oppressive costs. He ventured to say that all these objects were accomplished by the Bill of 1873 in a degree and in a way in which they could not be accomplished by any other system. He was speaking now of the Appellate Court and of the regulation which provided that the rehearing should be by a greater number of the same Court of Appeal. Their Lordships would permit him to remind them of the reasons which, so far as they were stated by him, satisfied them in 1873. On the 13th of February of that year, in introducing the Bill, he said—
  "If you have a good Court with sufficient judicial power to command the confidence of the country, it is better that there should he no double appeal. I would not exclude the power, where you have an appeal heard by a small number of Judges, of having it reconsidered by a larger number of Judges. But my opinion is that, if you establish an adequate Court, it is desirable for the parties, and for the general interest of the country that the decision of that Court should be final, and that you should not multiply appeals. You never can escape, by going through any number of Courts of Appeal, from the risk of differences of opinion in each and every one of them, and from doubts arising as to whether the last Court decided better than these before it. What you want is to make as good a Court as possible, and to give it all the power and authority you can, and that in my humble judgment, is best accomplished by making it final."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 350.]
  He begged their Lordships to notice how the two first objects—the maintenance of the authority of the Court and the utilization of its whole available strength for all purposes for which that strength might be useful, were accomplished by the Act of 1873. They had not half of the Judges to do a small part only of the business—to dispose of 32 appeals instead of 202; but every one of them was available for every part of the business; and by enabling a re-hearing to be taken before a greater number, they at the same time secured the necessary amount of authority for the careful consideration of all such cases as required rehearing. It was, in his view, no objection to that system that the final decision or rehearing would be by Judges some of whom at other times sat in other Divisions of the Court and had themselves pronounced other judgments
  1806
  which might also be the subject of rehearing by a greater number; because that happened now, and it did not interfere in any way with the authority of the Final Court. He himself and his noble and learned Friends (Lord Hatherley and the Lord Chancellor) had pronounced judgments which had been appealed from to their Lordships' House; and though they might not, in these cases, have followed the example which some of their Predecessors—probably of necessity—had set, of deciding on appeals from themselves, they sat on the very next day to decide on other appeals with others to assist them. So far from thinking there was a disadvantage in such a circulation of Judges, he thought there would be a very great advantage, because in that way a greater amount of business would be transacted by each of them, their experience would be derived from a larger area, and there would not be the same danger of falling into a narrow groove, or getting into possible habits of negligence, which might arise from dealing with business of a more limited quantity or kind. He would now ask their Lordships to consider how the Court proposed by the present Bill would be constituted, in these respects, as compared with the Court established by the Bill of 1873. His noble and learned Friend took out of the Court which would transact the greatest amount of business, which would deal with the far larger amount of property and the vast majority of suitors, some of its most important Members, and by so doing greatly weakened it: he at the same time ran the risk of weakening the Courts of First Instance, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—which was still to continue—so far as he relied on the regular services of Judges who had also duties to discharge in these other Courts. Then there were these two other considerations which in point of importance could not be exaggerated—namely, that the Court of Appeal should be easily accessible and expeditious, and that there should be as little burden of costs thrown upon the suitor as possible. Of all the evils of the present system, none was greater than the enormous power which it gave to the largest purse. Was there no substantial difference in these respects between a rehearing such as was proposed by the

  1807
  Act of 1873 and a second appeal? In the first place, under the Judicature Act of 1873, in the 48th and the following Rules of the Schedule, and the 58th order of the Schedule to the present Bill, regulations were laid down for the conduct of appeals, of such a nature that greater facilities and expedition would be afforded than had ever hitherto been done, and thereby the costs would be proportionately diminished. But these advantages would be lost if the rehearing were taken to their Lordships' House or to another place. Some light would be thrown on these points by a Return of certain costs which he moved for not long since, and which had been laid on the Table. His object in moving for that Return was to enable their Lordships to compare the cost of appeals in the Court of Chancery with the costs of appeals to their Lordships' House. The Return contained