Sitting of 4 August 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Winter Assize Act (1876) Extension * [276]; Church Patronage (Scotland) Law Amendment* [231], negatived; Fisheries (Dynamite)* [273].
Committee—Public libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2) * [136]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Caistor Union, &c.)*[266].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * [252].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) [254]; Prisons (Ireland) [219]; Sheriff Courts (Scotland) [209].
Third Reading— South Africa [195]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards)* [269], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  TURKEY—BRITISH REFUGEES AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Referring to the Question which I asked yesterday as to British subjects who are reported to have taken refuge in Constantinople in a condition of great distress, I wish to ask the Government, Whether they have yet received any further information on that subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We have not yet received any fresh information from Constantinople; but I have ascertained from communications which have been going on in reference to this matter that the Consuls find their time much occupied in having to make communications to the Foreign Office with regard to each individual case of distress, and it has therefore been suggested that greater latitude should be given to them in dealing with cases as they arise. A communication has been made by the Foreign Office to the Treasury with regard to the authority which Lord Derby proposes to give to the Consuls—authority to deal with cases at once without waiting for specific instructions. I hope, therefore, that the Consuls will, as the result of these proposals, have greater freedom in dealing with these cases, some of which I understand are very urgent.

  MASTERS AND WORKMEN—THE STRIKES IN AMERICA.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWEN: I wish to put a Question to the Leader of the House in regard to a matter which seriously affects the working classes in this country. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it would not be possible to

  423
  obtain through Her Majesty's Representatives such official and impartial Reports of the proceedings connected with the railway strike in America as would during the Recess afford useful information on the subject to employers of labour and the working classes in this country, who are directly and indirectly affected by those proceedings.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not able to give an answer to the Question of the hon. Member at present: but if he will give Notice of the Question I will see whether I cannot do so on Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SOUTH AFRICA BILL [Lords.]
  (Mr. J. Lowther.)
  [BILLS 195–271.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLcomplained of what he regarded as the undue haste with which this Bill had been passed through its later stages. No doubt the proceedings in Committee were subjected to a great deal of obstruction by certain hon. Members, with regard to whom he should only say that although he could understand their objection to legislating after midnight, he could not understand the principles upon which they reconciled, even to their own reasoning, an obstruction to a Bill which proposed to give to another part of Her Majesty's dominions that federal Home Rule which they sought to obtain for themselves in Ireland. But what had been the effect of these proceedings? It was that in the course of two days and a night little progress had been made with the discussion of the really important clauses of the Bill; and when, at a reasonable hour on Wednesday morning, they came to discuss these clauses, it turned out that many Members who had sat through the night were so fatigued physically that it was impossible that the clauses could be fairly discussed, and he ventured to say that they were not fairly discussed. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought that there was a kind of implied, if not express, agreement with the Government that the discussion of some of these very important Amendments should be postponed until the
  424
  Report, the Bill meanwhile to be reprinted, and when he saw that this stage of the measure was fixed for Thursday, he thought, as a matter of course, that it was Thursday week that was intended. Having gone for a little fresh air into the country, he was astonished to find upon his return to his Parliamentary duties that the Bill had been run through this stage at a Morning Sitting. It seemed to him that the undue haste with which the Bill had been pressed forward was totally unnecessary, because it had already passed the House of Lords. The result of this haste was that there were very considerable blemishes on the face of the Bill which would remain to the end of time if it passed in its present shape. There was one very important subject to which he wished once more to allude, because he had proposed an Amendment in regard to it which obtained a far greater support in that House than that accorded to any other Amendment which had been moved. The Amendment was that Confederation under the Bill should not take place unless the Cape Colony was a Member of that Confederation. It had been represented by the Under Secretary that what he proposed was that the Cape Colony should be placed in the position of being able to say to the other Colonies—"We will not confederate; no more shall you." That was not his position at all. He was not averse to the Confederation of the other Colonies, provided it was a proper Confederation under a proper Constitution; but what he still maintained was that the Constitution under this Bill was not a proper Constitution, or one under which Natal and the Transvaal could properly confederate. He was willing to admit that the Government, in concert with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had agreed to an Amendment of enormous importance—namely, that Native representation should in some shape be provided for. He was free to admit that if the clause of the Bill as it stood with that Amendment could be fairly, fully, and successfully carried out, his objection to a Confederation of Natal and the Transvaal would be removed; but he confessed that he was still inclined to doubt whether it was possible at the present time, with the state of progress of these Colonies, to

  425
