Sitting of 7 July 1876

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Chester County (Mid Division), v. Egerton Leigh, esquire, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Bevan Bowen, esquire, for the County of Pembroke.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Oyster Fisheries* [No. 345].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation* [241]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lerwick)* [242].
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [221].
Committee—Appellate Jurisdiction [111]—R.P.; Isle of Man (Officers) [215]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Public Works Loans* [228]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (Bristol, &c.)* [203].
Third Reading—Customs Duties Consolidation* [188]; Customs Laws Consolidation* [154]; Elver Fishing* [225];Notices to Quit (Ireland)* [226], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
MR. RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence (as reported in the "Scotsman" newspaper of 9th June) given by the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum in Musselburgh, when he was examined as a witness in an action in the Court of Session, and stated that business men had been put into his asylum to avoid the Bankruptcy Court, and ministers to avoid trial by their Presbyteries; and, if so, whether he can give any information regarding such statement, or the grounds on which it was made?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has requested me to answer this Question, because the inquiries were made under my direction. The statements made by the witness referred to in the Question have been the subject of a very thorough investigation by the Commissioners of Lunacy in Scotland. On being referred to for the cases to which he had alluded, Chalmers, the proprietor of the private lunatic asylum, gave to the Commissioners two cases, one that of a tailor in Edinburgh, and the other that of a former minister of the Established Church of Scotland. The names are at the service of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk if he wishes for them. The first case occurred in December 1863, and the person concerned was admitted to the asylum on certificates of insanity granted by Dr. John Smith and the late Mr. Charles Sidey, both of Edinburgh. Dr. Smith has long enjoyed the reputation of being one of the highest authorities in matters of lunacy in Scotland. Mr. Sidey was a well-known

1135
and most respectable practitioner in Edinburgh. Dr. Sanderson, the medical attendant of Mr. Chalmers' private asylum, in answer to the Lunacy Commissioners, has emphatically declared that he never had the least suspicion that the person referred to was improperly admitted. He was detained till May, 1864. The proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court have been searched, and they contain no allusion whatever to anything discreditable on the part of the bankrupt, or anything to justify the statement that he had been put into the asylum to avoid the Bankruptcy Court. In regard to the case of the minister, the order for his detention was made in April, 1871, on certificates of insanity granted by two medical gentlemen, one of whom was Dr. W. A. E. Browne, who was formerly one of the Commissioners of Lunacy in Scotland, and whose opinion on a question of insanity is entitled to the greatest respect. The minister still remains in an asylum, and the Commissioners of Lunacy, who are well acquainted with his case, have no doubt that he was properly placed under restraint. The Report of the Commissioners concluded thus—
"The Commissioners themselves have never had the smallest reason to suspect the good faith of any medical man in granting certificates of insanity, and the evidence given by Mr. Chalmers can only be accounted for as due to the imperfect acquaintance of a man untrained in medicine with the manifold aspects which the malady presents itself."

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he had a Question to ask of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and in explaining it he should put himself in Order in the usual way.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given Notice of a Question which he is entitled to put, but he is not entitled to debate the Question.
SIR EDWARD WATKINbowed to the decision of the Chair. He begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that twice in the present Session a Private Bill has been rejected on Second Reading by means of a private canvass, he will afford facilities for the discussion of and a division upon the Resolution relating to Private Business Legislation now standing on the Order Book for Monday next?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, "Private canvass" is a very vague phrase. I think that anything like a gross and obvious canvass of votes in favour of a Private Bill is a process which certainly ought to be deprecated. I thought that I observed some three months ago, when a similar question was brought under the attention of the House, that the moral sense of the House exhibited itself in no mistaken manner, and disapproved such conduct. But, at the same time, we must remember that the promoters of Private Bills have not the opportunity of discussion which the promoters of Public Bills have, and that some means to provide explanation, either printed or otherwise, is absolutely necessary sometimes, in order that the merits and nature of Private Bills may be known. It requires caution and delicacy in interfering with these matters. Now in regard to the particular question of the hon. Gentleman—whether we will give him facilities on Monday to discuss this question—without at all denying its importance, I would remind him that the public time which I have to dispose of is now required for many measures of public importance and of more urgent character than the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I should say myself that the matter might rest at present. It is a question which should rather be brought before our notice at the beginning of the Session, and if the hon. Gentleman takes that course, I have no doubt the House will give the subject due consideration, and he will have the advantage in the interval of six months of being able to consider the question himself.

THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE RED SEA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to statements made in the "Anti-Slavery Reporter" of July 1st, on the subject of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, and especially in regard to the Slave Market of Jeddah; whether there is reason to believe that such statements are well founded; whether steps will be taken to bring before the Egyptian Government the alleged connivance in the traffic of Egyptian officials; and, whether Her

  1137
  Majesty's Government will in a friendly manner call the attention of the Austrian Government to the allegation that slaves are conveyed from Hodeidah to Jeddah in steamers belonging to the Austrian Lloyd's, a company receiving subsidies and other special privileges from that Government?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that as to the first part of the Question of his hon. Friend, he had seen the statements in The Anti-Slavery Reporter, which some one had been good enough to send him, and he observed in that publication a long statement with reference to the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, respecting which what was termed "a thrilling narrative" was given, some of the statements being well-founded, while others were perfectly untrue. With reference to the charges made against the British Consul at Jeddah, Her Majesty's Government had no reason to believe that there was any slackness of duty on the part of the British Consul or vice Consul at that place. On the contrary, the Government were of opinion that it was owing to the representations that had been made by the Consul at Jeddah that the slave mart there had been entirely shut up. There was no doubt that a considerable amount of slave trade was being still carried on in private establishments at Jeddah, and their Consul, in concert with the Governor, was doing his best to provide means for putting it down. There was also no doubt that a considerable deal of slave traffic was carried on in other parts of the Red Sea. Steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government upon many occasions during the last year and a-half to bring before the Egyptian Government the alleged connivance in the traffic of Egyptian officials, and our Government would continue to pursue the same course. Communications had also been made to the Austrian Government on the subject, and if Her Majesty's Government thought that they could do good by making further representations, they would certainly be willing to do so.

CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF THOMAS HARE—CUMULATIVE PENALTIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, that had he known all the facts of the case when he
  1138
  was asked to put on the Paper the Question which stood in his name, he should have hesitated to do so; but, as the Notice had been given, he thought it due to the justices who passed this startling sentence to ask the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department—namely, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Hare, who was fined £2 for furious driving; £2 for being drunk and disorderly; £2 for using abusive language; £5 for assaulting Inspector Ward; £5 for assaulting Police-constable Clerk; making a total sum of £16 and costs; by the justices at Spalding on the 20th of June last, for the above offences committed on the 7th of June; and, whether, in the absence of any special facts to justify such an accumulation of penalties for one transaction, he will order a remission of the fines, or some portion of them?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he did not in the least wonder at his hon. and learned Friend being rather startled by the sentence primâ facie. It was a singular instance of what was called cumulative penalties. At the same time, as the Question had been asked, the facts ought to be known. It appeared that about 8 o'clock on the evening of the 7th of June the inspector of police at Spalding, being in one of the principal streets, observed a man riding very furiously and seriously endangering the safety of the bystanders. The inspector followed him to an inn, and found him there extremely drunk. He told him that he should summon him for furious driving, whereupon he became very insulting, and used most disgusting language. Then he went into the market-place, where he used the same sort of language. A second policeman came up and tried to pacify him. He continued to be abusive, and eventually two policemen, after giving him repeated opportunities to go away, took him into custody for being disorderly. His conduct then became so violent that it required the aid of two other men to get him to the police station. Hare, who had been twice before convicted of a similar offence, paid the fines imposed by the magistrates and was released. He was sorry to say, however, that a very short time afterwards the man committed the same offence again. Probably, the magistrates considered whe-

  1139
  ther they ought not to send him to gaol, but they adopted a more lenient course, and imposed the cumulative fines, which, he believed, Hare was perfectly able to pay.

