Sitting of 11 February 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Public Accounts, nominated.
RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE—Council of India [Pensions].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Valuation [59]; Salmon Fisheries * [60]; Criminal Law Evidence "Amendment * [61]; United Parishes (Scotland) * [62]; Burglary and Forgery * [63]; Newspaper Registration, &o. * [64]; Oyster Fisheries * [65]; Epping Forest * [66].

CHURCH ENDOWMENTS IN GIBRALTAR.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the consent of the Crown has been given to an Ordinance constituting Church bodies for the Anglican and Roman Catholic communities at Gibraltar, with the object of vesting in such bodies annual grants of money?
MR. J. LOWTHER: An Ordinance, Sir, has been drawn up with the object of continuing to the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church Bodies at Gibraltar, in the form of an annual fixed payment, the sums hitherto paid to individual clergymen and priests. This Ordinance has not, as yet, I believe, been enacted by the local Government, and has therefore not received the Royal Assent.

EGYPT—MISSION OF MR. CAVE—THE PURCHASE OF THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES.—QUESTIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (in the absence of the Prime Minister), Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions to Mr. Cave in regard to his mission to Egypt, and any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Khedive on the subject of that mission? Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put another Question on the same subject to him which he may possibly be able to answer. He will, I suppose, have a very important statement to make on Monday next respecting the financial bearings of the purchase by Her Majesty's Government of the interest possessed by the Khedive in the shares of the Suez Canal; and I therefore wish to ask him, Whether it is the intention of the Government to ask the House on Monday evening to proceed to take the Vote which he will lay upon the Table of the House; or, whether the Government will, in accordance with what I conceive to be the convenience of hon. Members, as well as with our ordinary practice, give the House another opportunity of considering the statement which the right hon. Gentleman will have to make?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As to the first Question, Sir, of the noble Lord, the mission of Mr. Cave is not yet completed; but there will be no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Government and the Khedive which led to the appointment of that mission and the instructions to Mr. Cave. Those Papers shall be printed in the course of this evening, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members before the discussion comes on on this subject on Monday night. In reply to the noble Lord's second Question, I may say that, as he did not give me Notice of it, I have not had an opportunity of consulting the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in reference to it; but I am quite sure that there will be every disposition on the part of the Government to consult what may appear to be the wishes of the House on this matter. With reference to the Question which was put to me last night without Notice

227
by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I may take this opportunity of stating that the Papers of which he spoke, relating to the Concessions of the Company and to the Firmans by which those Concessions were granted, will be prepared and laid before the House, although I am afraid that it will take some time before that can be done. For the convenience of hon. Members who wish to know the nature of those Concessions, I may state that they are all contained in Volumes 55 and 56 of Hertslet's State Papers, which are in the Library. They will, however, be separately printed for the convenience of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to explain, Sir, that although I did not give the right hon. Gentleman Notice of my intention to put a Question to him on this subject this evening, I had reason to believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross (Mr. Adam) had asked the Secretary to the Treasury privately yesterday whether it was the intention of the Government to ask the House to take the Vote in question on Monday. I thought, therefore, that the matter had been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was not mentioned to me.

POST OFFICE—MAIL ROUTES IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Postmaster General, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of a map showing the routes by which mails are carried in Ireland to and from the different post-offices; and also showing in each case where the mails are forwarded by railway, car, or foot messenger?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, a corrected Map of the kind referred to would be ready in about a month, and he should be happy to send a copy of it to the hon. and gallant Member, who would perhaps confer with him afterwards as to laying a copy of it on the Table of the House.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE—CASE OF GEORGE BEAVIS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. BOORDasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Educa-
228
tion, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter which appeared in "The Kentish Mercury" of the 22nd January, and was reprinted in "The Times" of the 3rd February 1876, signed "George Beavis," in which the writer complained of having been fined two shillings with one shilling costs for neglecting to send his child, a girl seven years of age, to school, under the following circumstances: (1.) She had ringworm; (2.) Two of her brothers or sisters had whooping cough; (3.) Three children of lodgers in the same house had measles; and whether the terms of the Education Act are enforced so as to encourage the neglect of proper precautions against the spreading of infectious diseases?
VISCOUNT SANDON: My attention. Sir, has been directed to the statement in The Times, signed "George Beavis," as it is directed, I need hardly say, to all similar statements. I have no means of ascertaining whether such statements are correct, and I have no authority whatever to interfere with school boards in the administration of their compulsory bye-laws, or with the magistrates in their adjudication upon the cases arising under them. I am sure, therefore, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot express any opinion on the case to which his Question refers. As far as my information goes, I believe that the terms of the Education Act are not generally enforced so as to encourage the neglect of proper precautions against the spreading of infectious disease; if any cases of such neglect should occur, I trust the sanitary authorities will at once interfere to prevent such a perversion of the Act.
MR. BOORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that George Beavis, the person referred to in the preceding Questions, who was convicted of a misdemeanor under the Education Act at Clerkenwell Police Court on the 10th November 1875, was refused the means of communicating with his friends, compelled to wear the prison dress and have his hair cut on arrival at Coldbath Fields Prison, and in all respects treated as a felon; and, whether any compensation will be offered to him for having suffered such indignities, and if he will take steps to prevent their recurrence?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I believe that the facts of this case are accurately

229
stated in the hon. Member's Question with one exception—that is to say, that the prisoner was not refused the means of communicating with his friends. It appears that it is not the practice of the police court to keep messengers to take messages for persons who may be committed, but the police are always ready to forward any communication which prisoners may desire to send to their friends by any of the policemen who may happen to be about the office. In the present case it unfortunately happened that the prisoner was brought up late in the evening, when no one was available for taking his message to his friends. I am bound to say that I deeply regret the circumstances of this case. I know that what was done was done according to strict law; but I am quite sure that the House will agree with me in saying that if this is law it is not equity I may state that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session for the purpose of relieving persons under such circumstances from being subject to treatment of this character.
MR. BOORDreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had not stated whether it was the intention of the Government to give Beavis any compensation for the treatment he had received.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: We cannot give compensation merely because the magistrates have enforced the law.

THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—THE STATUTES AND BYE-LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in addition to the Concession and Statutes of the Suez Canal Company, which he promised yesterday, he will lay upon the Table the "By-laws of the Company and the resolutions adopted by general meetings of the shareholders," to which the possession of shares obliges the English nation to adhere?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXOHEQUER, in reply, said, he was unable at so short a Notice to tell the noble Lord whether he should be able to comply with the request contained in his Question, but he would make inquiry into the subject.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CIRCULARS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITBREADasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the Fugitive Slave Circulars beyond those referred to in the Return yesterday, especially any correspondence and despatches which might throw any light upon the reception and treatment of fugitive slaves? He also begged to remind the hon. Member that the First Circular was not included among the Papers referred to.
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that all Papers relating to the subject had been in course of preparation for some time, with the view of their being placed before the Royal Commission. Since the Notice of the Question of the hon. Gentleman had been given, orders had been issued by the Department that the Papers should be prepared as early as possible, in order that they might be placed in the hands of hon. Members before the Motion of the hon. Gentleman came on for discussion. Of course, the First Circular would be printed with the other Papers.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJTESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (LORD HENRY SOMERSET)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
"You may rely on My hearty co-operation in all measures best calculated to promote the happiness and contentment of My People."

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EAST INDIA (CHRISTIANITY).

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  MR. O'REILLY, in moving for an Address for certain Papers relating to the position of Roman Catholic chaplains in India, and the numbers of Christians of all denominations, expressed his sur-

  231
  prise that his Motion should not have been allowed to take the form of one for an unopposed Return. As early as the year 1833 a solemn pledge was given that Her Majesty's Christian subjects of all denominations in India should be placed upon a footing of perfect equality. Up to the present date that pledge had not been redeemed, a circumstance, which, he thought, was hardly creditable to those in power. For many years the Roman Catholic soldiers in Her Majesty's Army in India were without a chaplain of their own religion to minister to them, and although lately something had been done in the matter the state of affairs was still very unsatisfactory. As an instance of the injustice that was committed he might mention that while the Roman Catholic chaplains were paid only at the rate of 100 rupees a-month, rising gradually to 300, the Anglican chaplains were paid at the rate of 500, rising to 800. Surely that alone was a crying injustice and inequality. Further than that, there was not a sufficient number appointed. Nor could ignorance be pleaded for such a state of things. Complaints had been repeatedly made to the Indian Government with reference to the great inequality of these payments, but without any result. The subject had been fully considered by the Indian Government, all the correspondence relating to it had been concluded, and the country had a right to have a copy of the correspondence in order that it might be able to judge whether the Indian Government was justified in making no alteration with reference to these salaries. He asked for the Returns on this subject nearly nine months ago, and he wished to know why they had not been given? He wanted to see from these Papers why justice had not been done in that matter, and whether, even if to do justice it should be necessary to cut down existing establishments, it might not be proper to consider that alternative. Those Papers, though they were State, and therefore public property, had been withheld. The matter had been before the Indian Government since 1870, and it was high time that the Papers, which would enable the public to judge of the matter, should be produced. What, in short, had been the course of proceeding on the part of the Indian Government in this matter? In 1870 the whole question was brought under their notice by Lord
  232
  Mayo and nothing was done. In 1872, he, himself (Mr. O'Reilly) brought the subject under their notice in a letter addressed to the then Secretary of State, the Duke of Argyll, who was confident that there would be no undue delay in ascertaining the views of the Indian Government. In August, 1872, the Indian Government said that they would reserve their opinion, until they could go into the whole matter. In August of the following year he (Mr. O'Reilly) made applications on the subject again, but still nothing was done. Again and again the Indian Government were applied to, but they did nothing. They did, he believe, decide, but they decided to do nothing, and did not choose to announce that decision, and finally, last year, he gave Notice of his intention to ask for the Papers. The India Office undertook to write out to India and ask the Indian authorities to send those Papers to this country. On the first day of the Session he made further inquiry, but got no answer until that day, when he received a courteous communication from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India (Lord George Hamilton) saying that there had been some delay, which he could not account for, in hearing from India. He must now ask the House to insist on an answer from the Indian Government with respect to those Papers, of which he believed there was not one that could not be produced. The first paper for which he asked was the Circular Letter of the Governor General in Council to Local Governments, dated 14th August, and the 2nd November, 1872, calling for Returns of numbers of Christians in congregations, salaries of ministers to same, &c., and Returns to the same by Local Governments. A very distinguished Member of the Indian Council promised to take up this question, but yet we were without the required information. A local Indian paper quoted from a Memorandum of Lord Mayo on the subject of Roman Catholic chaplains this remarkable expression—"The present state of things is anomalous and difficult to defend." He (Mr. O'Reilly) asked for that Memorandum of Lord Mayo, dated 2nd December, 1870. He also asked for the despatch of the Governor General in Council to the Secretary of State, dated 21st December, 1870; and for the Minutes by Members of Council on the question of the position of the Roman