  carry out such a representation of the Natives as would satisfy both parties. If it were not possible at the present time to obtain a proper system of election of Native Representatives, then it would be necessary that they should have nominated Representatives, and these Colonies, if confederated at all, would be confederated under what was known as a severe Crown Colony system. There were other points in the Bill which showed marks of the haste with which it had been pushed forward; but he was delighted to find that an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Bradford had been accepted, which would go far to settle the two points which he himself thought extremely objectionable in the Bill as it was originally drawn. That Amendment was to the effect that laws relating to emigration and the tenure of land should not be passed without the previous sanction of Her Majesty. As regarded emigration, he was inclined to think that no better arrangement could possibly be made; but as to the tenure of land, he rather thought they had gone so far that they would entangle themselves very considerably. There was no provision in the Bill enabling the present most unjust laws as to the tenure of land to be got rid of; and before any free Constitution was given to the States under this measure Her Majesty's Government should insist that those laws should be done away with. According to the Bill as it now stood, Her Majesty's Government, without the consent of Natal, the Transvaal, or any other Colony, might annex them bodily to the Cape. He was glad to have the assurance of the Under Secretary that there was no intention to do so; but it was a distinct blot on the Bill, showing the haste with which it had been passed through its later stages, that they had a clause in it which gave such enormous power to the Government which it was never intended to give or that they should exercise.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not agree with his hon. Friend that the Bill had been pushed through with undue haste, or, indeed, with haste at all. He frankly declared he could not look back to many Bills—quite apart from the extraordinary opposition that had been recently manifested in the House—that had been better or more adequately dis-
  426
  cussed than was the South Africa Bill. He regretted that the House had not the advantage of the presence of his hon. Friend on the previous occasion when the Bill was under consideration; but he thought that when his hon. Friend had been a few years longer in the House, he would not at this period of the Session be likely to mistake Thursday for Thursday week. He could not agree that there had been any important question connected with the Bill that had not been fairly discussed; and it would be very disadvantageous if it were to be supposed either in the Colonies or in this country that the Bill had been passed through with haste or without discussion. He was inclined to agree with his hon. Friend's view as to union without the Cape; but a large majority decided against that, and it would have been useless to moot the question again on the Report. With regard to the Native question, he did not know how it could be put better than it was now by the Bill, and he thought his hon. Friend ought to be satisfied. According to his experience, very few Bills had passed through the House of Commons with fuller discussion, and, in reality, with more care. When he returned to the House after a short absence on Wednesday, he found a great many Members who showed no signs of fatigue at all—his hon. Friend being one of them—and the result was that the Bill underwent a very good discussion, which lasted for two or three hours, and was confined to the details of the measure. He had merely interposed now because he thought it was not desirable that the Bill should go out to the Colonies with the character stamped upon it of having been passed in haste. He believed our fellow-countrymen at the Cape would see that the Parliament of this country had been earnest and sincere in making the offer to them of a possible Confederation for their own good—that it was for them that Parliament was doing it, and not for this country; and that we had put ourselves-to some inconvenience in order that the offer should be fairly made.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was afraid that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford would not satisfy the country that the Bill had not been passed with undue haste, nor that the measure would affect

  427
  that good to the Colonists which it professed to have in view. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be unfortunate if there should be an impression in the Colonies that the Bill had not received full consideration by Parliament; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have done better to join with those who endeavoured to secure a full discussion of the Bill than to join with the Government in carrying it through by force, almost at the point of the bayonet.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the entire course of proceeding adopted by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) throughout the whole course of the Bill bad demonstrated a total absence of familiarity with the proceedings of the House. The hon. Gentleman had wasted a good deal of time, for in objecting to the ordinary formality of the postponement of a clause he had started a hare which ran for several hours. If the hon. Member had devoted some few minutes to consulting any authority on the Rules of the House he would have saved much valuable time. He (Mr. Lowther) entirely concurred with the right hon. Member for Bradford. The character of the Bill was exceptional; but it had been carefully and fully discussed, notwithstanding the extraordinary interruptions and opposition it had to encounter, and he had every confidence that it would prove acceptable to the inhabitants of the South African Colonies.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL.— [BILLS 2, 113, 183, 268.]
  (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Walpole.)

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendments agreed to as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 38.
  Amendment in page 5, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words "and purposes of such college as a place of education," in order to insert the words " of the college or hall for those purposes," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONmoved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. As the Bill left
  428
  the House the clause provided that the Commissioners, in making a statute for a College, should have regard, in the first instance, to the maintenance and purpose of such College as a place of education. The clause, as amended by the Lords, provided that the Commissioners in making statutes for the University should have regard to the interests of education, religion, learning, and research; and in the case of a statute for a College should have regard, in the first instance, to the maintenance of the College for these purposes. He contended that the clause, as amended, did not give the first place to the interests of education.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."— (Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the Amendment in the clause was almost identical with it when it left the House of Commons. He hoped hon. Members would not consider it necessary to divide on the Amendment. It merely provided that religious instruction should also be given in the Colleges, and surely there was no occasion to disagree with their Lordships on that.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in supporting the Lords' Amendments, thanked the Government for its procedure. He trusted hon. Members did not want to make the Colleges merely boarding schools. The sustentation of Research, religious and secular, had always been and would, he trusted, always continue a reason of their existence.