  VACCINATION ACTS—THE KEIGHLEY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the proceedings for attachment against the Keighley Board of Guardians, in consequence of a resolution passed by them that, in applying the compulsory powers under the Vaccination Acts, they would take into consideration the circumstances of each particular case, were taken by his authority or sanction; whether such proceedings are in accordance with the spirit and intention of his circular letter of instructions in March last to the Evesham Board of Guardians, in which he left large discretionary powers to them as to the manner and circumstances of applying the Act, on the ground that repeated prosecutions would produce mischievous results and excite sympathy with the prosecuted and a more extended opposition to the Law; and, whether six or seven of the Keighley Board of Guardians have been sent to gaol under the attachment?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The proceedings, Sir, for the attachment were taken by my authority and sanction; but it is not accurate to say that they were taken in consequence of the resolution as quoted in the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Guardians had refused to enforce the provisions of the Vaccination Acts in their Union, and there were great numbers of children who had not been vaccinated. The Local Government Board applied to the Court for a mandamus against the Guardians to compel obedience to the law, and, after a full argument, a mandamus was granted, requiring the Guardians to give directions to the vaccination officer to proceed against persons in default. The Guardians thereupon passed a resolution in obedience to the writ, instructing the vaccination officer accordingly, and this resolution was embodied in their return to the writ. The Guardians, however, have recently passed another resolution, rescinding all portions of resolutions which could be construed into general orders to prosecute, which is what they
  1140
  are required in the first instance to do, and instructing the vaccination officer that the Guardians reserve to themselves the dispensation of the Vaccination Acts. It was impossible to regard this resolution otherwise than as an act of disobedience to the mandamus, with which the Guardians had previously undertaken to comply. In consequence of this the Guardians were called upon to answer for the contempt of Court involved in their proceedings, and, after hearing all the parties, the Court, without hesitation, made the rule absolute for the attachment, the Chief Justice observing that it was about as gross a case of contempt as he had known for a long time. These proceedings are in no sense at variance with the spirit and intention of the letter to the Evesham Guardians, which does not apply to original prosecutions, but to cases where persons have been already fined for not complying with the law. The Guardians who were in contempt have not, so far as I am aware, been sent to gaol; and, in point of fact, the writs, though authorized, have not yet been executed, and it is to be hoped that, having been fully reminded of their duties by the High Court of Justice, they will yet see the propriety of giving the necessary directions for the enforcement of the law.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONG.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the statement is correct which has appeared in the Dublin newspapers to the effect that Serjeant Armstrong has been appointed to go as Judge of Assize?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I am informed that it is the invariable practice in Ireland for the three Queen's Serjeants to be named in the Commission of Assize together with the Common Law Judges. Two of the three Serjeants are the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare County (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for King's County (Serjeant Sherlock). The Serjeants would, I imagine, in case of necessity, go the circuit in place of the Judges if their other engagements permitted. It is obvious, however, that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen I have named have other engagements. Serjeant Arm-

  1141
  strong has been, and still is, engaged in the ordinary business of a barrister on one of the circuits during the present Assizes. Therefore I cannot say whether he will act as a Judge or not. I am at present in communication with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject.
  MR. CALLAN: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the insertion of the names of the Serjeants-at-law in the Commission of Assize is not such a matter of ordinary routine as not to confer any right, in case of the existence of a vacancy amongst the Judges, to be selected to go as Judge of Assize; whether the statement which has appeared in the Dublin newspapers, to the effect that Serjeant Armstrong has been appointed to go as Judge of Assize, is correct; if so, whether at the time of the appointment of Serjeant Armstrong to go as Judge of Assize the Irish Executive were aware that the Serjeant Armstrong referred to is the same individual as the "Richard Armstrong" whose name was returned by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at elections for the borough of Sligo, under Schedule D, as "Guilty of bribery;" whether the said Commissioners further reported that Serjeant Armstrong had expended £1,480 in bribery; that the number of voters so bribed amounted to 97, and of these the names of 65 have been ascertained, among whom the sum of £1,200 was distributed; whether, in consequence of the said Report, the borough of Sligo was disfranchised; and whether, in view of the foregoing circumstances and the precedent in the Stonor case, Her Majesty's Government are still prepared to appoint, or, if appointed, to cancel the appointment of an individual reported and scheduled as guilty of bribery to the important judicial office of going as Judge of Assize?

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL—THE AMENDMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the noble Lord the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can lay on the Table, before the House goes into Committee on the Elementary Education Bill, the Amendments which it is understood he himself intends to move?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I had intended to lay upon the Table of the House some proposed Amendments on the part of the Government to the main part of the Bill—that is to say, to the leading part of it, which is concerned with the employment and education of children. As the Amendments do not affect the principles of the measure in any way, and are mostly the carrying out of possible alterations which I sketched in my speech on the Second Reading, and are very much in accordance with Amendments which have now been for some days on the Paper, placed there by hon. Members on both sides of the House of great experience in these matters, I should not have thought it necessary to make any statement on the part of the Government with regard to those Amendments. But as my right hon. Friend expressed a wish to know what points they bear upon, I shall be happy to give a rapid sketch of the changes which the Government propose to make in this leading part of the Bill. The House will remember—and I must apologize for occupying its attention for a few minutes, so as to make clear the gist of the Amendments—that though in a most decided manner the opinion of hon. Members was shown on the Second Reading to be against the universal enforcement of bye-laws for direct compulsion all over the country, still a very general feeling appeared to prevail that it was desirable to have some statement in the Bill of the parent's duty to provide instruction for his children, and various Amendments have been placed upon the Paper bearing upon this point. The Government see no objection to meet that general wish, and therefore propose to place, as the opening clause to the Bill, a new clause declaratory of the parent's duty in the following words:—
  "It shall be the duty of the parent of every child above the age of five years to cause such child to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and if such parent fail to perform such duty, he shall be liable to such orders and penalties as are provided by this Act."
  The next alteration we propose is in the commencement of Clause 7, which will read as follows:—
  "If the parent of any child above the age of five years, who is under this Act prohibited from, being taken into employment, habitually and without reasonable excuse, neglects to pro-