  233
  Catholic clergy in India, dated 15th and 22nd of June, 1872. He (Mr. O'Reilly) supposed the terms of that despatch to be to the following effect—" The question of the reduction of the number of ecclesiastical chaplains in India is now receiving our earnest attention, and we hope to be soon able to lay before you our views on this subject." The next Paper he asked for was Minutes by Members of Council on the same subject, dated 16th December, 1873, and 10th March, 1874. He wanted to know the opinion of the Indian Government on this subject. Suppose they held the "levelling down" principle, and that the reduction of the Anglican establishment in India was the right course, and that another form or religious instruction should be substituted, ought we not to know the reasons? He also asked for the Memorial of the Most Rev. Dr. Stein, delivered to the Government of India on this subject, and some letters of his own addressed to the Indian Government. The Indian Government did not choose to answer, and that was the reason for their silence. Let it be supposed that the answer of the Indian Government was practically this—" We will say nothing at all until directed by the Secretary of State. If levelling down is then suggested from England, we can think of it afterwards." That, he feared, was the real explanation of the Indian Government with regard to the judicious silence which they had maintained from year to year; and the answer of the House of Commons to that ought to be given by a note calling for the production of the Papers.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of—
  "1. Circular Letter of Governor General in Council to Local Governments, dated the 14th day of August and the 2nd day of November 1872, calling for Returns of numbers of Christians in congregations, salaries of ministers to same, &c., and of Returns to the same by Local Governments;
  "2. Memorandum by Lord Mayo, dated the 2nd day of December 1870, on position of Roman Catholic Chaplains in India;
  "3. Despatch of Governor General in Council to the Secretary of State, dated the 21st day of December 1870;
  "4. Minutes by Members of Council on the question of the position of the Roman Catholic
  234
  Clergy in India, dated the 15th and the 22nd days of June 1872;
  "5. Despatch of Governor General in Council to the Secretary of State, dated Simla, the 19th day of August 1872;
  "6. Minutes by Members of Council on same subject, dated the 16th day of December 1873 and the 10th day of March 1874;
  "7. Same by same, dated the 2nd and the 22nd days of July 1874;
  "8. Memorial of Most Rev. Dr. Stein's delivered to Government of India;
  "9. Minutes by Members of Council on Dr. Stein's Memorial dated the 19th day of October and the 9th day of November 1874;
  "10. Letter and Memorandum addressed to the Secretary of State by M. O'Reilly, Esq., M.P., dated the 28th day of October 1875;
  "11. And, any further Correspondence on same subject between Secretary of State and Government of India or M. O'Reilly,"—(Mr. O'Reilly,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would at once admit that the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had pressed the question of the position of Roman Catholic chaplains on the India Office with great consideration. The remarks of the hon. Member naturally divided themselves into two parts—first, the grievance under which the Roman Catholic chaplains were said to labour, and secondly, the reasons which could be adduced for the production of the Papers. When the present Ministry was formed they found that a despatch as to those Papers had been sent out to the Indian Government in 1872, to which no answer had been received, and Lord Salisbury had twice since then addressed the Indian Government on the matter. Last year, when the hon. Gentleman moved for those Papers, he (Lord George Hamilton) told him that, though some of them were at the India Office, there were others which he had never seen, and therefore it would be impossible for him, as the Representative of a public Department, to promise their production. The Papers which the hon. Member moved for from the Government of India were Memorandum Minutes, which were often of a private character, and could not be produced; and he had said last year, that before he could consent to the production of those Papers he must communicate with the Government of India. The India Office pressed the Government

  235
  of India very shortly after last Session, and expected a reply. About six weeks ago they received a despatch from the Government of India asking them to send an enclosure which appeared to have been omitted from the despatch. That was sent on the 15th of January, and he felt when the hon. Member placed his Notice on the Paper that it was due to him to telegraph to India for a reply as to which Papers might be presented. In answer, he had that day received a telegram to the effect that the Papers would be forwarded without further delay. There was not the least wish on his own part, or on the part of the Secretary of State, to keep back these Papers; but he could not pledge himself to produce them until he had seen them, which he hoped very soon to be able to do. There was one portion of the telegram from the Indian Government which would be satisfactory to the hon. Member who had moved for these Papers. The hon. Member had said that the pay of the Roman Catholic chaplains rose to 300 rupees, whereas it only rose to 200. He (Lord George Hamilton) did not seek to deny that there were a great discrepancy between the position of the Roman Catholic chaplains and the Anglican chaplains. But it was to be borne in mind that the Roman Catholic chaplains in India stood on a different footing from the Established Church and Presbyterian chaplains. In this matter, in fact, the Indian Government might be said to pay by results. [Laughter.] That perhaps might not be a very reverent term, but he had not intended to use it irreverently. The hon. Gentleman declared that the position and status of the Roman Catholic chaplains was not what could be wished, but it ought to be remembered that many of them were not English, and could not even speak English; and the work they performed for the troops and white subjects of Her Majesty was not their only work, for they also acted as missionaries. The Duke of Argyll had pointed out the broad distinction between the position of the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland and that of the priests of the Church of Rome in India; the former being bound to obey the orders of Government, and the latter only the orders of their spiritual superiors. That explained the great disparity which doubtless existed between the salaries of
  236
  the chaplains of the Established Church and those of the Roman Catholic chaplains. With regard to the telegram, the portion to which he had just referred stated that the Indian Government had determined to increase the allowances of the Roman Catholic chaplains. Their number at present was about 76, and they received payments varying from 100 to 200 rupees per month. It was now proposed that 20 of not less than 15 years' service should receive 300 rupees a-month, and that 24 of not less than seven years' service should have 250 rupees, and that the remaining 32 should get 200 rupees per month; while it was further suggested that they should receive in addition a service allowance of 30 rupees per month. It was evident, therefore, that the position of the chaplains would be very considerably improved, the mimimum allowance under the scale about to be adopted being the maximum at present. With regard to the Papers, he could assure the hon. Member for Longford that as soon as the despatch of the Indian Government was received, and if there was no objection, they would at once be produced. The hon. Member might meanwhile move for a Return of the Papers that were already in the hands of the Government, and to the production of which there was no objection, and wait for the reply of the Indian Government with respect to the others.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that as to the production of the Papers, he could not congratulate the Government on the rapidity of their communications, seeing that it took them six years to obtain as much information as private enterprize in the public Press could obtain in a few hours. With regard to the proposed increase of the allowances of the Roman Catholic chaplains in India, it would only raise their pay about one-third of what the Established Church and Presbyterian chaplains were getting. The first class might have a little more, but the second and third classes would still have less pay than subalterns had, and it could hardly be said that that was a fair position for these chaplains to occupy. Nor was it quite fair to say that they were not in the service of the Government, and that they obeyed only the orders of the heads of their Church. He was aware, from personal observation, of the services which they performed

  237
  in the Army, and knew of instances in which, their chaplains had applied to the commanding officer for permission to hold Bible services. It was true that they would not obey the Commander-in-Chief on a question of doctrine or sacrament; but he should like to see the Commander-in-Chief interfering in that respect either with Established Church or Presbyterian chaplains. As to some of them not being natives of England, some of the soldiers complained of the want of chaplains from other countries who could speak the language of those countries. If the Government would agree to pay them at the same rate, or at nearly the same rate, as the ministers of the Established Church or Presbyterian Church, while they were servants of the Crown, they would accept that compromise.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would bear testimony to the excellent service of the Roman Catholic chaplains in India, and to their readiness on all occasions to go where their services were required in the face of danger and death. No doubt they were formerly very poorly paid and lived poorly. Their position, however, had been improved, and it was to be improved still further, and he was not in favour of placing chaplains of any persuasion in India too much in the position of highly-paid clergymen at home. They often did better in the position of independent ministers. He favoured a levelling down policy of reducing the number of very highly-paid chaplains entirely at the service of the Crown, and trusting more to the many zealous ministers of different denominations in India.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, and withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

COUNCIL OF INDIA (PENSIONS).

  RESOLUTION.
  Council of India [Pensions] considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in rising to move a Resolution in reference to the Council of India (Pensions) on which to found a Bill for the purpose of
  238
  enabling the Secretary of State to appoint certain professional men—not exceeding three—as his advisers, said, it had for its object the removal of an inconvenience resulting from the mode of appointing Members of the Council. Under the Act of 1858 Members were appointed to the Council of India for life, and were entitled to a pension of £500 a-year after 10 years' service. It was, however, afterwards found desirable to limit the appointments to 10 years. But it was absolutely essential that the Secretary of State should have upon that Council certain professional advisers, and the inducement at present was not sufficient to attract eminent lawyers. The proposed Bill would give the Secretary of State power to appoint Members of the Council who would have the same privileges as they would have had under the original Act of 1858; but the tenure of office would not last more than 15 years, and the number so appointed could not exceed three. He did not consider this an extravagant proposal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was glad to find that the Bill differed from the proposal made last Session. It omitted the section which provided for superannuation to the Auditor of Indian Accounts, who was now understood to have had his rights to superannuation recognized prior to his transfer from the Home Civil Service to the India Office. But it was only right that the portion of service spent in the Home branch should bear the share of the superannuation which might be awarded on the completion of his duties as Auditor. The charges for pensions to officers and soldiers of the Army were graduated in ratio to the years and days served in India and in the direct service of the Crown. It was, therefore, only fair to India that the superannuation, when granted to the gentleman appointed Auditor, should, on the same principle, be divided between Imperial and Indian Revenues in proportion to the years respectively served under the two Governments. This new Bill was, however, of great importance, for it made a great change in the conditions on which appointments were to be made to the Council of India. Under the Act of 1858 no one could be appointed to the Council who had not served in India for some years, and the Act of 1869 continued that condition. The present Bill,