  MR. GOSCHENwas of opinion that the Lords' Amendments meant more than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War expressed. For his (Mr. Goschen's) part he should oppose the Amendment on the grounds that the Commons' Committee had decided that regard should be had, in the first instance, to education.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 62: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 300.)
  Amendments agreed to, as far as the Amendment in page 6, line 21.
  Amendment in page 6, line 21, to leave out the words "sub-section 6," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with. The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Secretary Hardy.)
  MR. DODSONproposed to disagree with another Amendment. The Commons had inserted among the other powers a power to abolish Professorships and Lectureships, and by the Lords' Amendment, with which he proposed that the House should disagree, that power was omitted. The power was of some importance, and he hoped the Government would insist on its retention in the Bill. It was simply an enabling power.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought it was hardly worth while coming to a difference with the Lords upon this matter. They had unanimously struck out the words, because it was felt that it might discourage future endowments. The powers of the Commissioners were quite large enough without these words.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENcontended that it was preferable that this power should be given in an open and direct manner, and that its existence should not be left in doubt. There might be a Professorship which failed to attract students, and for which it might be desired to substitute another. Upon going into Committee upon the Bill, they had a long debate which related mainly to the proposed extension of the Professorial system, which was much condemned on the other side of the House. If the power to abolish Professorships, once having being inserted in the Bill, were now struck out, an erroneous interpretation might be put upon the views and intentions of Parliament.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he personally preferred the words to remain; but he thought it scarcely necessary to differ with the Lords on the matter, especially as they were not essential. He would, however, in deference to what had been urged, move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Amendment agreed to, as far as Amendment to leave out Clause 60, and insert Clause E.
  Leave out Clause 60, and insert Clause E, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. GOSCHENstated that the House of Lords had omitted Clause 18, relating to religious instruction, and had combined it in part with Clause 59. In the Bill, as it left the Commons, Clauses 18 and 60 were as follows:—
  "18. The Commissioners, in statutes made by them, shall make provision, as far as may appear to them requisite, for the due fulfilment of the requisitions of sections five and six of The Universities Tests Act, 1871 (relating to religious instruction and to morning and evening prayer in Colleges); but they shall not make directly or indirectly through the consolidation or combination of any office or emolument with any other office or emolument, whether in the University or in a College, the entry into holy orders or the taking of any test a condition of the holding of any office, or emolument to which that condition is not at the passing of this Act attached.
  "60. Nothing in this Act shall authorize the Commissioners, by a statute made by them, to endow, wholly or in part, an office of an ecclesiastical or theological character by means of any portion of the revenues or property of the University or College not forming, when the statute comes into operation, the endowment or part of the endowment of an office of that character."
  As amended by their Lordships, these clauses were now combined in a single clause, which stood as follows:—
  "59. The Commissioners, in statutes made by them, shall make provision, as far as may appear to them requisite, for the due fulfilment of the requisitions of sections five and six of The Universities Tests Act, 1871 (relating to religious instruction and to morning and evening prayer in Colleges); but, except for that purpose, they shall not, by a statute made by them, endow wholly or in part an office of an ecclesiastical or theological character by means of any portion of the revenues or property of the University or a College not forming, when the statute comes into operation, the endowment, or part of the endowment, of an office of that character, and in any statute made by them, shall not make directly or indirectly through the consolidation or combination of any office or emolument with any other office or emolument, whether in the University or in a College or Hall, the entering into holy orders or the taking of any test a condition of the holding of any office or emolument existing at the passing of this Act to which that condition is not at the passing of this Act attached."
  He maintained that the clause, as it now stood, would override the general spirit of the Bill, and the principle for which the Government had all along contended. The Lords' Amendment would give the Commissioners power to apply funds not

  431
  hitherto used for ecclesiastical purposes towards the endowment of certain Colleges, and establishing chaplaincies and religious teaching.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not press the objection. The clause as it stood involved no departure from the spirit of the Act, or from what he undertook in the passage of the Bill through the House. He had not then, however, been aware that there was one College at Oxford—Merton—which had no religious endowment, although under the University Tests Act it was bound to provide religious instruction to all its members; and it was to meet this difficulty that the Amendment in question had been introduced. There was no intention whatever to go back upon the spirit of what he had proposed; but it was found necessary in the case of Merton College to make provision for some religious instruction and morning and evening service.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman sufficient to justify the House in accepting the Amendment made upon the clause in the House of Lords. If the difficulty had not arisen during the years that had elapsed since the passing of the Tests Act, why was it necessary now to provide for it? Besides, the clause was far too sweeping to meet merely the exceptional case of a single College.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANconcurred in thinking that the clause was far too sweeping to meet an isolated case.
  MR. MOWBRAYpointed out that the clause was of a limited nature.
  MR. GOSOHENmoved to amend the Amendment by omitting the words "except for that purpose."