  1143
  vide efficient elementary instruction for his child"—
  The rest of the clause to remain as it is. Further, with regard to the certificate of attendance which enables the child to get out to work, we find that, unintentionally, by only allowing attendance to count at a public elementary school, we were inflicting a great hardship upon the children who attend other public schools—that is to say, schools not kept for private profit, which are efficient, but which are not public elementary. We, therefore, propose to take power to the Education Department to inspect, as often as they think fit, any such schools; to insist, if the schools wish to count as efficient, upon proper registers of regular attendance being kept, and upon other matters; and that if these schools are certified by the Department to be efficient, attendance at these schools shall be allowed to count for the certificate. It is needless to observe that we cannot allow attendance to count at any school which we do not certify ourselves to be efficient. The next change proposed is one to which we have been very much led by observing the important Amendments placed upon the Paper by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex and by my hon. Friends and Colleagues the two Members for Liverpool, as well as by other hon. Members. They propose that Town Councils and Boards of Guardians should be obliged to appoint a committee to administer this Act. The Government consider the suggestion a very good one, although they could not accept exactly the Amendments proposed. But I shall lay on the Table a clause which will oblige Town Councils and Boards of Guardians to appoint a committee, to be called the "School Attendance Committee," to be composed only of members of their own bodies, and in the case of Boards of Guardians to follow exactly the analogy of the Union Assessment Committees, which have been found to work very well. Then, with regard to the local committees which these bodies have the power of appointing if they think fit, we propose to confine their duties to giving such information and aid to the School Attendance Committees of the Boards of Guardians as they may require, and to forbid them to prosecute, to pass bye-laws, or to spend money on their own account. There is one other
  1144
  Amendment of some importance, which I sketched in my speech on the Second Reading, to which I must now allude; but as the subject is somewhat a complicated one, I fear the Amendment itself cannot be in the hands of hon. Members before Monday at the earliest. I allude to the subject of industrial schools. The Government will make a proposal to enable the erection of day industrial schools under strict provisions which shall prevent their being used for any except the class for whom they are absolutely necessary. I would wish to be clearly understood, of course, not to tie my hands, on the part of the Government, in any way as to not bringing in any further Amendments that we may think fit, or as to accepting the Amendments which are brought before the House by hon. Members on either side. But I felt, as my right hon. Friend opposite desired it, that it would be for his convenience and that of the House that I should give this short explanation of the Amendments to the main part of the Bill which the Government will propose.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. (Lords.) [BILL 111.]
[Mr. Disraeli.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. (Lords.) [BILL 111.]

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that he wished to address himself especially to the question of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. It was condemned alike by the Profession and by the public. All admitted that the Court of Appeal ought to be of superior authority as compared with the body from whose decision the appeal was made; and though it might not be composed of better or stronger lawyers, the public ought to think so. For this reason, the Members of the tribunal ought to be permanent, and they ought to have higher salaries. There were now three Lords Justices of Appeal, not one of whom had sat on the Common Law Bench, though Lord Justice Mellish was

  1145
  a distinguished member of the Common Law Bar. The Times in a leading article had spoken strongly upon this point, and the only statement as to which he differed from that article was that "the evil is not as yet pressing." In his opinion it was most pressing, and the greatest possible inconvenience was felt both by the suitors, who had no confidence in the constitution of the Court, and by the Judges themselves. The present mode of proceeding was haphazard and undignified. They had before them the plans of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but he thought the best and most proper course would be to appoint two new Judges who should sit in the Court of Appeal, instead of borrowing Judges, it might be for a few hours, from a Court of First Instance, where the number at present was almost too small, so much so that, owing to the press of work, one of the Judges had to apologize for giving an oral instead of a written judgment. Further, he did not think that 20 Judges in the Common Law Division would be too many. The objection to this plan was the money objection, and he feared, if it were proposed, the Government would resist it. Next to the appointment of more Judges, he approved of the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James). This suggestion was that two Judges should be taken from the Common Law Division for the purposes of the Court of Appeal; and he was glad to see, from an Amendment placed upon the Notice Paper by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the Government practically adopted the plan, proposing to place three Common Law Judges in the Court of Appeal, and enable a single Judge to deal with matters now decided by three sitting in Banco. It might seem inexpedient to trust so much to a single Judge, but in the Court of Chancery questions of equal importance were dealt with by the Vice Chancellors and Master of the Rolls sitting singly. He thought, therefore, that the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General was a judicious one, and should be prepared to support it.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill contained the best scheme for a Court of Appeal that could, under all the circumstances, be brought forward, and his only object in
  1146
  putting an Amendment on the Paper had been, not to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but to call attention to the necessity of something being done with regard to the Intermediate Court of Appeal. He was, therefore, glad to find that the hon. and learned Attorney General had placed upon the Paper an Amendment which carried out in effect the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James). No doubt, it was desirable that the number of the Judges should be absolutely increased; but there were difficulties in the way at present, and it might be desirable to try to get rid of the present block of business without putting the country to any additional expense. He feared, however, that another year's experience would show that, without an absolute increase in the number of Judges in the Common Law Division, we should not get rid of the present block of business. In that Division, 303 cases were entered for trial at the beginning of the Easter sittings in Middlesex. During those sittings only 97 causes were disposed of, and more causes being entered meanwhile, at the end of the sittings there were 446 causes for trial. At the present moment there were 457 causes in the Common Law Division remaining undisposed of in Middlesex alone. There would be no sittings until November, and causes would continue to be entered until suitors became disgusted. At Guildhall there were 246 causes, including remanets, entered for trial. Two Judges were sitting there now, and probably there would be three sittings there for the next 10 days or a fortnight; but he should be surprised if, at the end of the sitting, still more causes did not remain to go over until Michael as term. Such a state of things had never existed before, and was absolutely intolerable. To remedy it, there must either be a considerable increase in the number of Judges, or else some provision must be made as regarded the place of trial. The provision for one Judge sitting alone would give some increase of judicial strength, but would not suffice to remove the block. Another remedy might, perhaps, be supplied by preventing so many local causes from being brought to London. Local venues, instead of being abolished, should be extended, and he suggested a rule that causes of action arising in a particular district should be

  1147
  tried at the Assizes in that district, subject to the Judges' power to change the venue, not as of course, but upon good cause shown. Such a provision would relieve the London Courts to some extent; but even then a block of business would remain, which nothing but the addition to the number of Judges he had referred to or a better arrangement of the cause list could obviate. From inquiries he had made he was inclined to believe that the state of things was worse in the Chancery than in the Common Law Division. The change made by the Judicature Act, which did away with evidence by affidavit and required it to be given orally, was a change for the better; but it had had the effect of lengthening the trial of causes. He had been informed of one case in which witnesses had been kept in town for a month, and the fund in Court having been exhausted by these expenses, the solicitors met and put an end to the cause altogether. In the Chancery Division a radical change was absolutely necessary. Either the number of Courts must be increased, or many cases which now came into them must be tried at the Assizes. The present state of business in the Chancery Courts was a crying evil, and he feared nothing could be done to remedy that growing evil during the present Session, but he hoped some legislation in regard to it would be proposed by the Government next Session.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he entirely approved of the Bill so far as it went, but he disapproved entirely of the Amendments of the hon. and learned Attorney General for giving effect to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton. It must be admitted that there was at present a great block of business, and in order to lessen it the proposal was that three Judges were to be withdrawn from the Courts of primary jurisdiction, and transferred to the Court of Appeal, and questions of law were to be decided by a Judge at Nisi Prius, and were not to come to the Court in Banco. But the dead-lock was in the Courts of primary jurisdiction; it was in the Courts of Nisi Prius that the stoppage existed. There were 18 Common Law Judges; it was proposed to withdraw three and leave 15; and the hon. and learned Member for Taunton assumed that questions now heard in Banco would be tried
  1148
  at Nisi Prius, and that in this way additional strength would be gained for the Court of Appeal. But how could it be expected that 15 Judges would be able to deal with business which 18 Judges were now unable to dispose of? What would happen would be that questions of fact would be decided by juries, and questions of law would be reserved for the Judge sitting in London, who would be obliged to have a kind of Court of his own to hear questions of law arising out of the facts of the cases he had already tried on circuit. Now, when questions of law arose at Nisi Prius it often happened that litigants had the advantage of hearing the solemn opinion of the Judge pronounced at the time, and the matter did not go any further; but under the proposed arrangement the Judges would pretty well have their time taken up in hearing points which now never came into Banco. Hence, instead of there being a limited number of appeals involving important points, the number of appeals would be quadrupled. Therefore, no advantage would be gained by the transference of these three Judges. But another consideration showed how absurd this proposition was. These three Judges were to go circuit, and when they returned, instead of being at the Court of Appeal, they would have to hear the questions of law which had arisen on circuit. The Court of Appeal was not so strong as it ought to be, and he thought the best remedy would be to appoint two permanent Judges, leaving the constitution of the Courts of primary jurisdiction alone. The time was not far distant when the Government would be obliged to increase the judicial strength of the country. But apart from considerations as to whether the scheme was good or bad—and bad it was beyond all question—was it not a mistake to introduce it at the fag-end of a Session, as a mere supplement to a Bill intended for an entirely different purpose? It created such an important change as ought to form the subject-matter of an independent Bill. The Profession, the Judges, and the public ought to have a full opportunity of forming an opinion upon it. He ventured to say that not half the Judges at present knew what changes would be effected by the proposals of the hon. and learned Attorney General. He had consulted some of the Judges and could say

