Sitting of 2 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— Ordered—First Reading—East Indian Unclaimed Stocks * [269].
Second Reading—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) [22]; Compensation for Improvements (Ireland) [71], debate adjourned; High Court of Justice (Provincial Sittings) [121].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) * [240]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [227]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (the Labourers' Act) (Carrick-on-Suir) * [219]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) * [220]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Dundalk Waterworks) * [223].

NOTICE OF QUESTION.

  PARLIAMENT — HOUSE OF LORDS—CREATION OF PEERS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREgave Notice that, on Monday, he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will advise Her Majesty to create such a number of Peers as will render it more difficult than it is at present for that House to throw out measures introduced into this House by Liberal Ministries,
  1820
  and passed by this House by large majorities; and whether he will submit to the appreciation of the House and the Country a measure which will insure that in future important Bills, which have received the assent of the Representatives of the People, will become Law without unnecessary delay?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 22.]
  (Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gray, Mr. Mayne, Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. Marum.)
  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 22.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. GRAY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he did not think it would be necessary for him to occupy the House at any length in discussing it, as the principle which it embodied—the election of Poor Law Guardians by ballot — had been approved by the House on several previous occasions, Bills of a similar character having been several times introduced. When the Bill was introduced last Session, it was accepted by the Chief Secretary; and, although the right hon. Gentleman did not give an absolute pledge, it was understood from what he did say that the Government would introduce a Bill themselves dealing with the subject. Not having any indication, however, that the Government intend to redeem that undertaking, and all parties having shown themselves of one mind as to the method of dealing with the abuses of the existing system, there was nothing left for the promoters of this useful reform but to press forward the measure again. He might say that since last year the measure had been recast in several points, and some useful improvements had been introduced into the Bill. In the first place, the Bill proposed to make better provision for the trial of Election Petitions. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was well aware of the amount of dissatisfaction that was caused in connection with the annual Poor Law elections. Ever since the elections of last March the right hon. Gentleman had had to answer a series of Questions dealing with disputes arising out of these elections; and, no doubt, the cases that came before the House only represented a tithe of those

    1821
    which the Local Government Board had to consider. The invariable answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Local Government Board had no power in the matter. There were two changes of a most important character made in the Bill since last year, to which he thought it his duty to call attention, lest it might be said that they were endeavouring to obtain a snatch vote from the House, without informing it fully on the matters with which the measure dealt. In the Bill of last year it was not proposed to alter the number of ex officio members on the Poor Law Boards; but under this Bill power to do so was sought. The proportion in England of ex officio Guardians to elected Guardians was one-third; whereas in Ireland the ex officio members constituted one-half of the entire Board. Now, he saw no reason why the same system should not apply in England and Ireland in this respect. In the original Act the proportion was the same in both countries—that was to say, at one-third—and the change to one-half was made by one of those amending Acts which so frequently pass through the House without any strict scrutiny. The ex officio Guardians in Ireland were, as a rule, men drawn from a single class—the landlords, their nominees, or the landlords' agents, who were somewhat more objectionable than the landlords themselves—although that was going a considerable distance, as he observed the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) seemed to think. As a matter of principle, he did not see why ex officio should exist on Boards of Guardians any more than on Municipal Boards, or in that House; but if they did exist, it surely rested with the opponents of this Bill to show why a different system should be applied in Ireland to that which existed in England. In addition to this, the landlord might be possessed of 18 votes as against the single vote of the non-landed ratepayer; he might have six votes each in his capacity as landlord, lessor, and occupier. In this way one class could always secure the majority of Guardians, and so always have a working majority on the Board. Under this Bill it was proposed to limit the number of votes to be exercised by one single individual at any one Poor Law election to six, leaving it to him to elect in what capacity he
    1822
    would exercise his votes. At the present moment there was no limit with regard to the age of a person voting at Poor Law elections, and they now proposed to fix that limit at 21 years. The property qualification had been done away with in Parliamentary elections; and, as he did not see why it should be retained in. Poor Law elections, this Bill would enable any ratepayer to become a candidate for the office of Guardian. It also proposed to enact that no Justice of the Peace should be qualified to be an ex officio Guardian unless he was a ratepayer; and, in like manner, to do away with the power of proxy voting. Proxy voting was not allowed in Parliamentary or Municipal elections, and there was no reason why it should he allowed for Poor Law Guardians. There being no objection to the principle of the Bill, he hoped that the Chief Secretary would give facilities for its subsequent stages. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give to this Bill a little of the time he was devoting to the Sunday Closing Bill? He would venture to say that in the amount of time wasted on the Sunday Closing Bill a dozen useful measures for Ireland might have been passed into law. This matter had been now a long time before Parliament; all parties in Ireland were practically unanimous with regard to it; and he trusted, therefore, that they would have some assurance from the Chief Secretary that, the second reading being passed, facilities would be given which would insure that the Bill would become law this Session. The hon. Member then moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORseconded the Motion. After the ample and clear statement of the hon. Member for Carlow, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any observations.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gray.)