  Amendment proposed in Clause E, line 5, to leave out the words "or except for that purpose."—(Mr. Goschen.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would suspend his Motion to agree to the Lords' Amendment until the House had had an opportunity of pronouncing upon the Motion just made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENurged that it would be enough to provide for the exceptional case of Merton College. If that was really the only
  432
  College on behalf of which the Amendment had been introduced, there might have been no intention at the present moment to apply the powers given to any other College, but they were no doubt of general application, and money heretofore devoted solely to secular purposes might thus be applied to theological endowment. The Bill had been throughout discussed in a friendly spirit, and he deprecated the introduction of theological controversy at this final stage of the measure. He urged the Government either to withdraw the words which had been inserted by the other House, or to confine their application to Merton College.
  Question put, "That the words 'or except for that purpose,' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 45: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 301.)
  MR. MONKsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) said the power given to the Commissioners was only caused by the position of the College of Merton, it was not necessary to carry it farther than was required. He therefore begged to move to insert in the clause the words, " so far as relates to the College of Merton."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause E, line 6, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "so far as relates to the College of Merton."—(Mr. Monk.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the words proposed would not make sense, and irrespective of that he was not prepared to accept them. He was informed there were other Colleges in the same position.
  MR. GOSCHENobserved that that appeared inconsistent with what the right horn Gentleman had already stated.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had been since informed that there were other Colleges in the same position as Merton.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Lords' Amendment would mar much that would be done by the Bill, and urged that as

  433
  the discussions had been conducted in a conciliatory spirit, the right hon. Gentleman should not insist on that Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 44: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 302.)
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill: "—Mr. Secretary HARDY, Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. MOWBRAY, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. DODSON, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. KNATCHBITLL-HUGESSEN, Mr. BOURKE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND:—To withdraw immediately:—Three to he the quorum.

  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILLS 67–254.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 8 (Union of offices of Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Peace.)
  MR. BUTTmoved to omit the first sub-section, which dealt with the union of the offices of Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the Crown, and provided that future holders of the double office should be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. As he had stated, when the Report of the Bill was under consideration, he thought the Clerk of the Peace might well be relieved from all duties connected with the County Court and that these duties might be performed by a Registrar. He did not wish to say anything as to the patronage exercised by the Crown; but he thought that one of the greatest evils in Ireland was the excessive amount of patronage in the hands of the Government. He did not wish to make any charge against those who now occupied the Treasury Benches. So far as he had been able to trace, they had generally singularly escaped— what they must have had great difficulty in doing— the creation of new places. But that did not alter his objection to this Bill, which threw into the hands of the Government of the day patronage which
  434
  amounted to £26,000 a-year, and for duties which were discharged for £24,000 a-year in England, although not one penny of that amount was paid to any one appointed by the Government in England. There was no Clerk of the Crown in England, his duties being discharged by a person called the Clerk of Assize. In England the Clerk of the Crown was appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and he himself appointed his assistant. The Clerk of Assize in England had £1,000 a-year, and for that sum he did everything that the Clerk of the Crown did in Ireland, and a good deal more. One of his subordinate officers discharged the duties of Judge's Registrar; but there being no prosecutor on the part of the Crown in England it devolved upon the Clerk of Assize to prepare all the indictments. According to a Return made by a Committee of Inquiry in 1869 it appeared that in the largest English Circuits the salary of the Clerk of Assize was £1,000 a-year, the Clerk of Indictment received £300 a-year, the Clerk of Arraignment £300 a-year, and the Associate £300 a-year. The expense of the Northern Circuit in Ireland amounted to £ 3,400 a-year, as against £ 2,400 a-year. There was also this extraordinary difference— that while the Clerk of the Crown scarcely ever drew up an indictment in England, the Clerk of Assize drew up all the indictments in ordinary cases. They could get a Clerk of Assize for less than £800 a-year, for his time was only occupied during Circuit. At present the Clerk of the Peace was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. He did not know whether good or bad appointments were made; but in some instances a deputy was appointed, who discharged all the duties for £200 or £300 a-year, and discharged them most satisfactorily. According to a Return made to the House, it appeared that the emoluments and fees of the Clerk of the Peace in county Down — who had no salary— amounted to £211 10s., and the Clerk of the Crown in the same county received £472. Yet they proposed to give £1,000 a-year for the united offices in the county Down, this amount exceeding the salaries which the Clerk of the Crown and the Clerk of the Peace were at present receiving, and there were several other cases of the same sort. He objected to this, if for no other reason

  435
  than that the work could be done for considerably less. Some of this patronage would fall in before long, and it would be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to amalgamate the two offices. If a Clerk of the Peace died, and the surviving officer possessed interest with the Lord Lieutenant, he would get the united office; but if he did not, someone else would get it. This illustrated very strongly that the constant current of Irish legislation was to vest all patronage in the hands of the Crown. He would say nothing about the patronage exercised by the Crown; but the patronage exercised at Dublin Castle had been the curse of the country, and did more to debase the character of Ireland than anything else. He was in favour of vesting the appointment of Clerk of the Peace in the custos rotulorum of the county. He strongly dissented from passing this new patronage into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out sub-section 1, Clause 8.—(Mr. Butt.)