  239
  however, provided for three Members being appointed to the Council, without the condition of India service. Such a change as that ought not to be made without the fullest information being laid before Parliament as to the causes which had led to the change. Looking, also, to the exclusive way in which offices in the Imperial Service were restricted to those who had actually belonged to that Service, it did appear a most unusual course to pass laws by which those who had spent their life in the service of India should have the few openings for service at Home diminished in favour of those who had no claims and might have no motives for protecting the interests of India. This change also provided for pensions being granted to these three Councillors, and if report could be relied on, the learned and talented gentleman who was now on the Council was likely to benefit by this new law; and what was most objectionable, the law was to have retrospective effect, so as to cover his service in the Council, notwithstanding the intentions of the Legislature, which, under the Act of 1869, were understood to have excluded all new Councillors from the right to pensions. On these grounds he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of any Pension that may be granted to any Member of the Council of India.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes, said, during the Recess, at many of the meetings which had been held, expectations were held out that, at the commencement of this Session, the Government would be prepared to lay upon the Table what was called a comprehensive measure of reform as regarded local taxation and local government. Without pausing to inquire what was the exact meaning of the somewhat ambiguous phrase "a comprehensive measure," he might take that opportunity to repeat the few ob-
  240
  servations which he made last year on a similar occasion. He yielded to no man in his sense of the pressing importance and growing interest of questions of this kind, and the hold they had taken on the public mind. He had had the subject under his careful attention the whole time he was in office, and he had lost no opportunity of bringing the questions involved under the notice of the Government. He did not, however, think it was reasonable to expect that anything like what could be called a comprehensive measure on this question could be expected from that or any other Government at present, considering the crowded condition of the Business of the House. It seemed to him much more practical and satisfactory to proceed by degrees to improve and simplify the system to which he was alluding, and he hoped in the course of the present Session to have several opportunities of making substantial progress in that direction. They all knew that important alterations were required in regard to the collection, the assessment, and the administration of local rates, and all admitted the necessity of bringing together the present scattered and sometimes conflicting areas of local administration. But he must point out that at the foundation of all these questions lay the necessity of simplifying the law as regarded the valuation of property for rating and taxing purposes, and he did not stand alone in his opinion that a Valuation Bill was an essential preliminary to all other improvements. When this question was discussed at considerable length in the newspapers, he was struck by a letter which appeared in The Times, written by Sir Edward Kerrison, formerly a Member of that House, and possessing the confidence of, and accepted as a representative man among, landlords and tenants. What did he say? He said—
  "I venture again to call attention, through your columns, to the undoubted fact that no satisfactory solution of this great question can be reached until all rates and taxes are levied on one basis. Even if a subsidy be given by Parliament in relief of local taxation, it cannot be fairly distributed while the rateable value of the same property in different Unions varies from 10 to 40 per cent.
  Successive Governments during the last 10 years had entertained that view, and there was not a time at which during

  241
  that period a Valuation Bill might not have been found in the pigeon holes of the public offices. So long ago as 1867 a measure was brought forward by his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty proposing to unite for purposes of valuation the functions of the surveyor of taxes with those of overseers of parishes and assessment committees; but it was afterwards withdrawn for want of time. In 1869 his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) was successful in carrying through a most excellent measure of reform in this respect, applicable only, however, to the metropolis. That Act had now been in operation for seven years, and two valuations of the metropolis had taken place in accordance with its provisions. The Act was so comprehensive and complete in its character that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), when he proposed a Bill on the subject, stated by way of Preamble the expediency of extending to the whole Kingdom the provisions of that measure. Last year the Bill which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) now proposed to lay on the Table was in a forward state of preparation, and might have been introduced had an opportunity offered for its consideration. Not only had the public Departments, public officers, and members of various Governments shown their appreciation of the necessity of this measure, but while he had been in office he had received communications from different parts of the country, and various public authorities, as well as private individuals, all illustrating the fact that there was now in the public mind a general conviction of the necessity of proceeding in this matter. He had an elaborate statement from a gentleman in Norfolk, complaining that in 22 Unions of that county no two bodies adopted the same principle of deduction in arriving at the rateable value, and he had also a complaint from a gentleman in Devonshire, who mentioned that there had been no fresh valuation of his parish for 40 years. He had heard from other quarters, too, a general desire expressed that reforms should be made with a view to coming at a more accurate and just valuation. Two days ago he received letters from chairmen of important local boards in Lancashire, expressing an opinion as to the great difficulty of arriv-
  242
  ing at the real value of property for the purposes of local rates. Again, within the last few days, he had met a deputation of gentlemen, representing ratepayers of Swindon, where the growth of property had been great, and they informed him that, in consequence of the impossibility of exercising any control over the operations of the assessment committee, there was a belief that equal justice was not dealt out to different ratepayers of that town. He need not remind the House that there was in every parish in the Kingdom a rankling sense of injustice on the part of at least one important ratepayer—namely, the clergyman in receipt of the tithe rent-charge. Although he did not see his way to giving all that relief which many hon. Gentlemen would desire, he thought that, if only with the view of doing justice to the clergy, some means should be adopted in order to insure that all the ratepayers were assessed equally and more in accordance with the real value of the property. The clergy had associated themselves together for the purpose of getting some redress on frequent occasions; but he believed that those who were wisely advised did not desire, beyond one small matter, that any special provision should be made for them, merely wishing that fair measure should be dealt out to all classes of the community. When he came to the question of county rating, he must confess there was no uniformity whatever with regard to securing that the payment made should be uniformly assessed. In some counties great expense had been gone to in special valuation which might well have been avoided had this Bill been in existence. In the county to which he had the honour to belong, by constant attention to the subject, the county rate had been well kept up to the mark; but, on the other hand, he had heard a statement recently with regard to Gloucestershire to the effect that in many cases the assessment remained much as it was 10 or 20 years ago. He had not taken the trouble of going into the cases of the other counties, but he was sure that they would show a like state of circumstances. Now, in order to cure those inequalities which were complained of, not only by experts, but also by the public at large, it was proposed now, as it was before, and as was already the law in the metropolis, that a Government officer—namely,

  243
  the surveyor of taxes—should be a party to the preparation of the valuation lists. The exact mode in which his functions were to be brought into play was rather different from what had been proposed on previous occasions. He was to be associated with the overseers in the necessary preliminaries to the preparations of the lists, and was also to be an authority in fixing the amount at which the gross value was to be returned. This, it might be said, was but a small change to give occasion for a Bill of upwards of 100 clauses; but the real fact was, that there was no need of any great changes, provided only they could insert into the machinery that was provided the influence of the surveyor of taxes. The Union Assessment Committee Act was, and had been, an exceedingly good measure, and might be and was in many parts of the country worked with great assiduity and success. It would be remembered by hon. Gentlemen who had gone into the subject at length that Mr. Poulett Scrope—a high authority on these subjects—originally drew his Bill so as to secure that individual ratepayers in a parish should be rated equally, and the object of the Union Assessment Committee Act was that that principle should apply to Unions. The object of the present measure was not only to secure more uniform action amongst assessment committees for that particular object for which they existed, but to secure that the contribution of Unions to county rates should be also fairly assessed; and it would be of immense advantage that the assessment for the property and income tax and the local assessment should be made at the same time, both as giving additional security to the ratepayer, and conducing to the success of the valuation, and also reducing the number of inquisitorial demands made on the ratepayers as to their property and the value of the hereditaments they possessed. As he had stated, the Union Assessment Act was remarkably well worked in some parts of the country, and there would be no occasion to interfere with it if it were equally well worked in all. As an illustration, he would mention that he had been informed by an authority he could not doubt that one of the largest properties mentioned in the Return upon the Table of the House—one of the largest estates in the Kingdom—was given so accurately, both as
  244
  to acreage and value, that the gross value taken from the rate-book, between £70,000 and £80,000 a-year, was within a fraction of the sum received by the owner of the estate; and that fact was due to the strict carrying out of the provisions of the Union Assessment Act. It might also be mentioned as evidence in favour of the Act that the deductions made in order to ascertain the annual value averaged 15 per cent over the whole Kingdom. The variations were, however, considerable, as between purely agricultural districts and districts near to great towns, the latter having the advantage of the former. Thus, in Northumberland and Huntingdon the average was 9 per cent; whereas in Surrey and Kent it was 19 per cent. The Bill he asked leave to introduce was in a great degree a consolidation of the Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1869 and the Union Assessment Committee Act. The provisions of the former Act had been slightly varied in some unimportant particulars, and there were some improvements in the mode in which the surveyor of taxes was instructed to proceed. He was to be associated with the overseer from the first, before the preparation of the list; and during the early part of the year that which had proved to be a great difficulty in the assessing of the gross valuation would be got rid of. The appeals under the Bill were, in the first instance, to a special sessions, and ultimately to the quarter sessions. The special sessions would for the most part decide cases in which individual ratepayers were interested; the quarter sessions those in which Union complained against Union or county against Union. There were provisions in the Bill for securing the rights of ratepayers in the event of notices not being properly given to them, so as to secure that they should not be ousted from any redress they might be entitled to. An important alteration was proposed with regard to the periods of valuation by extending them to every seven instead of every five years, as now in the metropolis, and he felt satisfied that any slight loss that might arise to the revenue by delaying the valuation would be more than compensated to the Government by the increased accuracy of the valuations then made, and the increased attention that would be given to the annual supple-

  245
  mentary and provisional valuation lists, and the result would be that the same term would hereafter apply to the valuation for the property and income tax. It would be a very great change in favour of the taxpayer and ratepayer that a very unpleasant process would require to be gone through only once in seven years. It was proposed that the assessment of tithe rent-charge should also be made once in seven years, and not be varied from year to year as it now was, and a statutory enactment would be placed in the Bill that for the purposes of valuation, where the circumstances of the parish required it, the salary of the curate should be deducted from the income of the rector. Taking into consideration the satisfactory manner in which the Metropolis Valuation Act had worked, he though there would be no objection on the part of the local authorities to be associated with a public officer in this particular work, or that there need be any apprehension that the valuation would thereby be pushed up unduly, and to any unreasonable extent. That was not the intention of the Government, as was shown by the proposal substituting seven for five years. He would go further, and say that as far as he was informed—and he had taken great pains to inform himself—the association of the surveyor with the local authority in the metropolis had been a successful experiment. It was quite true that during the summer of last year the newspapers were full of remonstrances from individual ratepayers who conceived themselves to be surcharged beyond what was reasonable. He had no doubt that in many cases those remonstrances had been well founded; but he had the best reason for thinking that the supervision of the surveyor of taxes in the valuation which had gone on during the last year had been quite as much of a mediatory character as the reverse; and he could quote instances to show that such was the case. The process, therefore, would not, he thought, justify the views of those who might be alarmed at the change proposed. On the contrary, it would, he believed, be found to be rather of a soothing than of an irritating character. The intervention of the Government in matters of valuation in Ireland, he would remind the House, had been the rule for local and Imperial purposes. In Scotland, that
  246
  was not quite the case, but very nearly, the Government valuation being, to a great degree, the valuation for local purposes in that country. Although he listened with some sympathy to those who objected to a Government officer participating in this local work, yet they should remember that the circumstances had very much changed since the question was last before the House. The Government was now by far the largest ratepayer in the country. Subventions were made by the Government in aid of local rating in every Union and county, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to see that the valuation of properties was effectually and fairly carried out, and it was the duty of Parliament to see that the Government did not pay subventions which were not in aid of charges rightly and strictly levied upon all the ratepayers of the country. He should ask the House to read his Bill for the first time on the following grounds:—firstly, because it was absurd that the same property should be valued three times by three different authorities for the purposes of taxation; secondly, because it was unjust that the basis of the common contributions to the county funds should be based upon widely differing scales of deduction; thirdly, because the principle of the central Government acting in matters of assessment and valuation had already been adopted with satisfactory results in the metropolis as well as in Scotland and Ireland; and lastly, because the Bill embodied an improvement of the law which might pave the way to very important changes in the local administration of the country. He could foresee the time when it might be expedient to do for the counties what had already been done for the metropolis—namely, to spread over wider areas than at present the incidence of some items of local taxation, and so to reduce and mitigate the burden which at present pressed most grievously upon the poorer class of taxpayers. That that could be done without breaking up the integrity and independence of local administration had been shown by the experience of the metropolitan system during the last 10 years. Whether a time would come when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to make use of the means proposed in the Bill for the purpose of assessing the property tax