  1149
  that they did not approve of the scheme. He did not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had inherited the scheme from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, but he must say that these changes, if made, would have a most disastrous effect.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that in the Chancery Division, unless some remedy was speedily applied to this boasted Judicature Act, from which such wonders were to be expected, it would end in a complete breakdown of the judicial system. It was strange that in the Common Law Division three Judges were required to decide the question of rating a beer-house, while a single Judge sitting at Lincoln's Inn could satisfactorily determine questions involving hundreds of thousands of pounds, arising under wills or in connection with public companies, besides disentangling the facts out of which the legal questions arose, and at the same time performing the double functions of both Judge and jury. And yet Judges on circuit were giving a week to places where four or five cases were entered for trial. As a temporary expedient there was a good deal to be said for the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton; it was better than that of enabling a Lord Chancellor to take any Judge out of his Court and put him in the Appellate Court, with the result of closing the Rolls' Court for 20 days out of 23. The Judges in the Chancery Division were very hardly worked, the intervals between the sittings barely allowing them time to prepare the judgments they reserved. They were worked as hard as it was possible to work men, and if they had not iron constitutions they could not get through the work they did. Our judicial strength was fixed 35 years ago; there had been an enormous increase of wealth and population since; and the change made by the Judicature Act enormously increased the business in the Chancery Division, to which the taking of vivâ voce evidence had transferred many causes which used formerly to be heard in the Common Law Courts. The other day a witness, who had described the condition of a water-course a month ago, was asked what its present condition was, and he replied that he could not say, because he had been attending the Court for a month, waiting for the case to come on. It would be infinitely
  1150
  cheaper for litigants to obtain a Judge by subscription than to waste such a length of time for their cases to be heard. The four Chancery Courts began the sittings with 504 cases, and had disposed of less than 100, but meanwhile 237 new causes had been entered on the Paper, and, of course, such a rate of increase could end only in complete dead-lock. The only remedy for this state of things was an increase of the judicial Staff, which it was not popular to advocate. The public were apathetic upon the subject, and when the lawyers proposed an addition to the judical Staff, they were supposed to have some sinister object in view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), 12 months ago, with tears in his eyes, implored the Government not to appoint any more Judges. When the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had experienced the inconveniences of the present condition of things, his opposition to the increase in the number of Judges would have more weight. It was said that there were not men at the Bar of sufficient standing to supply a larger judicial Staff; but he believed there were as good fish in the sea as had come out of it; and the experiment of appointing Official Referees had not been so satisfactory as to tempt the House to resort to expedients of that character. They had to strengthen the Intermediate Court of Appeal at the expense of the Courts of First Instance, and they would become still weaker unless the Government were strong enough and possessed the courage to grapple with the question, and until they appointed four additional Judges there would be a dead-lock, and the disorganization of our judicial system would be as great as in the worst days and the worst times of Lord Eldon.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they were now dealing with the Courts of Common Law, in reference to which the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan)did not profess to speak with authority. It was admitted there was a waste of judicial strength which might be economized through three Judges doing work that one might do, and it was not unreasonable to try the economy which was possible before increasing the number of Judges. He hoped the hon. and Learned Attorney General would adhere

  1151
  to these Amendments despite what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. Lopes), for there must be a great saving of time if three Judges heard separately cases which they formerly heard together; and, besides, sitting singly, they could not waste time by disputes among themselves. He could not understand why a Common Law Judge should be supposed to be so inferior to an Equity Judge that he could not dispose singly of cases not of a tenth of the importance of those which Equity Judges decided every day. It was certainly not very complimentary to them. What was going on on circuit at the present moment was an absolute scandal. They had sent down four Judges, two to Sussex and two to Surrey, within 50 miles of London, to perform an amount of duty which might be easily disposed of by one Judge in two days, and have prevented the breaking up of the Courts in London. Surely such a state of things called for a radical change. It was, he considered, utterly unreasonable, in the present state of things, to ask for more Judges. The great cause of the waste of judicial power lay in this, that the Judges were being constantly called off from doing one thing before they had finished it to begin doing something else. He would find ample work for the Judges, as he would have them constantly going circuit. There would be no effectual reform until the circuits had been altered by substituting the constant attendance of a Judge at such places as Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester. The delay in the delivery of our gaols was also a grievance calling for an immediate remedy, as often those awaiting their trial had to remain five or six months in custody. The liberty of the subject was infringed by the lengthened period of incarceration before trial, and an injustice was done from Judges not going constantly into the country and doing the work which the public had a right to expect from them. There was no other part of the world in which such a thing was possible.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), while ostensibly he asked the country to economize its present judicial power before creating any new Judges, actually proposed to effect that economy by a diminution of the Judges sitting in
  1152
  Westminster by constantly sending them off to the country on circuit. His opinion, however, was that the work was too heavy for the number of Judges at present on the Bench. This was seen at the Assizes, when the Judges going circuit had to call in the services of one or more of the Queen's counsel mentioned in the Commission to take the criminal business off their hands. That was, he considered, a denial of justice to the prisoners, who had a right to be tried by one of the regular Judges. The present Court of Appeal in Chancery gave general satisfaction, and the only objection to it in the eyes of the Bar was that it had not a local habitation, but shifted its sittings from one building to another; at present it was obliged to take refuge in a Committee-room of the House of Lords, opposite a refreshment bar. Strengthened by such Common Law Judges as Baron Bramwell and Mr. Justice Blackburn, it would form an excellent Appellate Court in general.
  MR. H. COLEsaid, the Intermediate Court of Appeal was a most incongruous Court. The attendance of the Master of the Rolls increased the arrears of cases in his own Court, and the same in the Common Law Courts, by taking away the Chief Justices to preside in this new Court. Thus the accumulation of business did not belong to the Court of Appeal, which was well able to get through its work, but to the Courts of First Instance. He had been informed only two or three days ago that there were in Middlesex alone as many as 1,000 remanets at Nisi Prius, and the state of things was, he believed, still worse in the metropolis itself. It appeared, indeed, to such a pass had things come that mercantile men, instead of entering their causes, preferred settling them at any hazard. The only remedy for this was an increase in the number of the Judges, and the more so, inasmuch as the tendency of the Judicature Act had been to bring cases from the country up to London and Middlesex for trial. They all recognized the necessity for a strong Court of Appeal, and that they ought to provide at once. He repeated the arrears of business were not in Banco, but in the Courts of First Instance. The great defect of the present Appeal Court was that it had no chief. There was no head to direct its movements, and no