  Question proposed, "That sub-section 1 stand part of the Bill."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick said that there was a symptom on the part of the Government of a desire to increase their patronage. He himself had been unable to notice it. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill vested in the Judges some of the larges and most lucrative patronage. In regard to the particular patronage under discussion, some one must exercise it, and they had vested it in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. Anyone filling that high position was represented in this House, and as he was amenable to public opinion, he would no doubt exercise the patronage in a proper and becoming way. The hon. and learned Member suggested that the custos rotulorum should exercise the patronage; but the custos had no connection with the tribunal which the Clerk of the Peace had to serve.
  MR. BUTT: My proposal was that the Clerk of the Peace should be relieved from all the duties connected with the County Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr.GIBSON)said, that if
  436
  the Clerk of the Peace was relieved from the important duties of the County Court he should be in favour of abolishing him altogether. Was it not better that that official should be amenable to the Executive, who would look after the manner in which he discharged his duties? The custos had no more control over these officials than the man in the moon. A great many of the Clerks of the Peace in Ireland were men of no legal training, and their duties were in many cases discharged by deputy. The Government were trying to get rid of this vicious system altogether. He admitted that the duties were in many cases most exemplarily discharged by the deputies; but it was essentially a vicious system, which Government had resolved to grapple with, and they would insist that in future the duties should not be discharged by deputy, except in case of sickness. The hon. and learned Member said they had not been as saving as they might have been; but the fact was that, while at present the existing officers were paid in Dublin £3,247, the officers now proposed would only get £1,200, so that there was a saving there of £2,000. In Cork the present officers received £3,243, and the officers substituted would only receive £1,100, so that another saving of £2,000 was effected. In the county Down the emoluments of the present officers amounted to £1,428; while the emoluments of the officers appointed under the Bill would only amount to £1,000, thus effecting a saving of £400 a-year. The hon. and learned Member never misled the House, and the discrepancy between these figures and his statement was to be accounted for by the fact that the emoluments of the Clerk of the Peace were derived from several sources, that of salary bearing a small proportion. The salary of the existing officer was under £1,000 a-year; but if the emoluments and fees were added, they brought the income up to £2,428, while in future the same officer would only receive £1,100. There was not a single salary given in the Schedule of the Bill that was not substantially less than the existing emoluments which were being swept away. Instead of being behind England in the matter of economy they were in advance of that country, inasmuch as they had no Clerk of Assize at all. He did not understand that his hon. and learned

  437
  Friend intended to press his Amendment, and he hoped that he would be content with having expressed his views upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 68 (Parties may appear in person or by attorney or by counsel, &c.)
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved an Amendment, the effect of which was to enable a second attorney to be heard before the Courts. He said his Amendment involved no Party considerations whatever, as it was not a political question, but was simply an Amendment which greatly affected the interests of the suitors. The question which it raised was, whether a suitor in the Court below was to have the right to retain the services of the persons who he thought was best able to conduct his case. Up to the present time there had been a different practice in Ireland to that proposed to be adopted by the 68th clause. It had been decided in one or two cases that the Chairman need not hear a second attorney on any case. After these decisions of the Judges, meetings were held on the subject, and a vast majority of the Chairmen adopted the course of allowing a second attorney to plead before them. The clause of the Bill went to exclude a second attorney being heard. If the clause was adopted without his Amendment, the result would be that many of the young men in the Profession who were just commencing life would not be able to advance themselves in the Profession, for the reason that they were inexperienced in their Profession, and suitors would, therefore, be obliged to employ counsel, instead of employing a second attorney in whom they might have great confidence. No less than five Members of the House who were attorneys had told him that if they had been present when the clause was being discussed in Committee, they should certainly have voted against the clause, if some such Amendment as that which he now proposed had not been adopted. His Amendment was merely to add at the end of the clause words which would enable a second attorney to plead before the Court in cases where it was thought advisable that a second attorney should be heard. He did not ask the House to adopt an Amendment that would make it obligatory on the Chairman to hear a second attorney;
  438
  but simply asked that the Chairman might be allowed, in cases where he thought it right, to hear a second attorney. He must say that he thought that was a very fair principle. A meeting of the Bar was called in 1876, when this Bill was first introduced, which was only attended by 12 gentlemen of the Bar, three of whom were Queen's Counsel, and they agreed upon a Report. They stated in that Report that—
  "Notwithstanding such declarations, that a second attorney has no right to plead, many of the Chairmen admit a second attorney to be heard as an advocate; and considering the new and enlarged jurisdiction proposed to be conferred, we think it is of vital importance to the Bar, as well as to the advantage of the public, that a clause similar to that in the English Act should be included in the present Bill."