    MR. M'COANsaid, the hon. Member for Carlow talked about the waste of the time of the House; but he forgot to remind the House how it was that this Bill, which he (Mr. M'Coan) had introduced last year and carried through the second reading, had failed to pass. The Bill was then accepted by the Chief Secretary; the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Har-

    1823
    man) had waived his opposition; the hon. Member for Bridport, too, who had blocked the Bill, had removed the block; and it would have gone duly into Committee, and to a third reading, but for a fresh block entered by one of the hon. Gentleman's own Party the Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and it would now have been the law of the land. The only conceivable motive for that action was the poor one of depriving himself (Mr. M'Coan) of whatever seeming credit might have attached to his passing the Bill through the House. Hon. Members opposite were always talking about "wringing measures from the Government," and he supposed the object of this proceeding was that hon. Members might go about the country denouncing the unwillingness of the English Government and Parliament to promote useful legislation for Ireland, and boasting how they had "wrung" this measure and that from both. He did not like to use strong language in the House; but outside of it, he would not scruple to characterize such tactics as they deserved. As regards this particular measure, however, he would not imitate the petty spite of the hon. Member for Roscommon, but would give the Bill his hearty support.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was quite ready to support the application of the principle of the ballot to Poor Law elections; but he had the strongest possible objection to the abolition of the proxy vote. The whole intention of the Bill appeared to be to put the largest ratepayers and owners of property on a level with the occupants of the smallest tenements. He admitted, however, that minors ought not to be allowed to vote, and he was not aware that they were so allowed. But it was unjust not to allow proxy voting, as that would disfranchise those who had property in several Unions; nor was it right to forbid Justices to be ex officio members of Boards in Unions where they were not ratepayers. The hon. Member was thus in an unfair way abolishing the property qualification in one case while he retained it in another. The tendency of this Bill, as of all the legislation brought forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, was that there should be one law for the rich and another for the poor. The qualification for an elective Poor Law Guardian was
    1824
    already extremely low, and this proposal to lower it would admit a class of ignorant and unsophisticated men, who would be very unlikely to vote according to their own consciences, but would vote according to the dictation of some local newspaper, or the paper of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). From various circumstances, practically not one-half of the ex officio Guardians were able to attend or do work, and in fully throe-fourths of the Unions in Ireland the elective Guardians had the practical control of matters. If this Bill were to get into Committee, while not opposing the proposal of the ballot, he would strongly object to any interference with the right of voting by proxy.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was opposed to the Bill in its present form. He objected to the reduction in the voting qualification of the ratepayers. When they considered that rents in Ireland had been reduced in many cases below the valuation, they would see that while the tenants would be entitled to make a deduction, the landlord would have to pay his full half on the amount he represented in property. Then this Bill pretended to leave the multiple voter in the same position as before. This was not really the case. The elections were held at about the same time all over the country, and unless he could fly about like a carrier-pigeon, a man would have no chance of being able to vote at more than one or two. He himself held property in six different Unions, and if he were deprived of the right of voting by proxy, he must be unrepresented in four or five of them. Hon. Members below the Gangway talked of the grievance of non-resident owners, while at the same time they did all in their power to prevent residence by endeavouring to take away the rights of the owners. He could not himself be ranked as a non-resident owner, for he resided all the year in Ireland, except when he was called away by his Parliamentary duties; yet this Bill would deprive him of his rights as a resident. As regarded the qualification, although he had a high opinion of the intelligence of the Irish people, and believed that if they were only left alone they would be quiet and law-abiding, still he could not agree that a man who only paid 6d. a-year in poor rates should be qualified

    1825