  1153
  one could tell where it was sitting, or what cases would be heard at any particular time. For his own part, he should wish to see the Intermediate Court of Appeal made as strong as possible, and he concurred in the proposal that two Judges should be placed permanently in the Court, and that it should be done at once, instead of, as now, taking them away from the Nisi Prius when the business was greatly in arrears. The Intermediate Court of Appeal was becoming a most important one, and it ought not to be obliged to have to borrow Judges to get on with its business, and those not always the best. As matters stood, the judicial Staff was unable to cope with the work which it had to do, although it struggled hard, and it was only in the way which he mentioned that the present dead-lock could be done away with.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Bill had been introduced with two objects—the first to strengthen the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal, and the second to strengthen the Intermediate Court. The provisions of the Bill, so far as it dealt with the first object, had met, he was happy to say, with general approval; but the provisions for strengthening the Intermediate Court of Appeal were somewhat different from those which had been originally proposed. Now, he was not one of those who thought that Court had proved unsatisfactory. On the contrary, he thought it had shown itself to be a good and strong Court; but, still, it was defective, because part of its Members consisted of a shifting body. It would be much better that such a Court should consist of permanent Judges, and that it should sit in two Divisions, which it could not well do now without calling to its aid some of the ex-officio Judges, which would not be convenient. That object might be effected by an extension of the plan suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton. That was to say, by taking three instead of two Judges from the Common Law Divisions of the High Court and placing them in the Intermediate Court of Appeal. And if, for instance, three of the ablest Judges were transferred from the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer, to sit with Lords Justices James, Mellish, and Baggallay, the result would no doubt be that an ex-
  1154
  tremely strong Court would be constituted. Then came the question, could that be done without creating additional Judges; and if it could not, the matter was one of such great importance, relating as it did to the proper administration of justice, that, speaking for himself, he should certainly advise that new Judges should be appointed. There were, however, some difficulties connected with such an arrangement. A serious financial difficulty had, for example, to be encountered at the outset, for however little some hon. Members might think of an outlay of £10,000 or £20,000, it might not be very agreeable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not, he might add, agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton in the opinion that there would be any difficulty, if additional Judges were required in procuring good men from the Bar to fill those appointments. He would undertake to provide 20 of the most able and capable men from the ranks of the Bar for the purpose without the slightest difficulty, while as to the diminution of dignity of which his hon. and learned Friend spoke, he did not attach much importance to that argument either. It was, he thought, as dignified a position to occupy to be one of three out of 20 Judges in a country where there was a great amount of business as one of three out of five in a country where there was much less. Indeed, if he could only secure the service of an able and expeditious Judge, he should forgive him if he was not quite so dignified as he might be. But the question remained, could the plan which he proposed be carried out without duly interfering with the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court? He thought it could, because since the new Court of Appeal had been constituted the Judges of those Courts had in some respects less to do, inasmuch as they had been relieved of the duty of sitting on Appeals in the Exchequer Chamber. If the present proposal were carried there would be 15 Judges left. He took it that there were 220 working days in the year, and if 100 days were occupied on circuit, there would remain 120 days in which the Judges could sit in Banco. Three Judges of the Intermediate Court of Appeal would go on circuit, and consequently 11 other Judges would be required for the

  1155
  circuits and one for Chambers. Then we should still have three Judges who could sit during the whole of the 220 days for the purpose of disposing of jury trials or Nisi Prius causes. It had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton that something like 3,500 Nisi Prius trials had to be disposed of in the course of the year in London and Middlesex alone. If we had a judicial force of three Judges sitting all the year round during the 220 days, and if they took five cases a-day, which would be nearer the mark than three cases, as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton assumed, 3,300 cases would be disposed of. From his own experience he might say it was not an unfair or improper calculation that five causes could be disposed of in the course of a day. Therefore, with three Judges and a little assistance, all the cases in London and Middlesex might be disposed of. Then 12 Judges would be able to sit for 120 days in Banco. There would be three Judges for each Division and three over. In his opinion, if the Judges properly utilized their strength they could get through a vast deal more business than they did at present. For instance, they might to some extent adopt the course pursued by the Chancery Judges. Again, it was absurd for two or three Judges to sit in order to hear applications for rules Nisi. Such applications might, he thought, be made to a single Judge, and when the rule came to be argued, the contentious proceedings might well be disposed of by two Judges. If that were done the Judges would be quite capable of grappling with the business. It had been said that the Chancery Division of the High Court was undermanned. If that were really the case the deficiency must, of course, be supplied by the appointment of additional Judges. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that cases might be transferred from one Division to another, and that in this way the Chancery Division might be relieved of the burdens imposed on it. After all, this was a matter of experiment, and if it turned out that the Chancery Division of the High Court could not grapple with the business brought before it without additional strength, of course additional strength must be supplied. With regard to the Common Law Divisions, we were also in a transition state, and if it
  1156
  turned out that the business could not be transacted by the 15 Judges who would be left in those Divisions, the Government must undoubtedly apply the only possible remedy—namely, the appointment of additional Judges. There was originally a provision in the Bill which he should propose to omit, to the effect that when two of the paid Members of the Privy Council should die or resign an additional Judge should be appointed to the Intermediate Court of Appeal. Instead of that, he should propose that when two of the paid Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council resigned or died, if it appeared there was a demand for the appointment of a fresh Judge in the Divisions of the High Court, an additional Judge should be appointed. In like manner, when the two remaining paid Privy Council Judges dropped off, another additional Judge might, if necessary, be appointed to those Divisions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), on the debate on the second reading of the Bill, urged the desirability of having Members of the Judicial Committee who were conversant with the laws administered in India and the Colonies, with the Roman-Dutch law, and so forth. No doubt that was desirable. [Sir George Bowyer: It is necessary.] However desirable, he did not think it was absolutely necessary, as Judges of intelligence could quickly make themselves acquainted with the laws which they had to administer. But though not necessary, it was desirable, and accordingly a provision had been made in one of the Amendments for carrying out the suggestion. With regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Government were by the present law authorized to appoint assessors at £400 a-year. The Government thought that that was not a sufficient remuneration to induce competent men to accept the appointment. They therefore proposed to raise the salaries of the assessors from £400 to £1,000 a-year, and they believed that that would be the means of greatly strengthening the Judicial Committee, and there could be no doubt that men of the highest ability would be ready to act with that remuneration.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that when the Judicature Amendment Act was first before Parliament, he had proposed an addi-