  It was a remarkable fact that in Committee this clause was only decided upon by the casting vote of the Chairman. There were upon that Committee gentlemen who were called to the Bar, and amongst the majority there were six gentlemen who were members of the Bar. He was glad to see that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) took a more enlightened view, and that he had supported his Amendment. He had received, since this Bill had been before the House, letters from many Chairmen, and amongst them letters from Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ferguson, the Chairmen of the West Riding. Both these gentlemen said they thought it would be a most unadvisable thing to prevent a second attorney from being heard in many cases, and said they had often derived great advantage from a second attorney being allowed to plead. He hoped his Amendment would be agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 30, line 4, to leave out after the word "party "to the end of the Clause, and insert the words " or with the permission of the Judge for an attorney retained by such first-mentioned attorney, or for a barrister retained by or on behalf of such party, but without any right of exclusive audience or pre-audience to such barrister, to appear and address the Court and conduct the case, but subject to such rules and regulations as may from time to time be prescribed for the orderly transaction of the business of the Court,"—(Mr. Downing,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PLUNKETopposed the Amendment on the ground that the clause was simply declaratory of the existing law as laid down by the 12 Judges of Ireland so recently as in 1861, and did not propose any innovation, although in some instances an irregular practice of allowing one attorney to be instructed by another had been tolerated. Now that the Courts were to be vested with Equity jurisdiction, it was advisable on public grounds to keep the functions of barrister separate from those of attorney, and the expense would be all the same to the suitor, because the fee of a competent attorney would be as large as that of a barrister. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. SHAWcould not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and much preferred to have the clause struck out. In the Select Committee he and several other Members believed this clause was introduced in some sense by accident. It had been said that the law as it stood was in accordance with the clause; but if that was so, he could not see the necessity of going out of the way to insert this clause in the Bill. If abuses had crept in, it was quite clear these had grown up from necessity, but the practice was by no means a general one. In some of the outlying towns of Ireland it was impossible to get barristers to conduct cases, and it would result in much inconvenience to business men if the clause were allowed to stand. He hoped the Government would consent to strike out the clause altogether and end the dispute.
  MR. LAWdenied the clause had been inserted in the Bill in any way by surprise or accident, as suggested by his hon. Friends the Members for Cork. There was no doubt it was the desire of the Chairmen to have the matter settled by legislation, as they wished to be relieved from the unpleasant duty of having to declare and enforce the law on this point; and as the question had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork's attempt here and in the Select Committee to legalize the practice of attorneys acting as advocates in the County Courts, it must now be settled by express enactment one way or the other. Nor would it do to omit the clause altogether, as proposed by his hon. Friend who had last spoken; for whilst the controversy
  440
  would thus appear to be left open, the adoption of such a course would be relied on as an indication of the opinion of Parliament upon the subject. In settling the point he regarded it from a public point of view, rather than as between attorney and barrister; but he must say that, although the practice or abuse of attorneys acting merely as advocates was permitted or overlooked in some only of the Irish County Courts, he had heard no complaint of inconvenience to the litigants in the other counties of Ireland, where the law was enforced and the practice disallowed. The general desire was to secure cheap and efficient law; and no one wanted to force the litigants of the County Courts to employ barristers in all cases, or to prevent them being satisfied with the advocacy of their attorneys alone; but a good deal of confusion had been introduced by forgetfulness of the fact that there was nothing to prevent any man, who had recourse to the County Court, employing any attorney he thought fit to conduct his case, providing he engaged him from the first. It might, of course, be a matter of discussion whether it was desirable to preserve the distinction between the Professions of barrister and attorney, but that was a large question, which could not now be satisfactorily dealt with, and yet this practice of attorneys, acting as mere advocates, involved the practical amalgamation of the two Professions, for, if allowed in these Courts, it would, be impossible to prevent the practice extending to the Superior Courts. The same abuse was many years ago beginning to creep into the English County Courts, and it had been found necessary to put a stop to it, the general opinion of the Judges being with Lord Brougham that each Profession, or branch of the Profession, should keep within its own proper province. He (Mr. Law) would be prepared to do everything in his power to smooth the way for any attorneys who might desire to come to the Bar; but whilst the Professions were kept distinct, he would resist all attempts by either to encroach on the legal province of the other. It had been thought expedient to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England; but if this Amendment were permitted, it would make an important difference between the legal systems of the two countries.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had heard that it had been ruled by the 12 Judges that it was illegal to employ a second attorney. How could it have come before the 12 Judges as a question of law? No Chairman was bound by an informal opinion of the Judges. No person could be more strongly opposed to the breaking down of the barriers dividing the two Professions than himself, and he admitted that he entered the Select Committee with a strong prejudice against attorney-advocates. But, as a matter of fact, an attorney did meet a barrister on perfectly equal terms upon questions of law and practice, and if this were amalgamation, it was already done. The question was simply this — if a man could employ one attorney, why should he not employ two? In the Committee he was struck with the arguments and evidence brought forward to show that it was the habit of the people to employ two attorneys, and he could not see there was ground for the Bar to contest it as matter of privilege. He favoured the principle of not restricting the rights of suitors, unless there was some public interest in doing so. In this case there would be an advantage; but, on the other hand, there would be a grievance to many people in Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that at present there were no barristers who practised at these Courts, and if attorneys were not allowed to practise in them enormous expense would be entailed upon suitors. He should vote against the clause; but if it were agreed to, the Government ought to postpone its operation for a certain number of years, so that the Bar might attend these Courts.