only three cases, in which such a direct comparison could be made: but the other cases—to which he would refer by the numbers affixed to them in the Return—were also examples of the great expense of appeals to this House. Cases 4, 7, 10, 11, and 12, were, he could say, from his own recollection, of quite an ordinary character, in each of which there was only a single respondent. The average cost of these five appeals was £491 8s. 9d. There was another case (No. 5) which was also of an ordinary description, except that there happened to be three respondents—the costs which their Lordships' House adjudged to these three respondents against the appellant were £1,121 8s. 2d. With regard to the three cases which afforded materials for a direct comparison, No. 12 was an ordinary case, quite as simple as the common run of Chancery cases, and the costs, taxed even as between solicitor and client, in the Court of Appeal in Chancery, were £191 11 s. 8d. The costs given in their Lordships' House to the successful party were £587 10 s. 9d., taxed as between party and party—a difference of about £400 more in the House of Lords. Nos. 6 and 15 were heavy cases, with one respondent in each. The costs of the appeal of No. 6 in Chancery were £780 3s. 4d., and of the appeal to that House £1,248 15 s. 9d. In No. 15, the costs of the appeal in Chancery were £509 14 s. 2d.; but in the House of Lords they were £1,248 5s. 7d., being a difference of
  1808
  £738. This was not a trifling matter, and he thought their Lordships must be satisfied that the suitors had a great interest indeed in the substitution of a system which would avoid these ruinous expenses. The promptitude with which a second hearing by a greater number of the same Court could take place was also a great advantage in these cases where there ought to be a second appeal, and a still greater incidental advantage in preventing frivolous appeals. Having said so much in favour of the scheme of 1873, he would observe that there were some variations of that scheme proposed by the Bill of 1874, in which he had acquiesced, and he acquiesced for several reasons. He did so principally because he did not wish to throw difficulties in the way of the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack, when following up and completing the work of 1873, and for other reasons also, which he would now state. Under the Act of 1873 there would have been the advantage of discouraging unnecessary and frivolous re-hearings: but, on the other hand, he was not insensible to the existence of some real force in the objection to throwing upon the Court the responsibility of saying whether there should or should not be any rehearing, in each particular case. When, therefore, his noble and learned Friend thought it better to establish the right to have an appeal reheard, if it were desired, before final judgment—for that was his proposal—in certain defined cases—being in substance the same which he himself had in view as likely to be proper cases for rehearing—he had no difficulty in ac-accepting that change. The other change was that which proposed to fix the manner in which the rehearing of English appeals, and also the hearing of Scotch and Irish cases, should take place before what his noble and learned Friend then called the First Divisional Court of the Court of Appeal. About this he felt much greater difficulty, though a difficulty, rather of sentiment than of a practical kind. He believed that change might, in practice, have worked as well as, though not better than, the plan of 1873. The objection to it was that it might appear to constitute, from time to time, some inequality of position as between the different members of the Court of Appeal. He still felt it was a weak point in that scheme that it did

  1809
  constitute some difference in the position of the members of the Court, and he confessed in that respect he preferred the Act of 1873. But there were certain other provisions which the noble and learned Lord introduced into that Bill which more than anything else tended to reconcile him to that proposal:—a proposal for which there was, at least, one very substantial reason—namely, that it was made in connection with, and mainly for the purposes of, the transfer of Scotch and Irish appeals in the new Court. If their Lordships would refer either to the Bill of 1874, or to the corresponding provisions in the now abandoned Bill of the present Session, they would see that, so far as the available strength of the Court was con-corned, it was as completely preserved by these two Bills as by the Act of 1873, and the essential unity of the Court was preserved also. If they referred to the Bill of 1874 they would find, that subsections 5 and 7 of section 15 enabled Judges of the Court of Appeal, not belonging to the First Division, to sit in that Division under the authority of the Crown or the Lord Chancellor, in case of need; and it was expressly provided that—
  "Any member of the first Divisional Court may, when the state of business will permit it, sit in one of the other Divisional Courts;"
  so that the whole strength of the First Divisional Court was available for all the business of the whole Court of Appeal. Then the 16th section was exactly like the provision of the Act of 1873—
  "An arrangement for re-hearing any appeal before the First Divisional Court of Appeal shall provide that such re-hearing shall take place before any judgment, decree, or order made on such appeal is registered, passed, or entered."