  1157
  tion of two Judges to the Intermediate Court of Appeal, which, was carried in that House; but the right ton. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) opposed it on the score of economy, and induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt his views. If that plan had been adopted it would have prevented much of the dead-lock and inconvenience which had since arisen. The salaries of the Judges might be provided by the gradual suppression of a number of small offices, or by the discharge of the duties of certain offices by subordinates. For example, he thought that the duties of associates and clerks of Assize, whatever those duties were, might be performed by Judges' clerks. No doubt, the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General would tend to strengthen the Intermediate Court of Appeal. It had always been his opinion that two Divisions of this Court would be necessary, and his prediction had been verified. But the success of the proposal of the hon. and learned. Attorney General depended upon the principle that single Judges should sit in Banco, and the clause carrying out that proposal was so full of qualifications that it would never work in practice, and required further consideration. He approved the principle that sittings in Banco should be assimilated to sittings of the Court of Chancery, and that a single Judge should dispose of such cases; but an increase in the number of Judges was what we must ultimately come to. The Chancery Division required strengthening, not only because evidence was now taken vivâ voce, and much time was thus occupied, but because the Chancery Judges should be enabled to give more time and attention to business in Chambers, which was often very important. The Chief Clerks had made no fewer than 20,000 orders in the course of last year, and the Judges should sit at least one day a-week for Chamber practice.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he approved up to a certain point of the Amendments which the hon. and learned Attorney General had placed upon the Table; but he wished it to be understood that he supported them only as a temporary means of meeting the difficulty. The true remedy, and the one to which we must in the end come, was an increase in the number of the Judges, a necessity which, from mistaken notions
  1158
  of economy, the Government had hitherto declined to recognize.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISalso deprecated the cold-blooded political economy which measured the number of Judges by the purse of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not conceive that anyone who had studied the question could think that the country could have any interest in stinting the number of Judges for the sake of saving £10,000, £15,000, or £20,000 a-year. He rose, however, specially to refer to the trial of Election Petitions. He thought it was very objectionable that the character and fate of Members of Parliament and candidates should depend upon a single Judge. The Committee which investigated the subject last year recommended that all Election Petitions should be tried by at least two Judges. The Government had promised a Bill dealing with the subject, but though they were now within a month of the close of the Session, it had not yet been introduced, and they would probably have another Continuance Bill. The proposal to take three Judges from the Common Law Divisions and add them to the Intermediate Court of Appeal he regarded as utterly inadequate to meet the circumstances of the case.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERstrongly deprecated interference with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which had administered peculiar laws to the satisfaction of 200,000,000 of people and of a very large population in the colonies. The Judicial Committee was now composed of men peculiarly conversant with Hindoo and Mahomedan law, and with the Dutch and French Civil Law existing in some of our colonies.
  SIR ANDREW LUSK,as a mercantile man, complained of the uncertainty, delay, and expense of legal proceedings. Parties could not get a case settled without waiting till they wore sick of waiting. Between delay and expense justice often went to the wall, and a man had much better put up with the first injury than go to law. He hoped this question would be fairly considered, and, if necessary, that additional Judges would be appointed.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINcomplained that the law was becoming more and more uncertain, more dilatory, more expensive, and more unsatisfactory. Great numbers of cases were waiting for hear-

  1159
  ing on account of the insufficiency of the number of Judges, and he trusted that the Government would see their way to the increase of the number. He was strongly in favour of the present "wretched system of holidays" being done away with.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  MR. LOPES: expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Attorney General would not proceed with the Amendments which he had placed on the Paper that day for the first time. Without some assurance to that effect, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Attorney General to proceed with the Amendments referred to, because the Money Vote on which they were founded had not yet been taken.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act), agreed to.
  Appeal.
  Clause 3 (Cases in which appeal lies to the House of Lords).
  MR. MARTENmoved, in page 1, line 16, after "England," to insert—
  "And of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, or of any Judges or Judge thereof; from which an appeal would lie to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in England, and so that the final appeal may be made immediately, without recourse to the Court of Intermediate Appeal."
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: seconded the Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: supported it, the system having worked well in the Courts of Chancery.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he was of opinion that an Intermediate Court of Appeal should be established, but he did not see why people should be forced to go there.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not see his way to the adoption of the Amendment, the object of which was to avoid the Court of Intermediate Appeal. If the parties agreed to an arrangement to take their case at once
  1160
  before the House of Lords, they would have the power of doing so; but in important cases he thought it most desirable that the House of Lords should have the benefit of the opinion of the primary Court of Appeal. The effect of the Amendment would be to set up a competition between the two Courts of Appeal.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, that in practice the power of carrying the appeal directly to the House of Lords had been found most convenient, and had tended to the diminution of expense, and he knew of no case of hardship having arisen.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he could not see the advantage of compelling parties to go through the Intermediate Court, and thereby incurring an additional expense.
  MR. H. COLE: also could not see any objection to parties skipping the Court of Intermediate Appeal and going direct to the House of Lords, but he regarded the Amendment as an attempt to get rid of the Court of Intermediate Appeal, in which matters were thoroughly sifted.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS: believed that no difficulty existed with regard to cases in Chancery, but thought some difficulty might arise in respect to cases in the Common Law Courts.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was not prepared to admit that no difficulties had arisen with regard to cases in Chancery under the old system.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Form of appeal to House of Lords), agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Attendance of certain number of Lords of Appeal required at hearing and determination of appeals).
  On the Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Amendment made in page 2, line 5, by inserting after "Chancellor," the words "of Great Britain."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary by Her Majesty).
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 15, at end, add—
  "and shall then only take effect, in case the number of Peers of Parliament for the time being holding, or who shall have held, any of

  1161
  the offices in this Act described as high judicial offices, shall not exceed five."
  SIR HENRY JAMESopposed the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he was of opinion that only persons of judicial experience should sit in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and would therefore move in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "offices," to the end of line 22.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANhoped the Amendment would not be accepted, as it would limit the area of selection.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not see his way to accept the Amendment, which would limit the choice of the Lord Chancellor to the Puisne Judges.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsupported the Amendment. He thought the Minister of the day should have no inducement to appoint a Judge from political motives. They were asked to confer a political vote as well as a judicial appointment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment, in page 2, line 27, after "every," insert—
  "Peer of Parliament for the time being holding, or who shall have held, any of the offices in this Act described as high judicial offices, who shall he present at and take part in the hearing and determination of appeals to the House of Lords, the sum of one thousand pounds a year, such sum to be additional to any sum to which he may be entitled under any Act or Acts by way of pension. There shall be paid to ever,"—(Mr. Charley),
  by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, in page 2, line 28, leave out "six," and insert "eight,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot)—negatived,
  MR. Serjeant SIMONsaid, he should move that the Chairman report Progress. The next Amendment, which stood in his name, involved a question of great Constitutional importance, and in the short interval of 40 minutes which remained before the House must adjourn, it would be impossible properly to discuss so interesting a question. The clause proposed that every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, not a Peer, should rank as a Baron, and it was provided that he—
  "shall during the time that he continues in his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer, be entitled to a writ of summons to
  1162
  attend, and to sit and vote in the House of Lords."
  His proposal was to omit the words, "during the time that he continues in in his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer." But the question, could not be properly raised at such a time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  The ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Motion, observing that the Committee could very well deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the Motion to report Progress. The Amendment, he observed, was of a very important nature, one touching the very essence of the Bill, and involving the honour and dignity of Parliament. It would, moreover, be followed by other Amendments of almost equal importance.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsuggested that it would be a better course to proceed with the Bill, and to postpone the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
  SIR HENRY JAMESadvised the Committee to report Progress, as they had only another half-hour to devote to the Bill at that sitting, and he thought it would be advantageous to the further discussion of the measure, if they did not proceed with it further at that time.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 156: Majority 127.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 33, after the word "shall," to leave out the words to "longer" in the following line. The effect of the Amendment would be to omit the words which declare a Peer entitled to a Writ of Summons "during the time that he continues in his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and no longer." The object of certain Members of that and the other House had, he said, been to retain that ancient jurisdiction which the House of Lords, to their credit and in the interests of the public, had themselves relinquished. He would admit that when Parliament came to establish a Final Court of Appeal for