  MR. MELDONexpressed his surprise at the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, because on the Select Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman supported the clause, and assisted in carrying it. It had been laid down again and again in England that for an attorney to appear as an advocate was a direct violation of the law. The clause was almost identical with the clause in the English County Courts Act, and there was no reason why it should not be passed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr.GIBSON)said, the arguments had been advanced on both sides on previous discussions with great amplitude, and he remained of the same
  442
  opinion as when the discussion took place in Committee, and that was to retain the clause. It was in accordance with English practice, and he believed it would work advantageously for the public.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  [BILLS 3–219.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. A. MOOREmoved, in page 22, after Clause 49, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Grand jury stall contribute to maintenance of children in reformatories.)
  "From and after the passing of this Act, the grand jury of each county in Ireland shall he bound to contribute towards the support of all children detained in reformatory or industrial schools who shall be natives of such county."
  The hon. Member said, that the present state of the law was this—that the Government allowed a capitation grant to every child detained in a reformatory or industrial school, and the Grand Juries were empowered to give a supplemental grant. He would submit that the Government grant was either enough, or it was not enough. If it was enough, their permission to Grand Juries to grant supplemental grants ought to be struck off, and if it was not enough, it should be compulsory on Grand Juries to grant this aid. There were three or four Grand Juries who persistently refused to give such grants. In his own county the Grand Jury refused to give this aid, and consequently destitute children had nowhere to go but the workhouse. The simple request of the ratepayers to the Grand Juries was that they should pay this rate of 2s. 6d. per head for the children in these industrial schools. By that means the child would be removed out of the workhouse, where he was costing about 3s. l0 d. per week, to an industrial school, where he could be taught a trade, and thus be made a useful, self-supporting member of society.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he had been unable to ascertain in how many cases the Grand Jury had declined to exercise the power of giving a supplemental grant. It would be a very stringent measure to make the giving of such a grant compulsory, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having called attention to the subject, so that the Grand Juries might be induced to give the grant in cases where they did not do so at present.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, after Clause 52, to insert the following Clauses:—
  (Surgeon shall visit sick prisoners.)
  "The surgeon shall visit the prison at least twice in every week, and oftener if necessary, and shall see every prisoner in the course of the week. He shall daily visit the prisoners, if any, confined in punishment cells, and he shall visit daily, and oftener if necessary, such of the prisoners as are sick, and, when necessary, shall direct any prisoners to be removed to the infirmary."
  (Surgeon shall keep journal of state of prisoners, and enter therein result of his inspection of prison.)
  "The surgeon shall enter day by day, in his journal to be kept in the prison, an account of the state of every such prisoner, the name of his disease, a description of the medicines and diet, and any other treatment which he may order for such prisoner.
  "The surgeon shall, once at least in every three months, inspect every part of the prison, and enter in his journal the result of each inspection, recording therein any observations he may think fit to make on any want of cleanliness, drainage, warmth, or ventilation, any bad quality of the provisions, any insufficiency of clothing or bedding, any insufficiency in the quantity or defect in the quality of the water, or any cause which may affect the health of the prisoners."
  (As to prisoners of unsound mind.)
  "Whenever the surgeon has reason to believe that the mind of a prisoner is or is likely to be injuriously affected by the discipline or treatment, he shall report the case in writing to the gaoler, together with such directions as he may think proper, and he shall call the attention of the chaplain to any prisoner who appears to require his special notice."
  (Surgeon shall not perform serious operation without assistance.)
  "The surgeon may, in any case of danger or difficulty, which appears to him to require it,
  444
  call in additional medical assistance, and no serious operation shall be performed without previous consultation being held with another medical practitioner, except under circumstances not admitting of delay, such circumstances to be recorded in his journal."
  (In case of death of prisoner surgeon shall enter particulars in his journal.)
  "The surgeon shall, forthwith on the death of any prisoner, enter in his journal the following particulars, videlicet: at what time the deceased was taken ill; when the illness was first communicated to the surgeon; the nature of the disease; when the prisoner died; and an account of the appearances after death; together with any special remarks that appear to him requisite."
  (Gaoler shall keep punishment book.)