  247
  upon rateable value he did not know; but if the rateable value column could be made use of for that purpose there would be much greater satisfaction in the payment of the tax, and the Government would be relieved from much anxiety, trouble, and expense, as well as from the animosity of the taxpayers, arising from a sense of injustice under which they now supposed themselves to suffer in being assessed for the property tax upon their gross receipts. Beyond that, the convenience resulting from having but one Valuation Act for the metropolis and the whole of the country would undoubtedly prove a great advantage in the end. He hoped the House would be so forbearing as not to rip up the provisions of a law which had already worked well, or to occupy time in discussing clauses in the present Bill which really contained no new matter. The proposals of amendment were trifling in point of extent, if not in point of meaning and intention, and he therefore hoped the House would see its way to dealing with the measure in the shortest amount of time consistent with a due consideration of the important points involved. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally moving for leave to introduce his Bill.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it went, was very satisfactory. The complaint of last Session was, that it was a blank on these matters, when they were led to suppose that the subject of local taxation would have engaged the attention of Parliament and the Government. He therefore hoped that as there was a very small programme of domestic measures before Parliament, this Bill would receive a full and fair consideration, and, with such modification as might be found necessary, passed into law. The necessity for simplifying the law of assessment lay at the root of the whole question, for it was ridiculous that three different systems should prevail for dealing with the same property, and as the Government proposal was aimed at achieving this object there was the more reason for accepting its proposals. It was satisfactory to know that the Bill passed for the metropolis had worked so well. He doubted if it would be satisfactory in every case; but he was glad to hear there was some reason to believe so. It had been held that the
  248
  introduction of a Government surveyor of taxes into the provisions of a Bill like the present was objectionable as tending to centralization. He personally had no strong objection to the principle of centralization, and should certainly be inclined to accept it if it was combined with relief of local taxation from Imperial sources. He accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with the more satisfaction because it showed the intention of the Government to redeem one, at least, of the pledges which they made while in Opposition, that this subject would receive their immediate attention. The point to which those who pleaded the cause of the local taxpayer chiefly looked was the additional assistance which was to be obtained from the Imperial Exchequer towards local purposes, but that had been generally treated as the last portion of the subject to be dealt with. He hoped, however, now that the Government had brought in a Bill applicable to one branch of the question, they would not intermit their exertions, but endeavour to deal with the most important part of it during the present Session.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down in thinking that the House would be willing to abandon the principle of local self-government and independence, simply because some small amount of relief was afforded to local taxation from Imperial funds. He therefore hoped that the Bill would not have the effect of overriding parochial government, though it was capable of improvement; and, further, that before a revolution was commenced, some principle would be laid down in the Bill upon which the new valuations and assessment should be made. At present the greatest possible differences existed in the allowance made for tear and wear and other deductions from the gross value of property in neighbouring parishes where the valuations were made in reference to the original cost; while in many places large and costly houses were let at a merely nominal rental, and were assessed upon the basis of real lettable value. The injustice was so great that he must be allowed to express his surprise that some such measure was not brought forward years ago. Now, however, that it had, he trusted that

  249
  care would be taken to lay down some rule by which this injustice would be prevented, and that equal uniformity should be enforced. If that were done, he felt sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would do all they could to assist the right hon. Gentleman in carrying such a measure.
  MR. FLOYER, while expressing his satisfaction that the Government had introduced the measure with the view of giving relief to the local ratepayers, said, the modes of valuation to which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had referred were contrary to the statute law which had been in existence many years, and, as expounded by the Judges, laid down the only sound principle—namely, that property should be valued according to what it would let for. He therefore thought the right hon. Gentleman had done wisely in avoiding the laying down of any new principle for the valuation of property, but had laid before the House the simple and sound proposal that property should be valued according to the same principle as heretofore. He doubted whether, because a certain system of valuation of property could be carried out without difficulty in the metropolis, such a system of valuation would be equally applicable to the country generally. Nothing could be more different than the nature of property in London and that of property in rural parishes. The overseers who were employed in valuing property in London had a considerable amount of official character, had had a great deal of experience, and were a very different class from the rural overseers. He was afraid, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman talked about associating the surveyor of taxes with the rural overseer, that the latter would go to the wall whenever any difference arose between them, because it was impossible that he could hold his own as well as the overseer of the London parish, who, with his experience, was more than a match for the surveyor of taxes. It would not be right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into minute details in introducing a measure of this kind; but it appeared to him that the practicability of associating the surveyor of taxes with the overseer would depend upon what position was secured to each of those officials in carrying out their duties. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman cor-
  250
  rectly, he proposed to classify appeals against the valuation with the view of sending one set of appeals before the special petty sessions and the other set before the quarter sessions. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that all appeals were to go first to the special petty sessions and from thence to the quarter sessions, but that they were to be classified according to their particular character, only one appeal being allowed. He did not know why one appeal in such cases should not be sufficient, and the only difficulty would be to which of the Courts of Appeal the cases should be sent. He thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that the salaries of curates should be deducted from the income of rectors and vicars for the purposes of valuation was a mere act of justice, although he did not know exactly the circumstances under which that allowance would be made. The right hon. Gentleman said that that principle of reduction in the assessment of clerical incomes had been adopted in some parts of the country, although from a recent decision of the Courts it seemed not to be justifiable in point of law. He had thus followed the sense of the country as to what was fair and just in this matter. Hon. Members would look forward with interest to a fuller statement from the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill came on for a second reading, because, in a matter of this kind, so much depended upon details. He thought, on the whole, that the House had shown a general disposition to agree with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the sketch which the right hon. Gentleman had given of his Bill had been satisfactory. Under these circumstances he should be prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman his best assistance towards carrying this measure.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he agreed with the remark that had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Floyer), that all discussion upon the measure should be reserved until the second reading, because it was at all times highly inconvenient to attempt to discuss a Bill which they had not seen, and with the provisions of which they were not fully acquainted. In fact, he should not have risen on that occasion at all had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman had, not exactly thrown out a challenge

  251
  to him, but almost invited discussion upon a somewhat wider issue than that involved in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had, at the commencement of his speech, given the House to understand that this measure was to be a part fulfilment of the expectations which Her Majesty's Government had raised with reference to the relief that was to be given to local taxation, and he pointed specially to the possibility of a time arriving when taxation would be lightened by being spread over a wider area. He did not think that he should be doing much service to the public or to the House by taking advantage of that observation of the right hon. Gentleman in order to raise a discussion at the present time as to whether Her Majesty's Government had by this measure sufficiently fulfilled the expectations it had raised on this subject. He wished, however, to remove an impression under which the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) evidently laboured, and which was, that, as to this measure. Her Majesty's Government did not intend to come before the House, as their predecessors had done, with a proposition that any contributions to the relief of local taxation should be postponed until after a reform of the local government had been effected. He could not accept that statement as an accurate representation of the views of the late Government upon this question. The truth was that in 1873 he had introduced three Bills—one a Eating Bill, the principles of which the present Government had practically accepted and passed into law; the second a Valuation Bill, on the lines of which the present Bill had been drawn; and the third a Bill for the Consolidation of Eating for the convenience of collecting rates. The late Government had, indeed, declared that Session that they were not prepared to vote the money out of the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of local taxation until the work of that Session had been accomplished; but, nevertheless, the Government was undoubtedly pledged to give in one shape or another relief to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that the then President of the Poor Law Board had introduced a very wide measure, one leading feature in which was to give relief to local taxation. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to say that it was no part of the
  252
  theory of the late Government that relief to local taxation was to be postponed until local administration had been reformed.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the presence at last of the Bill whose advent had been so long expected. In his opinion, it was far easier to carry through a measure of this kind in a comprehensive form than to pass it piecemeal for counties and divisions of counties, and then to endeavour to reconcile the conflicting systems which would grow up under separate administration. He differed from those who thought that a new principle of valuation ought to be introduced. The sound principle had been laid down in the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act. With regard to the period at which a new valuation should be made, he would have been bettor pleased to see "five" remaining in the Bill, because it was rather a serious thing to fix upon anybody an erroneous valuation which could not be disturbed for seven years. The right hon. Gentleman spoke truly of the very great advantage of having one basis of valuation and one rating authority instead of three—he (Mr. Hubbard) might say, instead of 13, for in the Metropolis alone there were 13 different rates levied. The consolidation into one uniform system of these conflicting means of levying rates must be very beneficial both as regarded economy of administration and the absence of the recurrence of the demands made upon the taxpayer. He believed the apprehension was quite unfounded that Englishmen would lose their independence if they were not allowed to assess their property. He thought the system of self-assessment had been grossly abused, and that the country would be far better satisfied if men of responsibility appointed by the Crown were made the medium of determining what was the value of property. In carrying out a system of single assessment we should get not only a single basis, but also a single expression of value both for local taxation and for Imperial taxation. Opportunity would be given for further remark when the clauses of the Bill appeared before the Committee, and he would only add the expression of his gratification at the announcement that the country clergy would get some relief. He trusted that