    to act as a Guardian. Supposing that the poor rate was 1s. in the pound, 6d. only represented an occupation of £1 a-year. Irish Members below the Gangway, whenever the law of England suited them, wanted to have the law of Ireland assimilated to it; but when it did not suit them, they did everything they could to prevent the law of England from being applied to Ireland. Would they be willing that the law of England should be applied to Ireland generally? If it were, the landlords would have a much happier time of it. Now, it had hitherto been a principle recognized in England that representation should follow taxation; and it should be remembered that as half the poor rate in Ireland was imposed on the landlords, the landlords were entitled on that principle to their fair share of representation; but who, under this Bill, was really the ratepayer—the man who indirectly paid his rates through his landlord, or the landlord from whom the rates were deducted? With regard to voting by proxy, he should be glad to see it done away with, and a system of voting papers substituted like that which was adopted at University elections. This would meet the convenience of the ratepayers, many of whom were infirm, aged, or sick, and some were females, who could not be expected to go great distances to vote.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAgave his most cordial support to the Bill. Parliament had adopted the principle that a property qualification was not requisite for Members of that House, and it could hardly be contended that a large amount of property or of occupancy was requisite to qualify a man to be eligible for the office of Poor Law Guardian. The important matter in connection with Poor Law elections was that the Poor Law Unions should be satisfied of the fairness of the principle, and of the popular nature of the principle, upon which the Guardians were selected.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had made some observations as to which he should not follow him, except to remark that he was personally fully aware of the very great service which that hon. Member had rendered on this question, and that the Government were perfectly ready to accept reasonable suggestions
    1826
    on matters of public interest, from whatever quarter of the House they might come. Since the Bill had been placed in his hands he had been considering it by telegraph and by letter with the Local Government Board in Ireland; he had also had a thorough talk about it with the President of the Local Government Board in England; and, speaking generally, he thought he might say that the longer they looked at it the better they liked it. The President of the Local Government Board and himself were strongly of opinion that if any change was requisite in the management of local affairs in Ireland, the changes that should be introduced should be of such a nature as not to interfere with any large, general, and comprehensive scheme of local government which might be hereafter adopted in England or Scotland; and the principles and, as he imagined, the details of which might be extended to Ireland. One great section of the measure—Part II.—was, as far as he knew, perfectly new; but it had received the warmest welcome from the practical officers who at this moment were charged with the management of the Local Government Board in Ireland. With regard to the provisions of the Bill itself, he thought that the question of the ballot in Ireland, generally, was one already settled. It was impossible for either Party to quote the Report of the Poor Law Committee of 1878 either for or against their own view on this question, because on the cardinal provision of that Committee the division of the Committee on the point was about equal. He put much more stress upon the debates in the House itself—debates which, had been very much influenced by recent Poor Law action in Ireland. He thought it might be fairly said that both sides of the House were glad to be rid of those scandals, be they great or be they little, which had accompanied those Poor Law elections; and the House of Commons would be glad, indeed, to be rid of the necessity of listening to detailed Questions and Answers with regard to those subjects. The Government, therefore, were more heartily than ever in favour of the Poor Law elections in Ireland being conducted by the ballot. The officers of the Local Government Board and the advisers in the Irish Office in London had gone

    1827
    through this part of the Bill, and they were satisfied that, with one or two small alterations, it could be made a proper Code for conducting those elections. One alteration he thought extremely essential—namely, with regard to the preparation of the Register of Voters. The Government regarded the existence of such a Register as one of the most important provisions of the Bill. Probably the largest part of the disputed cases brought before the Local Government Board had been caused by there being no permanent list of voters. The Government thought the principle of the registration list should certainly be adopted; and in practice they would wish it to conform much more nearly to the Parliamentary system than he thought the Bill provided. Then, with respect to proxy voting—he was glad to have the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County and the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney). The hon. Member for Tyrone objected to doing away with proxy voting; and the reason he gave why it was very desirable to maintain this was because a voter, who had property in several different Unions, had, and ought to have, the opportunity of recording his vote in the several Unions, or, more probably, in several divisions of the Union. The Government fully recognized the difficulty, and the Local Government Board intended to exercise the power which they had at present possessed of naming days for the Poor Law elections; and they would name those days with the desire of removing that objection which the hon. Member felt. The hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) gave another objection which weighed with him very much as to the abolition of proxy voting. It was pointed out that a Poor Law election took place every year, whereas elections for a Member of Parliament took place every four, five, or six years. This objection led him (Mr. Trevelyan) to point out what the Government considered a very important omission in the Bill. The Government were of opinion that the yearly election of Poor Law Guardians was too frequent. On that point their opinion was strongly backed by the finding of the Committee of Poor Law Guardians. The Government could not possibly consent to any measure