  He thought he was warranted in saying that, under these circumstances, the changes in which he had acquiesced last year were mere modifications in detail of the Act of 1873. It now became necessary for him to make some observations upon the Court of Intermediate Appeal, which would be established—he hoped only provisionally—by the present measure. He confessed he had the greatest possible misgiving as to the sufficiency of the strength of the Court as it was proposed to be constituted, and he deplored the exclusion from that
  1810
  Court of such elements as the Lord Chancellor, when sitting in that House, and the other Members of their Lordships' House who had filled high judicial positions. When the Bill was in Committee, he stated his concurrence with his noble and learned Friend upon one point, as to the mere construction of the Act under which the four Judges of the Judicial Committee were appointed. He did not see his way to the conclusion, that the Supreme Court of Appellate Jurisdiction, contemplated by that Act, must necessarily be one, from which there could be no further appeal. But a more serious difficulty—though one which might, of course, be removed by the consent of the Judges concerned—was, that the Act in question certainly did not appear to contemplate, that new duties should be imposed on some of these four Judges, which would not be shared by them all. And as long as the functions of the Judicial Committee continued, the first and primary duty of all the four, under that Act, must necessarily be to the suitors before that Tribunal. In 1873, when it was proposed that power should be given to the Queen to transfer the appeals before the Privy Council to the new Court, he said this—
  "If Her Majesty should exercise the power which I shall ask the House to confer upon her, all the other judicial business of the Privy Council would be transferred to the new Court of Appeal. It is convenient it should he so; because if we are to have the services of these four Judges appointed for the business of the Court of Appeal, it is manifest we must provide, in the first instance, for the discharge by them of these duties for which they were especially appointed to the Judicial Committee, and the two systems will be most conveniently combined if we have the whole business brought together."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 358.]
  With regard to the ex-officio Members, his noble and learned Friend had expressed his belief that each of them would be able to devote six weeks in the year to the Court of Appeal though glad, he was surprised to hear that statement; because a rumour had reached him that some of the heads of the Common Law Courts were of opinion that the pressure of business upon them was so great that any diminution of the strength of these Courts would interfere materially with the conduct of their ordinary business. The energetic Master of the Rolls might possibly get through his own work, and have six weeks to spare for the Court

  1811
  of Appeal; but he should not have ventured to expect that this could be the case with all the other Judges. Besides, it might fairly be expected that the Appellate business would very largely increase during the early years of the working of the Act—especially as in all the Courts interlocutory orders would now be subject to appeal. As a permanent scheme he could not expect it to work well, and in the first year the difficulties would be particularly numerous. He would say no more as to the present Bill, which was admitted to be provisional for one year only:—in another Session, he understood his noble and learned Friend to say, they would have before them the alternative, either to adhere to the Act of 1873, with such modifications as were consistent with its principle, or to constitute some other final Court of Appeal. For his own part, he could certainly see no reason whatever why the Act of 1873 should not have at least a full trial. As far as Ireland and Scotland were concerned, he adhered to the opinions he expressed when that Act was under consideration. The fact that the Irish Act of Union contained a clause which made it proper that changes as to Irish appeals should not be made without the consent of the Irish people, or these who could speak on their behalf, was no reason why Parliament should be precluded from making any arrangement which might be for the advantage of England, as to English appeals. The Irish Courts—if the Irish people were indeed so much attached to the right of appeal to the House of Lords—must do their work remarkably well, judging by the number of appeals which had come during the present year from the different parts of the United Kingdom. There were 21 English appeals, 15 Scotch appeals, and only three from Ireland. As for Scotland, there was no clause in the Act of Union with that country about the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. There was only a clause providing that the Courts at Westminster Hall should not have cognizance of Scotch appeals. He should be well content to carry on the Irish and Scotch appeals as at present: still believing, that when the new Court of Appeal was established and in operation for England, it would not be long before the people of Scotland and Ireland would again express their desire to be brought
  1812