  253
  this would be an occasion upon which Her Majesty's Government would not allow the demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be inferior in accuracy to those of local bodies throughout the country, but that they would have one and the same system, thus securing equality and simplicity of action and contentment on the part of the taxpayers.
  SIR JOHN SCOURFIELDthanked the right hon. Gentleman for introducing a measure on this subject. Although he was quite ready to give every assistance in his power to make the measure a perfect one, he was not quite so sanguine as some might be. The difficulties were enormous, and he was a little disturbed at the present moment by the appearance of that very extraordinary document which now arrested the attention of half the Kingdom. He alluded to that book which had been somewhat romantically called Domesday Book. An hon. Friend of his in that House had spoken of it as The Money Lenders' Guide, while others called it The Mothers' Manual. All he (Sir John Scourfield) could say was that if either the moneylenders or the other more interesting class of the community trusted to that manual for estimating the wealth of individuals upon whom they had designs, he feared they would be woefully deceived. Many persons would be surprised to see their names attached in it to such an infinitely greater amount of wealth than they believed themselves to be the possessors of. He trusted that whatever valuation was made under this Bill it would be conducted on a more intelligible principle than the valuation in that book. However that might be, he earnestly desired that this measure should lead to a successful determination of this subject.
  MR. GOSCHENwished to know whether the alteration of "five "to "seven" with regard to the number of years at which a re-valuation should be made would be extended to the metropolis? It would be scarcely fair that the metropolis should be re-valued every five years, while other places were re-valued every seven years. With regard to the principle of this Bill he had only to express his satisfaction at the handsome language in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Metropolitan "Valuation Act, which he (Mr. Goschen)
  254
  had the honour of introducing. Occupants of the Treasury Bench, when they quitted their places, did not always receive compensation for unexhausted improvements. Therefore, he could only express his satisfaction that in this case acknowledgment had been made. The late Government thought they put a good deal of stuff into the ground, and if the result should be a rich crop of legislative measures, they would certainly not complain, but congratulate their successors upon them. At the same time, they hoped the measures would follow each other with reasonable despatch, and that the present Government would not act upon the plan of the Queen in the Arabian Nights, and so extend their legislative story as to make it last for ever. There was a Consolidation and a Rates Bill which was perfectly ready to the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the House would not have to wait two years for the appearance of that Bill, as they had to wait two years for the appearance of this Bill; but that the Government would produce that and other measures which were ready to their hands as soon as possible.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, after thanking the House for the kind manner in which his Motion had been received, said, in reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) that the metropolis would be spared for, he believed, eight years from a fresh valuation. The number of appeals this year in the metropolis to the special sessions under the right hon. Gentleman's Act was very trifling. They amounted to only 120, although he believed the number of assessments was upwards of 500,000, That spoke a good deal for the operation of the Act. In reply to the observation of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), that hon. Gentleman would find an important clause in the Bill establishing a relation between actual rents and values which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) hoped would be satisfactory. In reply to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer), it was not the case that special sessions were constituted the final Court of Appeal for the ordinary ratepayer, but, as a matter of fact, he had no doubt that would be generally the result. Appeals of primary importance would go to the special

  255
  sessions; those of secondary importance to quarter sessions.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes, ordered to he brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. SALT, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 59.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Committee of Public Accounts nominated:—Mr. DODSON, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. CUBITT, Lord ESLINGTON, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. THOMSON" HANKEY, Mr. O'REILLY, SIR CHARLES MILLS, Mr. SEELY, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.

  SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASSHETON, Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASSHETON and Mr. ROBERTSON.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 60.]

  CRIMINAL LAW EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to further amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Trials, and to enable prisoners or defendants, and their wives or husbands, to give evidence at such trials, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. GEORGE CLIVE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 61.]

  UNITED PARSHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DALRYMPLE, Bill to amend the Act of the seventh and eighth years of Her Majesty, chapter forty-four, relating to the formation of Quoad Sacra Parishes in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DALRYMPLE, Colonel ALEXANDER, and Mr. M'LAGAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 62.]

  BURGLARY AND FORGERY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FORSYTH, Bill to enable Justices in General and Quarter Sessions and Recorders of Boroughs to try cases of Burglary and Forgery, ordered to he brought in by Mr. FORSYTH, Lord FRANCIS HERVEY, Mr. LOCKE, and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.]

  NEWSPAPER REGISTRATION, &C. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WADDY, Bill to provide for the Registration of Newspapers, and to amend the Law of Libel, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WADDY and Mr. ASHLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

  OYSTER FISHERIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WADDY, Bill for the better protection of the Oyster Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WADDY and Mr. MUNTZ.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

  EPPING FOREST BILL.
  On Motion of Lord HENRY LENNOX, Bill to extend the time for the Epping Forest Commissioners to make their final Report, ordered to be brought in by Lord HENRY LENNOX and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord "Westbury, after the death of his Grandfather.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction (5).

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 4.)
EGYPT—MISSION OF MR. CAVE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYrose to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. He wished to ask the noble Earl, "Whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay on the Table the Papers and Instructions relative to the mission of Mr. Cave? That mission had excited, not only in the United Kingdom, but in other countries, a great deal of interest, which the explanation given by the noble Earl on Tuesday evening had not tended to allay. That explanation was either more than was wanting, or it was something less. The noble Earl stated——
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONrose to Order. The noble Earl was acting in contravention of the recognized practice of their Lordships' House in making a speech while putting a Question under the circumstances of this particular case. The noble Earl had given private Notice of his Question to his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, and, taking advantage of that Notice, was proceeding to make a speech on a matter of considerable importance.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it certainly was a Rule of their Lordships' House that no Question on which a discussion was likely to arise should be put without Notice in the ordinary way; but he apprehended that the Rule did not apply to observations made merely in explanation of a Question of which private Notice had been given.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was quite in the hands of the House, and he would be very glad not to make any further observations if the noble Earl said he would produce the Papers.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was prepared to lay on the Table the Instructions given to Mr. Cave previous to his departure, and some other Papers connected with the subject. Those Instructions and Papers would be laid immediately; but as to any despatches which had passed between the Government and Mr. Cave after that Gentleman went to Egypt, it would be better to wait until his return before those despatches were published.

TRIBUNAL OF FINAL APPEAL—APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose to call the attention of the House to the question of Appeal from the Queen's Courts in Great Britain and Ireland; and to present a Bill on the subject, and said: My Lords, I take the earliest opportunity of again calling your Lordships' attention—and I hope I am not too sanguine in saying for the last time—to the subject of a Tribunal for Final Appeal for the United Kingdom.
  My Lords, I shall have to throw myself on your Lordships' indulgence for a short time while I explain the proposals of Her Majesty's Government; but, my Lords, before I bring that explanation before you I shall have to make a short prefatory statement personal to myself. My Lords, I have never attempted on the discussion of the question now before the House to mix up anything of a personal nature; and as I I have a few words to say of that character now, I think it better to say them at the beginning, in order that they may be entirely disconnected from anything that is to follow.
  My Lords, I heard and saw during the last Session of Parliament various statements—and, indeed, observations were made in this House bearing in the same direction—which implied, on the one hand, that although I might have been responsible for the course taken from time to time on this question by Her Majesty's Government, yet that the course they had taken had not always had my cordial co-operation; and, further, that in any assent I had given to that course I had not been myself consistent. I know there are persons to whom it gives pleasure to think that there are questions on which the Members of a Cabinet are divided in opinion. Now, in this instance, I have to baulk the expectations of such persons, because I think it better at once to say that not only am I technically responsible for the course which the Government have from time to time adopted with reference to the subject of a Tribunal of Final Appeal, but that in every instance the course so taken has had my cordial approbation. My Lords, as regards my own consistency, I venture to think that it is a very small
  204
  matter. It is a matter of opinion; and my opinion is that I have not been inconsistent. I shall venture to express very shortly the grounds on which I make that assertion. In the year 1856, when a proposition was made in this House by the late Lord Derby for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the practice of the House in the hearing of Appeals, some observations fell from him which impressed me very much, and which express so entirely what I should myself wish to express, that I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to read them. He said—
  "My Lords, I shall somewhat shock some of your Lordships by saying that, highly as I value this privilege, I do not consider its maintenance to be so absolutely essential as some noble Lords may think to the fitting discharge of the other functions of your Lordships. I consider it undoubtedly to be a very high privilege, and a most important privilege; and as regards the legal Members of your Lordships' House, it undoubtedly does vest in them, as being such Members, a very high and a very important and responsible jurisdiction; and even with regard to the House at large, I am not prepared to say, though substantially the authority is not practically invested in them, that the apparent semblance of that authority is not in itself a real source of power of which I should be sorry to see your Lordships deprived. But of this I am quite certain, that if it were necessary to take the alternative between the maintenance of any privilege of your Lordships' House, however important or however valuable, and on the other hand the better administration of justice, there is not one of your Lordships who would hesitate in regard to that alternative, and who would not say, lot justice be fairly and impartially administered whatever privileges this House may be compelled to forego."—[See 3 Hansard, cxl. 1448.]
  Now, my Lords, in the year 1856 nothing was done in consequence of the proposals then made by the late Lord Derby towards improving the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House. In 1872 it certainly did appear to me that on the one hand it was impossible that the jurisdiction should continue to be exercised unless accompanied by some improvement; while, on the other hand, up to that time nothing in the direction of improvement had been effected. Therefore, it was that when, in 1872, my noble and learned Friend who was then Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherley), as the organ of the late Government, proposed in this House a Bill for the transfer of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House to another tribunal, I refused to accede to that proposal; and your

  205
  Lordships, instead of reading the Bill a second time, assented to a Resolution I then moved, substituting an inquiry by a Select Committee, as to whether changes and improvements could not be effected in the administration of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House. A Committee charged with that inquiry sat—I refer to this as a matter of history—and in the Committee I ventured to make proposals which it appeared to me would have effected the improvements which the administration of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House required. My proposals had very great support. My noble and learned Friend who was then Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherley), although he preferred his own plan, yet when he found that the House was not prepared to accede to it, frankly gave me his support. Lord Ripon, then Lord President of the Council, who represented the Government on the Committee, also supported me, as did also the majority of the Committee. But there was a division in the Committee. Of several Members of great authority, some differed as to the details of my plan, and some dissented from the scheme altogether. The result was that the Report of the Committee came down to the House with a divided authority. It did not, I think, obtain very much support in the House, and I know that out-of-doors strong opinions were expressed adversely to it. I am, perhaps, partial to the proposals I then made. I thought then and I still think that they were good; but I was not so blind as not to see that, though the proposals were recommended by a Committee, they could not, perhaps, be carried through this House, and certainly could not be carried through the other House of Parliament. It appeared to me, then, that improvements were required in the administration of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House, and that it was not likely that those improvements would be approved by Parliament. Such was the state of things when, in 1873 my noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne), who then filled the position which I have now the honour to occupy proposed his measure carrying into effect the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, and I gave him my support. I was keenly anxious that the part of that great scheme which did not affect this House should pass into law. As re-
  206
  garded the improvement of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House, I found there was perfect apathy; and, looking at the substance rather than the form, I gave my support to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend, though I did not approve that portion of the measure which suppressed intermediate appeal and gave a final appeal instead of it. When Her Majesty's present Government came into Office they found the measure of my noble and learned Friend the law of the land; and it appeared to us that as a Government we had only one course to pursue—namely, with the view of accepting what had been done in the case of final appeals in England, to propose a similar rule in the case of such appeals from Scotland and from Ireland, and to make an addition to the scheme of 1873 by the constitution of an Intermediate Tribunal of Appeal, which appeared to me to be necessary. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill to effect those objects passed your Lordships' House and went down to the other House of Parliament, where the Business of the Session before that House did not allow of the Bill being passed into law. We now come to last year. In 1875 the Government took the only course which, as it appears to me, was open to them. They re-introduced the Bill which passed this House in 1874; and then it became evident that a very great change had arrived—a change of opinion not merely in this House, but out of this House. The Government were made aware of that—not only in one way, but in scores of ways. The change of opinion was manifest; and the Government became aware that it would be utterly impossible to pass the measure in the form it had been passed in this House the previous year. But that was not all. So obvious was the change of public opinion that Her Majesty's Government considered it to be their duty to re-consider the question now that a new element had entered into it, and that could have been done in no other way than by the withdrawal of the Bill. My Lords, at the time it was being withdrawn, I stated that I looked on its withdrawal with very great regret. And I did so, for this reason—because it was my opinion at the time that the withdrawal of the Bill must result in the whole scheme for the amendment of our system of Judicature being deferred. It