  1163
  Great Britain and Ireland it stumbled upon a difficulty as to Ireland and Scotland. It was not satisfactory to those countries to bring their appeals to London to be settled by a purely English Court of Law. He did not, therefore, complain that the Final Court should be so constituted as to meet all the requirements of the case; but if the Government had framed a scheme for retaining the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, he should have expected that the scheme would have been compatible with the dignity of the House of Lords itself, and with the objects for which this new Court of Appeal was about to be established. Instead, however, of creating Peers for life, as the Government ought to have done, if they desired to give proper status and dignity to the post, and to attract men of the same high class as had hitherto occupied the position of Law Lords, what had the Government done? They had created for the first time in our history statutory Peers. He was not aware of a single instance in our legal and political history in which such a thing had been done. It had always been held that the Crown was the source of honour and dignities. He did not, however, complain that the House of Lords had asserted the power of creating a new dignity, but the form in which it had been done was a novelty that had been reserved for a Conservative Government. They had created a class of Peers who were not to be Peers for life, but Peers at will—Peers at the pleasure of the holder—and Peers during good behaviour. These Lords of Appeal in Ordinary would hold the rank of Baron for life; they were to receive a Writ of Summons to the House of Lords as long as they discharged appellate duties, and they would be removable, like other Judges, for misconduct. Would such a proposal be likely to attract the proper class of men, or was it consistent with the dignity of the Peerage? It had been said that these Lords of Appeal would be Lords of Parliament only and not Peers; but such high authorities as the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, and Lord Hatherley had spoken of them as Peers. They had also been compared to the Scotch and Irish Peers, and even to the Bishops; but he contended that there was no analogy whatever between them. Were this proposal carried out,
  1164
  a weak and ambitious man might cling to office when he was no longer fit for his duties, and a subservient man might truckle to the Government in order to have an hereditary Peerage, while a man of independent spirit who had excited party animosities might be passed over or prematurely relegated to obscurity.
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Debate adjourned.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again this day.
  And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

COMMITTAL AND TREATMENT OF LUNATICS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DILLWYN,in rising to call attention to the operation of the existing Laws relating to the committal and custody of lunatics; and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, those Laws do not afford sufficient safeguards against illegal incarceration and the maltreatment of lunatic patients,"
said, that last Session he called the attention of the Home Secretary to the case of a Miss Wood, who held peculiar religious views, and he took up her case on the ground that she had been incarcerated improperly and without the Lunacy Laws having been complied with. His right hon. Friend immediately directed inquiries to be made, and the result was that Miss Wood was liberated, it being proved that she had been improperly imprisoned. It seemed, however, that she was shortly afterwards again committed and imprisoned. That lady might have been a lunatic; but he was somewhat startled at the manner in which the laws affecting lunatics were in the instance of her first incarceration dispensed with, and he therefore had instituted inquiries in regard to the

1165
working of those laws. The result of his inquiries satisfied him of two things; first, that the law affecting the custody and treatment of lunatics was in general very loosely administered; and secondly, that the laws themselves were inherently bad. With regard to the lax administration of the law, hon. Members who were magistrates must have noticed in their several counties the great increase of lunatic patients which had led to great difficulty in making provision of county asylums and other accommodation for their reception. He believed a great deal of that increase was due to the extremely lax administration of the Lunacy Laws. From a Return, signed by the clerk of the St. George's Union, Middlesex, it appeared that through the exertions of one of the Guardians who had investigated the matter, the number of lunatics in that Union had been considerably reduced, it being found that a great number of them had been improperly sent there. He would also call the attention of hon. Members to the Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners in 1872 and 1873 to show the lax administration of the law. He found that in one asylum it had been the practice to call in the aid of men-servants to assist in restraining the violence of female patients, and that in another case a lunatic's death had been caused by violence, but he was not aware that there had been a prosecution in that case. What he desired was that the private lunatic should be placed in the same position as the pauper lunatic. The latter were placed under the care of public medical officers, and placed in a public institution subject to public inspection. The fact was, the Lunacy Law, instead of being strongly enforced, as it ought to be, was administered very laxly. That state of things, he believed, was mainly owing to the fact that, practically speaking, the prosecution of violations of the Lunacy Law rested with the Lunacy Commissioners alone, and to them was thus to be attributed in some measure the existing loose state of the administration of the law. He did not think that the power of prosecution ought to rest with those who might reasonably be expected to feel that such prosecutions would be virtually indictments against themselves, and he knew frequent instances in which those persons desirous of instituting these prose-
1166
cutions were not satisfied with the veto thus practically possessed by the Commissioners, as they believed, rightly or wrongly, that their disposition was rather to condone than to prosecute infringements of the Lunacy Laws in asylums, being supposed to be often on terms of friendly footing with the proprietors, being supposed to be hospitably received on the occasion of their visits to the asylums, and being themselves to some extent responsible for irregularities which occurred in establishments licensed and supervised by them. The question whether there should be a prosecution ought to rest, not with those who were mixed up more or less with the management of lunatic asylums, but either with the Law Officers or some competent independent authority who would not be under any suspicion of favouritism. Again, with regard to detention, he considered it most objectionable that the proprietors of private asylums, who had an interest in keeping the lunatics as long as possible, should have the power to decide whether a man should continue to be incarcerated. The medical man who was in constant attendance was the only person who could really decide whether a man was insane or not. The visiting magistrates were not competent to decide such a question. As to the necessity for an alteration of the law, he might call in aid Lord Shaftesbury, who was the head of the Lunacy Law Commission, and who said, in his evidence before the Select Committee, that the proprietors of asylums were under a severe temptation to detain patients, their object being to get as many patients as long as they can, and stint them in medicines, food, and comfort. Let the House contrast the position of a pauper lunatic sent to a public asylum presided over by the county magistrates, whose interest it was that the lunatic should not be detained a day longer than was necessary, with that of a lunatic confined in a private asylum, the proprietor of which, who had the most potential voice in determining whether the confinement should be prolonged, had a direct interest in keeping the lunatic in the asylum as long as possible. He was only astonished that the noble Lord should have consented to remain so long at the head of the Lunacy Law Commission, without endeavouring to procure an alteration of the law, so as to rectify the

1167
abuses he had described. As regarded the private patients, he would, in the first place, do away with the Lunacy Commissioners; and, in the next place, he should require that no person should be placed in a lunatic asylum without the warrant of some public authority. He further proposed that all private lunatic asylums should be abolished, and that all such places of confinement should be public institutions. He thought no lunatic should be. set at large without the most careful examination into his state of mind, because his own experience as a visiting magistrate had shown him the difficulty of determining whether or not a person who had once been a lunatic was sufficiently recovered to be released with safety; but he utterly denied that the person most competent to form a correct opinion in such cases, and who must therefore necessarily have a most potential voice in the decision arrived at, should have a direct pecuniary interest either one way or another in such decision. His first intention was to ask the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject; but it was now too late for this purpose, and he had therefore preferred to bring the matter forward in its present form in the hope that the Government would consider the question in the Recess with a view to early legislation. The opinion of Lord Shaftesbury to some extent agreed with his own upon the subject, and he hoped it would be taken up by the Government. He would not move any Resolution on the subject. He would content himself, after the statement he had made, to leave the matter in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he was deeply sensible of the importance of the subject, but he was glad that the hon. Gentleman had determined to leave the question to be dealt with by the Government on their Ministerial responsibility. There was no doubt a defect in the management of these private asylums, and he hoped the Government would turn their attention to the subject.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—County of Peebles Justiciary District (Scotland)* (158); Bankers' Books Evidence* (159).
Second Reading—Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale)* (133); Crab and Lobster Fisheries (Norfolk)* (154).
Committee—Merchant Shipping (99–160); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (149).
Committee—Report—Saint Vincent, Tobago, and Grenada Constitution* (156).
Third Reading—Industrial and Provident Societies* (148); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Cardiff)* (142), and passed.