  into the same system. If the arrangement of 1873 were not in the end to be maintained, he should very much like to foresee what was to be done with the Ecclesiastical, the Indian, and the Colonial appeals. Political considerations might be imported into the question. The Colonies, for example, might entertain some objection to the transfer of their appeals to the House of Lords without their consent. As to Ecclesiastical appeals, he was not sanguine of perfect contentment resulting from any arrangement which had been or which could be made; and this being so, he thought the safest course would be to abide by our present arrangements, which had been supposed to be likely to be treated with more respect by some of the clergy, than had been shown to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Any Court, which consisted of, or included, paid Judges who were not Peers, and which sat in the Parliamentary Recess, when the House of Lords did not sit, could not possibly be the House of Lords; it would be just as much a new Parliamentary Court as that which was created by the Act of 1873. To call such a new Court the House of Lords would be nothing less than ridiculous. Their Lordships would add nothing to their own dignity, or to the dignity of the Court, by endeavouring to transfer to it by Act of Parliament the historical prestige of the existing tribunal. That tribunal, whatever might be its merits or defects, stood on historical foundations; whereas this new tribunal would be as much the creature of an Act of Parliament and would be as totally different from their Lordships' House as was the Court constituted by the Act of 1873. He had made these remarks because he looked upon the subject as one of momentous importance. No necessity had been shown for hastily deciding to overturn what was done two years ago. There was yet time for the country, through all its organs of opinion, to address itself seriously to the consideration of what would most conduce to the public interest in this matter; and when he spoke of the country he, of course, intended to include Scotland and Ireland. There was yet time to re-consider this question; and, so far as Scotland was concerned, he would mention one fact, that The Scotsman newspaper—which he ventured to say

  1813
  expressed the opinions entertained by a large part of the people of Scotland—and, in his judgment, hardly any newspaper in the kingdom was more ably conducted—was in favour of the Act of 1873, and of its extension to Scotland. He did not believe there was either in Scotland or in Ireland such a unanimity of opinion as ought to stand in the way of any settlement which might after grave consideration be deemed the best. All he desired was, that, whatever conclusion was arrived at it should be good in itself and conducive to the administration of justice. It could not be for the public interest that the decisions of Parliament upon questions of that great magnitude, whatever they might be, should be constantly disturbed. If his noble and learned Friend made any proposition which might commend itself to their Lordships and to the other House of Parliament, even though it might not be one that would commend itself to his (Lord Selborne's) own judgment, yet if in practice it should be found conducive to the due administration of justice he would not be the man afterwards to attempt again to disturb it.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, he did not think that it was a convenient thing to discuss the question of the Appellate jurisdiction of this country without any definite plan being before the House. His noble and learned Friend had indicated a Court of his own construction, and then told them that it was not the House of Lords. He admitted it; but the question which was to be discussed was whether the House, preserving its immemorial jurisdiction, might not be so improved in its judicial character as to become an efficient Appellate Tribunal for the Empire. The question of the Court of Ultimate Appeal was an open question, and as the consideration of that question had been relegated to next Session he would not now deal with it. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the costs of appeals to that House of Lords were considerable, and that the matter required to be looked to; but meanwhile he thought that they might be reduced if by a Standing Order the printed matter used in connection with the appeal cases in the Court below might also be used before that House and only reasonable fees allowed on taxation. Their Lordships were aware that the larger portion of the law of this
  1814
  country was what was called judge-made law. No Court reversed its own decision; therefore, as soon as the Court of Ultimate Appeal pronounced its decision upon a question the law on that subject was fixed, subject, of course, to an Act of Parliament. With regard to points of a novel character, the course frequently taken was this:—The Court of the First Instance decided one way on a question of that kind; the losing party did not ask for a re-hearing; but in the course of time the same question was raised in another case, and it was then submitted to the Intermediate Court of Appeal, which enunciated a general principle in deciding the ease. As time went on the Judges began to see that the principle laid down by the Intermediate Court of Appeal could not be maintained, and they therefore threw doubts on the decision of that Court. Finally, after the matter had been considered by the Judges, and they were ripe for a decision, the question came by appeal to the House of Lords, where the matter was settled once for all. The only escape from a decision of that House was an Act of Parliament.