  207
  had already been postponed for two years, and it appeared to me that a postponement for a third year was inevitable. But subsequently I was glad, and the Government were glad, to see our way to a Bill which Parliament approved, and which, while addressing itself to the other portions of our system of Judicature, postponed for a year only the question of the Tribunal of Final Appeal. That Bill became law. The great change in our system of Judicature came into operation on the 1st of November last; and I am bound to say that every day makes me more satisfied of the wisdom of Parliament in at once introducing that great change by itself, and relegating to another occasion the question of Final Appeal. Now, my Lords, I have done as far as regards myself. I hold the opinion which I have held from first to last, and I think the course I have taken has been a perfectly consistent one; my desire has always been to secure the best Tribunal of Final Appeal that it is possible to obtain—I never had, and I have not, any other desire in the matter than that.
  Before I proceed to explain our proposals for the future, let me, my Lords, say a word as to the results of the Judicature Act now in operation. I am not going to trespass on your Lordships with elaborate statistics—indeed, the length of time during which the Act has been in operation does not admit of the production of such statistics;—but I feel the deepest gratification in saying—and I am sure my noble and learned Friend by whose exertions this great measure was set on foot will feel the deepest gratification in hearing—that so far as I can observe, the working of the Judicature Act has been in the highest degree satisfactory. The working of the Act has been characterized by flexibility, simplicity, uniformity, and economy of judicial time. These have ensured the happiest results already, and these results afford hopeful augury for the future of the measure. And, my Lords, I cannot refer to this subject without bearing my testimony—my grateful testimony—to the frank and generous exertions made by every Division of the Court in giving effect to the Act. My Lords, one can well understand that those who have had long experience of an old system and practice, and are thoroughly conversant with it, might be
  208
  expected to be somewhat coy in giving their assistance to the working of a new one. But on the part of the Judges there has been none of that feeling. They have shown not energy merely, but ardour, in giving effect to the new legislation, and I believe that it is owing to this spirit on the part of the Judges that the happy results of the measure are in a large degree to be attributed. Though, as I said, I am not going to quote elaborate statistics, I shall mention one or two circumstances by which your Lordships may be enabled to form an opinion as to the advantages which have already resulted from the change. On the 1st of November last there were in the three Common Law Courts—The Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer, which are now three Divisions of the High Court of Justice—380 Nisi Prius cases, which had been made remanets, and were waiting for trial. That was a very serious amount of arrears; and I am afraid to say how long a time must have elapsed, according to the former practice, before those remanets could have been disposed of. But from the 1st of November last six Nisi Prius Courts sat—first at Westminster and afterwards at Guildhall—and before Christmas the whole of these 380 cases had been, I will not say heard, but called on, so that the suitors in every one of them were afforded an opportunity of having their case heard if they themselves were prepared to have it disposed of. Of course, several cases were called on and subsequently deferred at the instance of the parties because it suited their convenience; but the suitors in all those cases had, I believe, an opportunity of having their cases heard. My Lords, there is another fact. On the same date—the 1st of November last—there were standing for hearing from the three Divisions—the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer—27 appeals, which, according to the former practice, would have been heard by the Court of Exchequer Chamber. I cannot say what time would have elapsed before these Appeals in Error would have been disposed of, but I think the Court of Exchequer Chamber was not in the habit of disposing of more than 27 cases in a year. However, the whole of those 27 Appeals were heard and judgment given in them before Christmas. I believe that judg-

  209
  ment on one point only was held over, but, with that exception, the whole of them were heard and disposed of. I think I may say, therefore, that the working of the Act has led to the best possible results in respect of economy of judicial time.
  I now, my Lords, come to the question of the Tribunal of Final Appeal. In the course of last Session I took the liberty of saying that there were certain points which the Government would consider essential in any proposal on this subject that they might make to the House, and these, I think, were four in number. First, that the Tribunal should be the same for England, Scotland, and Ireland; secondly, that security should be taken that every case heard before that Tribunal should be hoard before an adequate number of the most highly trained and experienced judicial minds that the country could supply; thirdly, that the sitting of the Tribunal, whatever it might be, should be continuous throughout the judicial year; and fourthly, that care should be taken that the expense of appealing before the Tribunal should be kept within as moderate bounds as the nature of the case would allow. My Lords, I took the liberty of saying that in my opinion if those conditions could be secured, the question where or in what form that Tribunal should be found was, I would not say unimportant, but comparatively unimportant, as compared with the securing of those conditions. It might be a question of sentiment, prestige, or of traditionary honour and dignity, and if its solution could be accomplished while these greater objects were secured, that, of course, would be the most desirable result at which we could arrive. My Lords, I would now venture to those essentials which I enumerated last Session to add another. Perhaps I should not say it is an essential; but, at least, it would be very desirable. My Lords, I venture to think it would be very desirable if it could be accomplished, that a point of contact should be obtained from the Tribunal of Final Appeal for the United Kingdom and the tribunal which now disposes of appeals from the colonies and dependencies of the Crown. I mean, of course, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  I do not propose to ask your Lordships to accompany me in an investigation of antiquarian law, but I think
  210
  your Lordships will hold me justified in asking you for a moment to consider what is the origin of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House in which we sit. My Lords, we are in the habit of saying and recognizing as one of the maxims of Constitutional law on which we set the greatest store that the source and fountain of all justice in this country is the Sovereign. My Lords, let us look at the Courts. The Court of Queen's Bench—what does it mean? Justice is there administered, according to our idea of the Constitution, before the Sovereign through the medium of her Justices. Then the Court of Common Pleas—justice is there administered by the Justices of the Queen. Then the Court of Exchequer—justice is there administered by the Barons of the Queen. In the Court of Chancery justice is administered as in the Queen's Court, and when I turn to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the source of its authority is even more marked, because there the Sovereign directly refers the case to be considered to the Judicial Committee, that Committee reports its decision to the Sovereign, and the Sovereign gives it effect by an Order in Council. My Lords, whence is the jurisdiction of this House? Is it the case that this House overrules by its own authority the judgment given by the Queen, through her Judges in the Court of Queen's Bench and other Courts? Now, my Lords, this appears to me to be a matter of no small importance, and I ask your Lordships' attention to it for a few moments. My Lords, there is no doubt as to the history of the jurisdiction of this House. I ask you to bear in mind the distinction between two parts of its jurisdiction which are essentially different. No doubt your Lordships are aware of the technical difference in this House between Writs of Error and Appeals. Writs of Error related to the Common Law Courts—the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer. The judgments of those Courts are subjects of Writs of Error. My Lords, what is a Writ of Error? It is a writ issuing from the Sovereign and in the name of the Sovereign. It is a writ directed to the Chief of the Court—the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, or the Lord Chief Baron—and it commands him to bring to the Bar of your Lordships' House the record of action as to

  211
  which complaint has been made, and to hand it in, in order that it may be considered by the Queen in the presence of, and with the assistance of, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. That is the source of the jurisdiction of this House. The source is not a claim by this House to overrule the decision of the Courts—it is the Sovereign of the country asking the advice of this Court as to whether what has been done by the inferior Courts has been done rightly or wrongly. Let me read the words of the form—though forms may be dry things—yet I am anxious to get at the root of the matter, and forms give a great deal of information. I hold in my hand the form of a Writ of Error, which, though it was abolished two years ago, is good for the purpose of showing the source of the jurisdiction of this House. It is addressed to the Chief of the Court, and it commands him—
  "That you do distinctly and openly send under your seal a transcript of the record and proceedings thereon, with all things touching the same, to us in our present Parliament [or if Parliament he not then sitting, in our Parliament at the next Session thereof, to wit, on the day of next ensuing, to he holden], and this writ, that the record and proceedings thereon being reviewed, we may further cause to he done thereupon, with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the game Parliament, for correcting the error, what of right and according to the law and custom of England ought to be done."
  Formerly the Chief of the Court came to the Bar of the House and handed in the record: now that is done by an officer of the Court. The form then proceeds:—
  "Afterwards"—that is to say, after the transcript of the record had reached the House of Lords—" on the day of before our said Lady the Queen and the Peers of this Realm in the present Parliament at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, assembled, comes the said C. D. by G. H. his attorney, and says that in the record and proceedings aforesaid, and also in giving the judgment aforesaid, there is manifest error, &c., and the said C. D. thereupon prays that the judgment may he reversed, &c."
  Then the duty of the defendant is pointed out—
  "Defendant comes, and by his attorney says—that there is no error cither in the record and proceedings aforesaid or in giving the judgment aforesaid, and he prays that the Court of Our Lady the Queen, in her Parliament here, may proceed to examine as well the record and proceedings aforesaid as the matters aforesaid above assigned for error, and that the judgment aforesaid may he in all things affirmed,' &c."
  212
  Then what does the House when it comes to a decision—
  "Whereupon all and singular the promises being seen, and by the Court of Parliament then and there fully understood, and as well the record and proceedings aforesaid, and the judgment aforesaid given in form aforesaid, as also the causes and matters aforesaid by the said C. D. as above for error assigned being by the said Court diligently examined, reviewed, and fully understood, and mature deliberation being thereupon had, it seemed to the Court of Parliament now here that there is manifest error in the record and proceedings aforesaid, and in giving and affirming the judgment aforesaid. Therefore it is considered by the said Court of our said Lady the Queen in her Parliament here that the judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid given by the said Court of our said Lady the Queen before the Queen herself at Westminster in form aforesaid for the errors aforesaid and other errors therein being, be reversed, annulled, and altogether holden for nothing, and that the said A. B. &c. be restored to all things which he hath lost by occasion of the said several judgments, and thereupon the record aforesaid remitted from the Court of Parliament aforesaid to the Court of our said Lady the Queen before the Queen herself, to the end that execution may be had thereupon, and the same now remain in the said Court, to wit, at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex."
  It will be seen from, this form, my Lords, that so far from the old jurisdiction of this House being such as would imply that the House interfered with the action of the Courts of the Sovereign, it is the Sovereign here acting in concert and consultation with this House who reviews the judgments of her Courts, and does away with any error which those Courts may have committed. That is the case as regards Writs of Error. And when was the origin of Writs of Error? My Lords, it is a very ancient jurisdiction. We know that Writs of Error were in use as early as the reign of Edward I., and I believe that we stop there, because there are no records to carry us further back. I believe they are coeval with the Magnum Concilium of the Sovereign, and that it was to this Great Council that the Sovereign applied in the last resort for assistance in dealing with the cases presented for his decision. But at what time did the jurisdiction of this House in respect of appeals arise? As compared with the jurisdiction in Writs of Error, it is a thing of yesterday. It was utterly unknown until the middle of the 17th century. Then it was that for the first time appeals were brought here from the Court of Chancery. Your Lordships are aware that the jurisdiction claimed