    1828
    which would leave the Poor Law elections annual. Another objection put forward against the abolition of proxy votes was that property was not sufficiently represented. He thought that with the large infusion of ex officio Guardians in Boards of Guardians property would be sufficiently represented. Those gentlemen were all holders of considerable property compared with the great mass of the ratepayers, and what ever modifications might be made in the position of those who were placed on the bench they would always represent the sentiment of property. With regard to the second part of the Bill, the Local Government Board considered that it would be a relief from an extremely difficult, intricate, and, to them, oppressive function—the seating and unseating of Guardians in cases of dispute. In 1884 objections had been raised to 73 Guardians, and the Board made orders for unseating the Guardians in 13 instances only. In the present year 127 seats had been disputed; about 80 had been adjudicated upon; and in 10 the Board had set the returns aside; while, in 47, the correspondence was still progressing. This function would, by this measure, be committed to hands more suited to exercise it; though, at the same time, his own experience of the manner in which the Local Government Board had fulfilled an extraneous duty was that the very greatest impartiality and care had been shown in all the numerous cases that had come before it. The belief of the Government was that if the first part of the Bill were carried with Amendments—if a permanent and authoritative registration list was prepared—three-fourths or four-fifths of the cases now brought before the Local Government Board as to disputed elections would fall of themselves, and the addition of work to the proposed tribunal would be comparatively small. The Government had an objection to the system by which it was proposed to arrange the scale of costs—they would prefer that the costs should be fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Council of County Court Judges. Of course, it might be argued that there was a Bill already before the House which it was proposed to apply to Poor Law elections in Ireland. That Bill had only passed the stage of second reading, and he did not think there could be any practical

    1829
    objection to giving a second reading to this Bill, and allowing the disputed points to be settled during the later stages of the two Bills. As to the third part of the Bill, he did not propose to enter into details; but the general policy of the Government would be to assimilate the law in Ireland, as far as possible, to the law in England. He did not think that Irish holders of property could complain if the number of votes allotted to them was placed upon the same footing as in England, if only the change proposed by the hon. Member for Tyrone were carried out and the rate distributed in the same manner. The 2nd subsection about minors not voting he thought should be accepted at once; but with regard to the 3rd sub-section he should prefer to suspend his opinion. The 4th sub-section the Government willingly accepted; and with regard to the 6th sub-section he should certainly, if this Bill passed into law this year, be inclined to leave the question of ex officio Guardians alone, to be dealt with by whatever English analogy might be set up by the Local Government measure which might be laid before Parliament. With regard to the qualification of the ratepayer, the Government held a strong opinion that the law should be continually assimilated in principle to that of England. The analogy of a Member of Parliament did not hold in the case of this Bill. In the outlines of its machinery the Government would be very willing to see the Bill adopted as an ad interim measure until the Local Government Bill was settled for England, and outstanding questions settled for Ireland. He could only hope that the House would give it a second reading then. Although he could give no promise, he would certainly say that there were very few Bills which he would rather see passed into law this Session.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Bill was by no means a novel one, as far as its chief features were concerned, for it had been before the House in previous Sessions. Last Session the measure would have passed, with certain necessary Amendments in Committee, but for the action of Members below the Gangway. This Session, although there would not be a Division on the second reading, the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had practically killed the Bill. He would not, however, say that it was the
    1830
    deliberate intention of the Chief Secretary to kill it, because it was difficult to discover, from his speech, that he had any deliberate intention whatever. The first part of the Bill, dealing with vote by ballot, might possibly in Committee have assumed a shape that would have removed many present objections. He should be quite ready to assist in any legislation that would have the effect of simplifying and rendering pure the proceedings at Poor Law elections; and if those objects could be attained by the introduction into the Bill of any subsidiary clauses he should raise no objection. But they ought not to forget that the Government already had before the House a Bill framed expressly for the improvement of Poor Law and Municipal Elections, and that was the right Bill by which to deal with the topic to which he was referring. The Government would not be permitted to introduce clauses into and drop clauses out of their Bills in consequence of opinions which they might form as to what would be pleasing to this or that particular portion of the House. They would be expected to act like statesmen, and, after having put certain proposals before the