  LORD HATHERLEYdid not agree that this was not the proper occasion for discussing the question what should be the Ultimate Court of Appeal, because that question had been settled by an Act of Parliament, to suspend the action of which this Bill had been brought in. A case that ought to be re-heard he was of opinion should be re-heard before a larger number of Judges than when it was heard in the first instance. In the Court of Chancery it was not uncommon, when a cause had been heard by the Master of the Polls or by one of the Vice Chancellors, for the appeal to be taken at once to the House of Lords without first going either to the Lords Justices or the Lord Chancellor. The reason for this was that the suitor wished to appeal to a more numerous tribunal, and to bring fresh minds to bear upon the law of the case. The result, however, frequently had been that the House of Lords, sitting as a Final Court, consisted of one noble and learned Lord and two lay Peers, which last, if the hearing continued for any length of time, were not always the same on successive days. Even in cases where there had been an intermediate appeal in Chancery, the final appeal had been, in many cases, from a

  1815
  noble and learned Lord sitting in Lincoln's Inn to the same noble and learned Lord sitting in the House of Lords at Westminster. The question was one in reference to which the public mind ought in the first place to be informed, and in the second to make its wishes clearly known. This could, in his view of the matter, be better done by a full discussion in their Lordships' House than by taking the opinions either of the solicitors or counsel who were professionally interested. As an instance of the inconvenience resulting from the present state of things he might mention that some years ago a Master in Chancery gave a decision of great importance, affecting many thousands of people, as to whether a provisional director of a joint-stock company committed himself to the position of a shareholder. This decision was reversed by one of the Vice Chancellors, and afterwards reversed again by one noble and learned Lord, an ex-Lord Chancellor, sitting with two lay Lords as the Final Court of Appeal in the House of Lords. The question was one which it was important finally to settle; but, as a matter of fact, the House of Lords subsequently pronounced a totally opposite decision upon a precisely similar set of facts. He thought it must be clear, therefore, that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, could not be regarded as a satisfactory Court of Final Appeal; and, in his opinion, a satisfactory Court of Final Appeal could only be settled in some such manner as was indicated in the measure introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne). Under such circumstances as were proposed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) the final jurisdiction would not rest with the House of Lords, but with a new tribunal sitting in their Lordships' Chamber; and he could not think that with the real transference of a jurisdiction which would make the tribunal as a House of Lords only nominal, it would in the slightest degree add to the dignity of their Lordships' House.