  213
  for this House in the case of appeals gave rise to great debate and great controversies. I am not, however, referring to it for that purpose, but for a very different one. It happened that the first time your Lordships' House exercised the jurisdiction of hearing appeals from the Court of Chancery, the appeal brought up was unfortunately not couched in the form of a Writ of Error, but in that of a Petition addressed to your Lordships as the Peers Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled. I believe that was little more than an oversight, but the appeal took the form I have described and has continued it; and it is my opinion that a great deal that has been said against the jurisdiction of this House has been advanced under the objection which fairly lay against this novel hearing of appeals, and is by no manner of means applicable to the early and original jurisdiction of this House and the early and truthful way in which that jurisdiction was exercised. There is an essay of Lord Halo's on this subject, and, though in the early part of it there is a good deal that is technical, very broad views are laid down in this tract. Lord Hale was no enemy to the jurisdiction of this House, but he made various suggestions which are worthy of attention, and there are one or two sentences of his which I should like to quote. He says—
  "All jurisdiction in this realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil, is derived from the Crown; and the exercise thereof in the Ministers or Judges, to whom it is so delegated by the Crown, is in right of the Crown and by virtue of a delegation from it. And it were a thing scarce consistent with the Monarchical Government that those sentences, judgments, or decrees, which are pronounced and given by the King's authority and commission, should be examined by an original jurisdiction lodged in the House of Lords without especial authority given by the King by writ, commission, or endorsement. This were to make the basis of the Government aristocratical, since the last devolution of appeals would be from the King, and the judgments given by his authority unto the Lords.… As the decrees are passed by the King's authority, so by the same authority they are avoided, if there be cause; and not by a kind of primitive, superintendent, inherent jurisdiction in the Lords' House, which some may possibly think savours too much of an aristocracy, giving an appeal from the King to the Lords by an inherent right of a dernier resort, which seems not agreeable to the constitution of the English Government."
  My Lords, I am very anxious to lay before your Lordships fully the distinc-
  214
  tion which I have endeavoured to explain, and I am so for two reasons. If any alteration in the jurisdiction of this House is made, and if that jurisdiction is continued with regard to appeals, I hold it to be a matter of paramount importance that the true basis of the jurisdiction should be exactly understood and recognized.
  My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are about to propose a measure for the improvement of the jurisdiction of this House; and the first alteration they propose is that in all cases in which there are appeals to this House there should be a recognition of this principle—that this House in judicial matters sits here as the adviser of the Sovereign; that it is the Court of Parliament advising the Sovereign. We propose that this shall appear by the form of Petition. We desire that this should be done before any other change is made. It is not a matter of form—it is to my mind a matter of substance. It is all important that it should be done now because, by reason of changes brought about by the Judicature Act, we have put an end to the formality of Error; and therefore those proceedings in Error which before now were a test of jurisdiction in this House, will cease to have any existence.
  I shall now state the tribunal before which it is proposed those appeals shall be brought. We propose that there shall be in this House Lords of Appeal; and I will state to your Lordships of whom we propose this body shall be constituted. It will be constituted, in the first place, of those Members of the House of Lords who have filled certain "high judicial offices" in the State—these will include the Lord Chancellor, ex-Lord Chancellors, and others who have filled high judicial offices and have seats in this House. In addition, we propose that there should be appointed in the first instance two other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, to be selected from persons of high qualifications at the Bar or on the Bench; and that while they hold their office as Lords of Appeal, they shall receive a writ of summons as Barons and shall sit and vote in this House like other Peers. We propose that they shall hold their rank for life, that they should have a salary of £6,000 a-year, which is £1,000 a-year more than the salary of the ordinary Judges, and, as I said, we propose that in the first

  215
  instance their number should be two. As to continuous sittings, we have to provide for the case of Prorogation and for the case of Dissolution. As to the case of Prorogation, there is no difficulty. In the Bill which passed your Lordships' House in 1856, went to the other House of Parliament, and was there laid aside, there was a clause providing that for the purposes of judicial business this House should sit during Prorogations at any times for such sitting which had been fixed before the Prorogation. We purpose that there should be a similar provision in the Bill which will embody the propositions which I am now submitting to your Lordships. I omitted to state, when speaking of the constitution of the Tribunal by Lords of Appeal, that Her Majesty's Government propose that no case should be heard in this House unless three Lords of Appeal are present. With regard to Dissolutions, there is, of course, the possibility of a Court of Pinal Appeal being required during that interregnum; but, in point of fact, I doubt whether it ever would be desirable to have an Appellate Court sitting at such a time—which under our present electoral arrangements is usually very short. Experience shows us that the people in this country are so much occupied in other matters at such a time that they are not disposed to prosecute with energy appeals before a Court of Ultimate Jurisdiction. We have, however, a precedent for what could be done. If it should be necessary to assemble the Tribunal at such a time, we have a precedent for the way of doing it in an old statute passed in the reign of Edward III., when the intervals between the dissolution of one Parliament and the summoning of another were much longer than they are now. That is a precedent for enabling the Sovereign to assemble the Lords of Appeal by issuing a Royal Commission, requiring them to meet for the dispatch of judicial business, and to exercise the same powers as if Parliament were sitting; and if so assembled they would have the same powers as at any ordinary sitting of the House, That disposes of the question of continuous sittings.
  Now comes the other question—the desirability of obtaining a point of contact, if it can be done, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Your
  216
  Lordships are aware that there are at present in that Committee four Members who are called salaried Members of the Judicial Committee. They were constituted by an Act which passed a few years ago, and practically the disposing of appeals rests mainly with these learned persons. My Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has before it the appeals which come from the colonies and the dependencies of the Crown: if the proposals of Her Majesty's Government are approved by Parliament, this House, sitting in the way I have described, would have before it the appeals coming from the United Kingdom—that is, the portion of the dominions of the Queen directly under the Parliamentary Government of the Imperial Parliament. Of course it would be very desirable that between those two bodies disposing of judicial business—the one disposing of business coming from within the ambit of the authority of Parliament, and the other of business coming from outside the ambit of that authority—there should be some legal point of contact. In the case of the four salaried Members of the Judicial Committee there can be no fresh appointment under the Act constituting them. If their offices became vacant, no person could be appointed to them without a fresh provision by Parliament. Now, what we propose is this. We do not propose to interfere in any way with those four Members acting on the Judicial Committee; but what we do propose is this—that, when there are two vacancies among those four salaried Members, there should be a power of appointing one other Lord of Appeal in this House; and so likewise, when two other vacancies of salaried Members occur, there should be a power of appointing one more Lord of Appeal—so as to make four salaried Lords of Appeal in this House. The result, therefore, will be that, when the four salaried Members of the Privy Council have come to an end of their office, there will be four Lords of Appeal in ordinary, and we propose that they, being Privy Councillors, should be charged with the duty of sitting in the Privy Council as well as of performing their duties in this House.
  I shall now state the amount of business which would have to be discharged by these two Tribunals. Without troubling your Lordships with too many details, I may state, taking an average,

  217
  that the judicial business which falls to this House in a year and that which falls to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the same period is such as would require the sitting days to be not less than 200 and not more' than 300. In fact, the sitting days may be nearer to 200 than 300; 300 days at the most; and that would be sufficient for the discharge of the business of both Tribunals. Let me state to your Lordships that the judicial year may be said to comprise 200 days. Any tribunal which sits during the judicial year is said to sit for 200 days in the year. Therefore, as regards this House and the Judicial Committee you get this state of things—the business to be disposed of is rather more than could be done by one tribunal, and rather less than could be done by two tribunals, sitting throughout the judicial year. Therefore, if you get a tribunal which can sit in two divisions, you will have a tribunal which can easily dispose of the business of both this House and the Privy Council. There will be in this House the Lord Chancellor, and ultimately four Lords of Appeal in ordinary, and they will have the great assistance which I trust we shall long enjoy of the Peers who have filled the post of Lord Chancellor or other high judicial offices, and in the Privy Council there will be always several ex officio Members of the Judicial Committee; so that your Lordships will see that with the most perfect facility such a tribunal may dispose of the business both of the House of Lords and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In cases of such importance as to require the presence of five Lords of Appeal, we can have them; but when three are deemed to be sufficient—and, as a general rule, I think three is the best number for a Court of Appeal—the tribunal may be constituted for hearing by the presence of three Judges. It may be asked why the Government do not propose at once to constitute four Lords of Appeal, and why they only for the present purpose to appoint two. It is for this reason: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are doing their work with great care and diligence, and we think it better not to make any change in that Court until it shall come in the natural course of events. This House possesses in my noble and learned Friends an unusual number of Judges who have held high judicial
  218
  office and who are qualified to sit in Appeals; and this House is, therefore, in no immediate distress in point of numbers for a larger Court of Final Appeal than I have proposed. But above and before this there is another reason. It is undesirable at any one moment to make a great drain upon the Bar for the supply of new Judges. The Bar is like other professions, and cannot afford to give to the Bench more than a limited number of its highly trained members at any given time. The country gains by taking from time to time such members of the Bar as prove themselves fitted for judicial office; but, unless incase of absolute necessity, a proposal to take either from the Bench or the Bar any great number of their members is to be deprecated.
  Let me now say a word upon another point—the question of expense. Some persons have said that this House is a very expensive tribunal. Now, there are three elements of expense connected with the judicial business of this House, and it ought to be distinctly understood what they are. One element is the fees of this House, which must be paid, of course, by the suitors. The second is the cost of printing the records and books which constitute the subject of the appeal. The third is the professional remuneration of the advisers of the parties. Now, with regard to the fees of this House I have made some inquiry, and I find that the fees which have to be paid by the appellant amount to about £20 and by the respondent to about £17. So far as I know of the expenses of other Courts, I have a great suspicion that the expenses of appeals to your Lordships' House will contrast not unfavourably but favourably with any other Court in the country. The printing of the books and records in the case no doubt occasions expense, and if it can be lessened it would be desirable that it should be diminished. But I am bound to say that wherever you may place your Court of Pinal Appeal it is important that every scrap of paper should be in print in orderly and proper form; for my experience convinces me that very often errors in the decisions of the Courts below have been discovered just as much from the orderly and clear way in which printed papers bring the case before the mind as from any superior knowledge of the law possessed by the higher tribunal.