House, they would not be allowed to press them one day and to drop them the next without rhyme or reason. On the more doubtful points in the Bill the Chief Secretary suspended his opinion. When the Chief Secretary came to deal with proxy voting, he filtered out his meaning with —he must not say "art," he was not allowed to say "manoeuvre," and he did not like to say anything which did not express his views—but the right hon. Gentleman adopted all the refinements of language to conceal from the House and the country that he was entirely changing the position he adopted last year, when he supported proxy voting in a well-reasoned speech, and placed an Amendment on the Paper for its preservation and amendment. The reason for the proxy vote was because the landlord had to pay, at all events, half the poor rates, and where he occupied he had to pay the whole; and, therefore, he was entitled to a reasonable voice in the expenditure of rates to which he made so large a contribution. The Chief Secretary pointed out last year that the landlord had a right not only to a proxy vote, but to a plural vote, and even indicated that, inasmuch as the plural

    1831
    vote might be in the hands of those who could not exercise it in person, some machinery ought to be supplied which might enable them, to exercise it. Why had the Chief Secretary changed his mind? Inscrutable were the workings of the human mind, and it was difficult to search out why the Chief Secretary had changed his mind. Last year the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had blocked the Bill, because he objected to the clause regarding proxy voting. The hon. Member was now in a country which offered great attractions for invalids; but he still seemed to maintain his influence even in his absence, for, in deference to his objection, the Chief Secretary now seemed doubtful about supporting the proxy vote. When it was argued last year that property was sufficiently represented by the ex officio element, the Chief Secretary said that that was an argument he should be sorry to put forward, because it amounted to this—that magistrates should always be taken from one class, the landlords. Now, when the Government were taking the magistrates less and less from the landowners, was the time for the right hon. Gentleman to read his recantation. The only reason the Chief Secretary had given for recanting his opinions of last year was that his right hon. Colleague the head of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) felt that there would be a difficulty in making a declaration in favour of proxy voting in view of the Local Government measure which they were promised. But if the Chief Secretary would not put down Amendments for the purpose of retaining proxy votes, he would find Gentlemen on the other side of the House ready to do so. The Session was not in its infancy; it was rather in its decrepitude, and any Bill which on the 2nd of July emerged from Committee with only a certain amount of tepid approval from some parts of the House was not likely to have a successful career. Therefore, if any difficulties arose in a subsequent stage of the measure, the Chief Secretary himself would have largely assisted in the creation of those difficulties. If the right hon. Gentleman had met this Bill as he did the Bill of last year its course would have been smoother; but now he might expect that the clauses of the Bill and the Amendments which might be proposed
    1832
    would require much consideration.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not believe that in this House, at least, the Chief Secretary's speech had given a deathblow to the Bill—he regarded that speech as, to some extent, satisfactory; and he was glad the Government had seen their way to accept the second reading. With regard to the reduction of the proportion of ex officio Guardians from one-half to one-third, he thought it was only right that they should now revert to the scheme of having only one-third of the Guardians ex officio. The proportion of one-half had been introduced in the House of Lords—a fact which was no recommendation to a proposal of that nature. Hon. Members above the Gangway who objected to that reduction of the number of Justices of the Peace on Boards of Guardians should remember that if a Radical Government came into power they might do away with the ex officio Guardians altogether; they might strike off magistrates as Lord Rossmore had been struck off, and they might put others on the Commission who held popular opinions. The thing might be done very much as purchase in the Army was abolished by Royal Warrant. Turning to the prospect of passing that Bill, he wished to point out that it was not enough for the Government to give a platonic assent to the measure; they must do something more than that. Certain Gentlemen were able to secure from the Government large facilities as to time for discussing their proposals; but Irish Members near him were not so fortunate. Chances of success were, indeed, often dangled before their eyes; but they were hardly ever allowed to see their Bills become law. They were told by English Members to produce their grievances, and when they produced them it was admitted that they should be remedied; but they never were remedied. It was acknowledged that they had brought in a very moderate Bill; and they wanted to get out of the region of mere promises. He hoped, therefore, that they would hear from the Government some distinct statement that that Bill, being one to which they attached some importance, the Government would devote to it as much time as they gave to Bills which the Irish Members did not want. Let them, for example, give

    1833
    to it as many Afternoon Sittings as they had fruitlessly devoted to pressing forward the Sunday Closing Bill against the protests of Irish Members.