  LORD REDESDALEprotested against the assumption that no improvement could be made in the constitution of the House of Lords for the hearing of appeals. He believed they could effect a very great improvement in it, and at the same time retain the constitution of that House in respect to the exercise of its
  1816
  judicial functions as it had existed from the earliest period. On this subject there had lately been a great change in public opinion, and he was convinced that the feeling which was now entertained against the transference of the jurisdiction of their Lordships to another Court would be more fully developed when the Government proposals were laid before the country next Session. That their Lordships should sit during the Recess for the purpose of hearing appeals was not a new principle at all. With regard to the expense of appeals, he had no doubt they could be greatly reduced, and if noble and learned Lords would consult with the officers of the House as to an alteration of the Standing Orders, a great improvement might, he thought, be effected. He must confess he never could understand how the Act of 1873, which did not provide a common Court of Appeal for the Three Kingdoms, could be regarded as satisfactory, while he believed the Privy Council would always continue to be the best Court of Appeal for the trial of Colonial and Indian causes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose for the purpose of addressing only a few sentences to the House, and he might in the first place observe that he had already stated that the Government desired to preserve entirely unprejudiced until next Session the question of the final constitution of an Ultimate Court of Appeal. Their Lordships would not, therefore, expect him now, he was sure, nor would his noble and learned Friend who had introduced the subject expect him to enter into any argument in support of, or in opposition to, any particular view with respect to it which he might entertain. So far as the Government were concerned, they held themselves perfectly at liberty to consider next Session the best proposal on the question which could be made for its settlement. He quite concurred, he might add, with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Hatherley) that it was extremely desirable the public mind should address itself on all occasions to the consideration of the question, and should be as carefully informed upon it as possible. He would, however, put it to his noble and learned Friend whether he had taken the best way to accomplish that end, and whether he was really informing the public mind in any useful manner

  1817
  by raking up a number of old stories which had been repeated 20 times over as to what had happened a quarter or half a century ago, but which everybody knew perfectly well could not occur at the present day. Such stories appeared to him to be about as useful to the elucidation of the subject as if, when a measure for amending the constitution of Parliament was under discussion, some one were to give a narrative of the abuses and scandals which existed previous to the passing of the Reform Bill. He should like to say a few words, in the next place, with respect to what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend as to some remarks of his own which might perhaps lead to misapprehension "elsewhere." He was quite aware of that to which his noble and learned Friend referred—namely, that under certain circumstances an appeal might be made, as it was termed, per saltum from the decision of a Vice Chancellor to that House. Now, in that instance he quite concurred in the statement that there was a perfect right of double appeal, and he should be sorry that there should be any misapprehension on the point. If a decree was made in the Court of Chancery by the Vice Chancellor against the defendant in a cause, that defendant had a perfect right to have a double appeal. He might have it first before the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and then before their Lordships' House. He had, therefore, a perfect right of double appeal, although he might, of course, abandon part of it, and proceed at once to that House—a course of proceeding, however, which was so seldom adopted that it might be practically disregarded. He had on a former occasion stated fully what was to be the constitution of the particular Court which would be established under the present Bill. That constitution must be looked upon as provisional, and he should be sorry to detain their Lordships by repeating the reasons which he had before given for the adoption of the course which the Government deemed it to be their duty to take in the matter, or for thinking, as he did, that the Court would be found quite sufficient for the discharge of the important duties which it would have to perform. Notice had been given of an Amendment on the Report with regard to a District Registrar in Lancashire; but he hoped his
  1818
  noble Friend in whose name the Notice stood (Lord Winmarleigh) would defer the question until the third reading of the Bill, which he would fix for next Friday, inasmuch as the subject was under consideration, and it was his intention to propose certain Amendments altering in a general way the Rules relative to Registration Courts.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had exercised a wise discretion in not entering, on the present occasion, into the question of what should be the Final Court of Appeal. He knew the noble and learned Lord was animated by a sincere wish to establish the best tribunal possible; but he must at the same time observe that his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Selborne) had availed himself of a most legitimate opportunity for laying their views with respect to many important points connected with the Act of 1873 before the House. As to the attack which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had made on what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Hatherley), he thought it was somewhat unjustifiable, for his noble and learned Friend had a perfect right to illustrate his views of the jurisdiction of that House as a Final Court of Appeal by referring to circumstances which had happened, not half a century ago, but within his own experience, and even within the last five or six years.
  LORD WINMARLEIGH,at the request of the Lord Chancellor, postponed the Amendment of which he had given Notice to the third reading.
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday, the 7th of May next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.