  219
  With regard to the remuneration of the professional advisers, it is impossible for any tribunal to exercise any control over this element of expense. It may be assumed that cases which come before a Court of Final Appeal are always of considerable importance—the parties are naturally anxious to obtain the best professional advice that can be had—it is in the nature of things that the highest class of professional assistance should cost most money; and I am afraid we cannot prevent the parties from indulging themselves in the luxury of such assistance. It is quite true you may lay down some rules by which the unsuccessful party shall not have to pay costs except according to a fixed and regulated tariff of charges for professional assistance. What the Government propose on that head is that, if this scheme is adopted, there should be a Committee of Inquiry of your Lordships' House into this question of expense, in order that it may be brought down to the lowest point to which it can be brought with regard to the nature of the case.
  We also propose that, although there is at present an Appeal Committee which meets at certain intervals, and before which matters of practice connected with appeals are brought, a more regular system should be adopted. We propose that an Appeal Committee should be constituted out of the Lords of Appeal, and that they should meet regularly once a week to dispose of all matters of practice now disposed of by the General Appeal Committee.
  I have now gone through the proposal of the Government. With regard to the Pinal Court of Appeal, your Lordships will have observed that our proposals provide one Court of Final Appeal for every part of the United Kingdom. We provide that an adequate number of highly-trained judicial minds shall be present at every appeal—that the sitting of the tribunal should be continuous during the whole of the judicial year—and that the expense of the tribunal should be regulated as far as possible. We also establish a point of contact between the judicial proceedings of this House and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, because in substance they will be the same tribunal, although acting with different forms and dealing with different business.
  There are certain further proposals of
  220
  the Government which relate, not to the Court of Final Appeal, but to the Court of Intermediate Appeal. Last year there was established a new Court of Intermediate Appeal. That Court was constituted of three permanent Judges of Appeal and five ex officio Judges, who may sit as time and opportunity serve—namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer—making in all eight members. In addition, the Court has the power to ask for the attendance of two of the Primary Judges at any time when they are required: so that you have got nominally 10 names on the roll of that Court. Last year great objections were made to this Intermediate Court of Appeal. It was said it was very weak, and would be the Exchequer Chamber over again. I certainly did not agree with those objections, and I agree still less with them now that we have had experience of the working of the Court. That Court has in it two very excellent elements—one, that you have a nucleus of permanent members who never change, and the other that you have the power of supplementing those members by the addition of two Primary Judges, and such of the Chiefs as the occasion may require. Another advantage is that we are always in this country very much embarrassed about the disposition of judicial time. The great strain upon the Judges is at the time of Circuits, and you want more Judges during that time than at any other period of the year. By the Bill of last year, when the Judges are not going on Circuit you are able to obtain the attendance of two of the Primary Judges in the Intermediate Appeal Court, and in that way their time is utilized to great advantage. I have seen this Court at work; and, so far as I can collect, public opinion is in favour of the working of the Court as constituted by the Act of last year. That is, therefore, a Court which may be continued to act as it has been doing. We do, however, propose with a view to the future to strengthen that Court, and in this way. I have referred to the four salaried Members of the Judicial Committee. We propose that when two of those offices become vacant, and when a Lord of Appeal is appointed, so also an addi-

  221
  tional member of the Intermediate Court of Appeal may be appointed; and likewise when the remaining two salaried Members of the Judicial Committee shall retire or die, another Member of the Intermediate Court of Appeal may be appointed. The result of that will be that when the whole system comes into operation you will have in this House, besides the Lord Chancellor, four Lords of Appeal in ordinary, bound to discharge the judicial business of this House, and of the Privy Council, and you will have in the Intermediate Court of Appeal five permanent Members of that Court, who, with the very slight additional assistance they will require from the Primary Judges, will be able to discharge the whole of the business of that Court in a manner that will be satisfactory to the country.
  There is still one more change, which it will be convenient to mention here. The Judicature Act of 1873 proposed that there should be a reduction in the number of the Primary Judges, and that two of the number of Primary Judges should not be re-appointed. When the Act of last year passed the other House that provision was repealed, and the Primary Judges were restored to their former number. My Lords, looking at the arrears to be disposed of, I think that was a wise thing. But as soon as the propositions I have made have come into operation—as soon as the Intermediate Court of Appeal has been strengthened in the manner I have mentioned—the time will have arrived when, the arrears having been entirely worked off, we shall be able as I hope to dispense with two of the Primary Judges; and the more so because all the new Judges that may be appointed will be bound to go Circuit. I therefore think, that when that period arrives, two of the Primary Judges may be dispensed with. The result of the whole will be that you will then have, or the purposes of Appeal, the four Lords of Appeal in this House and five members of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. I may mention that is exactly the same number—not one more—than was proposed by the Judicature Act of 1873; and yet by the different arrangement of the same materials we shall have secured what I believe your Lordships will think, what certainly I think, an efficient Court of Intermediate as well as of Pinal Appeal. You will also have the same
  222
  reduction in the number of Primary Judges. My Lords, I refer to the number of Judges and their reduction, not because I think this country would grudge any expenditure that would really be necessary for the purpose, but because I think it is satisfactory that we should be able to keep these large proposals which I have now made within proper bounds and compass. I think that, while on the one hand a sufficient amount of judicial power is absolutely necessary, any superfluity of judicial power is a positive evil. No judicial body works so efficiently as when fully occupied. This consideration is not only important with regard to the money expended, but with regard to the efficiency of the service itself; and I believe it is above all things important that here in England, as distinguished from other parts of the dominion, we should set an example that we have not provided more judicial force than is required. We have to call on another part of the Empire to submit to a reduction, and certainly we ought to take care that our own staff is not greater than is requisite. I believe that under the proposal I have now made we shall have all we require. I believe we shall have the most efficient Court of Appeal which the country can desire, and I trust, on full consideration, the proposals I have made will have your Lordships' approval.
  Bill for amending the Law in respect of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords; and for other purposes, presented (The Lord Chancellor).
  LORD SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend has detailed, with his usual clearness, a series of most important proposals which your Lordships will deliberately consider—as I promise to do—with a sincere desire to do the best that can be done for the administration of justice in such a manner as may be final, at all events for many years to come. It would not be fitting or convenient that I should now discuss in detail any of those proposals. We must have the time and opportunity for deliberately considering them—which, no doubt, we shall have before the second reading of the Bill. There arc, however, some parts of the speech of my noble and learned Friend on which I think it right to make a very few observations. First of all, with respect to that part

  223
  which was personal to my noble and learned Friend himself. If there be anyone Member of your Lordships' House who is bound to express his assent to the vindication he offered of himself—if, indeed, vindication was necessary from the charge of inconsistency—if such a charge has been made anywhere against my noble and learned Friend—I am certainly bound to express my full and unqualified assent to what my noble and learned Friend has said on that subject. The course he has taken in this matter from first to last is before your Lordships and the country. I am bound always to acknowledge the patriotic and generous way in which my noble and learned Friend supported the proposals I had to make to Parliament in 1873—a course worthy of himself, and the only course I could have expected; because, so far as related to the other subjects of that measure, except what affected your Lordships' House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he himself had contributed in no small degree in the Judicature Commission to the maturing of the proposals I embodied in that measure. On the subject of the Appellate Jurisdiction of your Lordships' House, I am bound also to say that my noble and learned Friend at that time, being very frank as well as kind in his communications with myself, did not conceal the preference he would have felt for retaining—for certain purposes at all events—an ultimate recourse to your Lordships' House; and if he did not press that view as the measure passed through this House, it was only, I believe, because he did not attribute, in the then state of public feeling on the subject, sufficient importance to it to delay the passing of the measure. My Lords, I heard, with the greatest satisfaction, the testimony borne by my noble and learned Friend to the successful working of that measure during the short period, and that a most trying period of transition, while the Judicature Act has been in operation; and the importance of that testimony will be felt the more when you recollect what were the four great objects which that measure had in view, only one of which really could be adequately tested during the period that has now elapsed. The first object was the economizing of judicial power, and by that the prevention of delay as well as of cost to suitors.
  224
  That object has been tested, even in the short period which has elapsed; and I think the most sanguine supporters of the measure could hardly have expected a greater degree of success than that, to which my noble and learned Friend has borne his testimony. The other three objects were these—first of all, to unite, under one administration, the whole law of the country—Common Law and Equity—the result of which could only be obtained in the course of time: but I have heard nothing to shake my belief in the probable success—as well as the great importance—of that change. Then there was the simplification of procedure, which stands, to a great extent, on the same ground with the fusion of Law and Equity, sufficient time not having yet elapsed to test its entire success; but I am glad to hear from my noble and learned Friend that as far as experience has yet gone it has given satisfaction; and if satisfactory to him, with his opportunities of knowledge, it is likely, I am sure, to be satisfactory to the country. The fourth object of the Bill which I introduced was undoubtedly a very important one;—the re-constitution of the Appellate Jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, and I still think unfortunately, through the circumstances to which my noble and learned Friend has referred, the scheme of the measure of 1873 has in that respect been displaced. My noble and learned Friend has now proposed another elaborate scheme, as to which, all I can now say is, that, although not at present satisfied that it is equally advantageous with that of 1873, I shall consider it without the slightest personal feeling in the matter, and with every desire to secure the object, which must necessarily be common to myself and to my noble and learned Friend.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he considered the legal origin of appeals to the House of Lords to arise from the Act which the Lord Chancellor had quoted, as to the power of sitting in Vacation—namely, 14 Edward III., c. 5—in which delays in Chancery were specially included—Commons, Lords, and the Royal Assent—legalized the appointment of a Committee; (having the statute book before him) he referred to the terms of the Act. He had the same opinion that he held in 1856 as to the unconstitutional nature of the proposed appointments, and

  225
  being 70 years of age, he could only warn the House against evils which he foresaw, and to the possibility of which, in 1856 and 1873, this House had too readily assented. He would be happy if, before he was gathered to his Fathers, he could see a more constitutional measure adopted than those Acts or the Bill in its present shape.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed. (No. 5.)
  House adjourned at a quarter to Seven o'clock, to Monday next. Eleven o'clock.