METROPOLITAN GAS BILLS.
South Metropolitan Gas Light and Coke Company Bill reported with Amendments; Gaslight and Coke Company Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LORD REDESDALEintimated that as there appeared, from the discussion that had recently taken place, to be considerable differences as to the merits of the Bills before the House promoted by the Gas Light and Coke Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, he thought it would be advisable that they should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, instead of to a Select Committee in the usual course. At the proper time he would move a Resolution to that effect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNapproved of the course suggested. He would in Committee move Amendments to the Bills, Notice of which he would give as soon as possible. It would probably be convenient that he should now state the general objections he had to the Bills. With regard to the Bill of the Gas Light and Coke Company, his chief objection to it was that the Company sought nominally to raise an additional capital of £2,000,000, but in reality that increased capital would amount to £3,000,000, because there was already power to raise £1,000,000 by loan, and this additional £2,000,000 was to be raised by a sale of the shares by public auction. The Bill also proposed to fix the initial price of their gas at

1129
3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, which would enable the Company to pay a dividend of 10 per cent. This being so, the price of the £100 shares in the open market would be about £200; so that when Parliament was asked to sanction the issue of an additional £1,000,000 worth of shares, they were really adding £2,000,000 to the capital of the Company. According to the last accounts he had of those Companies, he found that in the Spring of last year there was an amalgamation between the Gas Light and the Independent and the Imperial Companies. Before their amalgamation took place the Imperial Company promoted a Bill which asked for a large increase of capital. That Bill, however, was opposed and withdrawn. Those who opposed it now complained that the Gas Light and Coke Company having taken over the Imperial were seeking by means of this Bill to obtain the same powers they previously resisted. This, he considered, was a great hardship upon those who had previously contested the matter. He understood that the Imperial and Independent Companies had power as yet unexercised of raising by shares and loans £1,200,000. If they were to have a Committee, the first question he should ask was why this enormous additional capital was required? As he was advised, it was required for renewing many of the works of the Companies; but if it was intended to expend it on a scheme of total renovation he was by no means sure that the Gas Companies were the best bodies to carry this work out. If the House considered the increase to be necessary, he urged that it should be raised by loan, and not by the sale of shares as proposed. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) the other night said it might depreciate the credit of a Company if they were obliged to raise very large sums by loan only; but in the case of those now under review, they were Companies with almost unlimited powers, whose shares were quoted upon the Stock Exchange, and he therefore could not conceive that they would suffer any injury.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but it was a serious violation of Order to discuss the merits of a Bill which was not before the House, or to raise questions of which no Notice had been given.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas in the hands of the House, but he had thought it might be convenient to indicate the points he desired to raise.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had not himself liked to interfere in a way which might appear discourteous towards the noble Earl, as they had had one or two previous discussions on that matter; but he concurred with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that there could scarcely be any course more inconvenient or irregular than that of entering into the merits of a Bill not before their Lord ships, merely upon a Notice of Motion being given by his noble Friend at the Table (Lord Redesdale) that on a future day, not yet even fixed, he would ask them to refer those Bills to a Committee of the Whole House. He wished to suggest, before his noble Friend at the Table made his Motion, whether it would not be more convenient that those Bills should be referred to a Select Committee, because there were points in them which could not be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. It might be necessary to call the parties and to hear evidence, and that could only be done by referring the Bills to a Select Committee. As to the initial price of 3s. 6d. per, 6000 feet, that was the price settled by the Committee presided over by Lord Cardwell.
EARL FORTESCUEwas proceeding to offer some observations to the House, when—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: objected to the continuance of an irregular discussion.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
(The Lord President.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  [Bill 99. Bill showing the Amendments proposed by Government, 99*.]
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Sending unseaworthy ships to sea a misdemeanour).
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that this clause for the first time created a criminal offence in our colonies to be tried and punished here—namely, that of sending a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state. He would not discuss whether it was or was not politic to make that attempt without the consent of the colonies,

  1131
  particularly the great self-governing colonies of Canada and Australia. He himself, as it happened, was responsible for the Act of 1871, which made sending an unseaworthy ship to sea to the danger of life a criminal offence, but he never contemplated creating an offence beyond the boundaries of the United Kingdon. The Government had evidently found it a difficult matter to legislate upon, because they had added to the Bill, during its passage through the other House, the Proviso—
  "A prosecution under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade,"
  and it was now proposed to add, "or of the Governor of the British Possession in which such prosecution takes place." He should be glad to know whether the Government had fully considered this point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied that the Government had given the question careful consideration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 12, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  New Clause inserted after Clause 12 (Application to foreign ships of provisions as to detention).
  Clauses 13 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
  New Clause inserted after Clause 18 (Provision as to survey of foreign passenger steamer or emigrant ship).
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Space occupied by certain deck cargo to be liable to dues).
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETdrew the attention of the Committee to the total absence from the Bill of any provision for limiting the quantity of gunpowder, glycerine, and other explosive substances, or for regulating the storage of such articles. In many cases these explosives were shipped on board as ordinary merchandize, without any notice to the owners or commanders; and beyond question many disasters had originated from this cause. He trusted the Government would bring up a clause to regulate the shipment of explosive materials.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwarmly supported the proposal of the noble Duke, and hoped that it would be acted upon by the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was under the impression that some rule regulating the shipment of such goods was in force, but he would look into the subject, and would be prepared, in the event of its being necessary to take action in the matter, to bring up a clause relating to it on the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Penalty for carrying deck loads of timber in winter) struck out, and the following new clause inserted in lieu thereof:—
  "After the 1st day of January, 1877, if a ship, British or foreign, arrives between the last day of October and the 16th day of April in any year at any port in the United Kingdom from any port out of the United Kingdom, carrying as deck cargo, that is to say, in any uncovered space upon deck or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage, any wood goods coming within the following description; that is to say—

  "(a) Any square, round, waney, or other timber, or any pitch pine, mahogany, oak, teak, or other heavy wood goods whatever; or

  "(b) Any more than five spare spars or store spars, whether or not made, dressed, and finally prepared for use; or

  "(c) Any deals, battens, or other light wood goods of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck.

  "The master of the ship, and also the owner, if he is privy to the offence, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every hundred cubic feet of wood goods carried in contravention of this section, and such penalty may be recovered by action or on indictment or to an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds) (whatever may be the maximum penalty recoverable) on summary conviction.
  "Provided that a master or owner shall not be liable to any penalty under this section—

  "(1) In respect of any wood goods which the master has considered it necessary to place or keep on deck during the voyage on account of the springing of any leak, or of any other damage to the ship received or apprehended; or

  "(2) If he proves that the ship sailed from the port at which the wood goods were loaded as deck cargo at such time before the last day of October as allowed a sufficient interval according to the ordinary duration of the voyage for the ship to arrive before that day at the said port in the United Kingdom, but was prevented from so arriving by stress of weather, or circumstances beyond his control. Provided further, that nothing in this section shall affect any foreign ship coming into any port of the United Kingdom under stress of weather, or for repairs, or for any other purpose than the delivery of her cargo."

  LORD CARLINGFORD: expressed his approval of the new clause, as under it Norway and Sweden would not be placed

  1133
  at a disadvantage when compared with other countries.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Government had felt the force of the observations made by the noble Lord on the second reading on this subject, and in consequence of what was then suggested they had re-considered the whole matter and had brought up the clause which was now proposed to be inserted in the Bill. Should anything more be thought necessary it could be considered on the Report. He would take that opportunity of pointing out to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) that by the 23rd section of the 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85 the carrying on board any ship of any of the dangerous goods—gunpowder and other things—specified, would make the parties liable to a fine of £100 for each offence.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Application to foreign ships of provisions as to detention).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, this clause had become unnecessary, its enactments having been embodied in Clause 13.
  Clause struck out.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 160.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.