  "The gaoler shall enter in a separate book called the punishment book a statement of the nature of any offence for which he has awarded punishment to be inflicted on any prisoner, with the addition of the name of the offender, the date of the offence, and the amount of punishment inflicted.
  "No prisoner shall be kept at labour for more than ten hours in each day (exclusive of meals)."
  (Gaoler shall report cases of insanity to Visiting Committee and call the attention of the surgeon to any prisoner who appears out of health.)
  "The gaolers shall, without delay, report to the Visiting Committee of Justices any ease of insanity or apparent insanity occurring among the prisoners. He shall also, without delay, call the attention of the surgeon to any prisoner whose state of mind or body appears to require attention, and shall carry into effect the directions of the surgeon respecting alterations of the discipline or treatment of any such prisoner.
  "The gaoler shall notify to the surgeon without delay the illness of any prisoner, and shall deliver to him daily a list of such prisoners as complain of illness, or are removed to the infirmary, or confined to their cells by illness, and he shall deliver to the chaplain and surgeon lists of such prisoners as are confined in punishment cells."
  After Clause 53, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Coroner shall hold inquest on prisoner who has died in prison.)
  "It shall be the duty of the coroner having jurisdiction in the place to which the prison belongs, to hold an inquest on the body of every prisoner who may die within the prison. Where it is practicable sufficient time shall be allowed before the holding of the inquest to allow the attendance of the nearest relative of the deceased, and in no case shall any officer of the prison be a juror on such inquest."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he believed that most, if not all, of these duties were now performed; but

  445
  he did not object to these clauses, especially as they were part of the English statute law on the subject.
  Clauses verbally amended, and added to the Bill.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  [BILL 209.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that when the Bill was in Committee he pointed out that, by transferring the salaries of the judicial officers of Scotland from the annual Votes of Parliament to the Consolidated Fund, the House of Commons would be deprived of all control in reference to these Courts; and he intimated his intention to bring up on the Report an Amendment which would give the House the means of pronouncing an opinion as to the changes which the Secretary of State might make. Accordingly, he had prepared a clause which would, he thought, effect the object he had in view. He submitted, further, that the House of Commons should have the direct means of judging whether the money authorized to be spent under the Bill was a proper expenditure or not.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. and gallant Baronet that the Question before the House was that the Bill, as amended, be considered. His Amendment would come more properly when the House came to that part of the Bill to which it was applicable.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in place of Clause 5, omitted, the following clause:—
  (Appointment of procurators fiscal vested in sheriffs with approval of Secretary of State.)
  "From and after the passing of this Act the appointment of procurators fiscal shall be made by the sheriff with the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and any procurator fiscal so appointed, and any procurator fiscal holding office at the passing of this Act (save in so far as hereinafter expressly provided) shall not be removable from office except in the manner provided in the fifth section of this Act: Provided always, That no appointment of any procurator fiscal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall fall by reason of the sheriff ceasing to hold office by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise. The
  446
  appointment of any person to act as procurator fiscal ad interim or in the absence of the procurator fiscal in any sheriff court shall cease and determine from and after the commencement of this Act."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought that the settlement now proposed was, on the whole, the best settlement which could be suggested, and he, for one, hoped that it might be accepted by the House.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEnext moved, in place of Clause 6, omitted, the following clause:—
  (Procurator fiscal may appoint depute with consent of Lord Advocate and Sheriff.)
  "Except as hereinbefore provided, no sheriff shall have power, after the passing of this Act, to nominate or appoint any person to perform the duties of procurator fiscal; but it shall be lawful for a procurator fiscal, with the leave of the Lord Advocate and Sheriff expressed in writing, to grant a deputation to one or more fit persons to be named in such writing, for whose actings he shall be responsible, to sign writs, to appear in Court, and to conduct prosecutions and inquiries in his name and on his behalf. In the event of a vacancy in the office of procurator fiscal, any depute or deputes appointed in terms of this section shall have and discharge all the powers, privileges, and duties of a procurator fiscal until such vacancy is filled up."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 14, at end of the Clause, to insert the words " Provided always, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament copies of all orders or directions relating to sheriff Courts of Scotland, or to the duties, the appointments, the residences, the salaries, the fees and remuneration, or other matters affecting the officers and establishments of these Courts, which the Secretary of State may have issued, or may issue, in exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this or any previous Acts, with a view of enabling either House of Parliament to resolve thereon, as provided for in Clause fifty-four of the Act of the thirty-ninth and fortieth years of Victoria, chapter seventy."—(Sir George Balfour.)
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed, in Clause 7, to leave out "forty," and insert "fifty."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLcongratulated the Lord Advocate on the small

  447
  concession which he had seen his way to making, and hoped that next year he might be able to go further in the same direction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.
  House adjourned at half after Four o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Sending— Committee negatived—Third Reading—Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance* (171).
Their Lordships met;—

BOARD OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.