    MR. J. H. M'CARTHYsaid, this Bill was an exceedingly good example of the unmeaning—he might even say the grotesque—nature of the relationship existing between England and Ireland. It was a Bill which entirely concerned the Irish people, and with which English and Scotch Members had no moral right to interfere. They had, unfortunately, the legal right to do so; but when, in a few Sessions, Ireland possessed a system of local self-government, these subjects would be dealt with in a far more satisfactory manner than they were at the present time. To quote Sydney Smith, he knew nothing of the internal condition of Timbuctoo that would justify him in supposing there was anything there so absurd as the Poor Law system of Ireland. The method of administering the Irish Poor Law might fairly be called the worst in the solar system. The perverseness and incapacity of the House to deal with Irish Bills was illustrated in the fact that the present Bill had been before Parliament for the last decade, and it had not yet passed. But it also afforded an instance of the perseverance and the proud patience of the Irish Members, who, like the hero of the Oriental story, had made their demands a little higher each time. They were not the Irish Members whom the Government cherished. The Irish Members dear to the heart of the Government were those Members who sat on the Government side of the House and offered a sleepy and servile adherence to all that the Government demanded of them. He was not surprised to find that the Representatives of the anti-Irish landlord Party opposing the measure, because it was essential to their existence that they should oppose every Bill promoted by the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The landlord Party were now beaten to their last entrenchment, and in a little while a Representative of that Party would be as rare in Parliament as the Mastodon or the Dodo. But, somehow or other, they did not seem so ready for the fray as formerly. They had not adorned their speeches on this occasion as on former occasions with, insults to the
    1834
    priests of the faith of the Irish people. They made no allusions to the Land League, a body which had been incessantly assailed in their speeches in former debates on this subject. It was not unnatural that the landlord Party should dislike the Land League. If it had not been for the Land League nothing whatever would have been done for Ireland. As it was, that organization had given Irish Members strength to demand that the Government should treat with proper respect the measures which they brought forward concerning their own local interests. It was satisfactory to know that the Government were recognizing the demands which they had made. The Government had done wisely in consenting to the second reading; and it was hoped that their promise and support was not merely nominal, but that it would this year become law. If by some means of enchantment—some subtle influence of political bacsheesh—the Government could fancy it a Coercion Bill its passage would be very speedy.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 71.]
  (Colonel Nolan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Biggar, Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Small, Mr. Sullivan.)
  COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 71.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL NOLANrose to move the second reading of the Bill, when—
    MR. WARTON, rising to Order, said: I submit that as the Bill has not been printed, the Motion for the second reading ought not to be allowed.
    MR. HEALY: That is no objection. On a former occasion the late Speaker permitted the second reading of a Bill to be moved which had not been printed.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to say, in reply to the point of Order raised, that the fact of the Bill not having been printed is not a fatal objection. It is for the House to judge whether the fact should interfere with its further progress.
    COLONEL NOLANproceeded to move the second reading. The Bill had been presented on three previous occasions; but unfortunately, through an accident,

    1835
    it had not been printed this year. However, the House was familiar with its previous provisions, and any change which might be in it this year was in the direction of modification.
    MR. WARTON: I rise to Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and learned Member not to "rise to a point of Order" when there is no point of Order before the House. If he persists, I must call the attention of the House to the practice of the hon. and learned Member in rising to so-called points of "Order," when he has really nothing to bring forward.
    COLONEL NOLAN, resuming, said, the object of the Bill was to give compensation to tenants for improvements in towns having a population under,30,000. He did not seek to give a tenant of a town building' the same interest in his house as the tenant of a farm had in his holding; but he thought that some consideration ought to be shown a tenant of a house in a town who improved the letting value of the property by building offices or making other erections. Many landlords did not look after their houses at all, and the tenantry very often had to allow them to go to decay or to leave them. If the tenant spent money in improving the property he held, when the lease expired he might have to pay an increased rent, or give up the improvements whenever the landlord wished to take possession of the house. This state of things had a very bad effect, as no guarantee was given to tenants who made improvements, and those who did not make them were not encouraged to increase the value of the property, which they held. The Bill proposed to give compensation to the tenant when he had actually increased the letting value of a house, though not for any fancy improvements. He thought that if the Bill were passed with some limitation, perhaps, to towns numbering 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, the towns in Ireland would be greatly improved in appearance. As the Bill had not been printed, he would undertake that the Committee stage should not be taken without full Notice being given; but he hoped the House would allow the second reading to be taken then.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had no doubt what the duty of the Member of the Government who was attending to the Business that afternoon was in reference to this Bill—the only possible course he could adopt was to ask the House to adjourn the debate. There was no Rule which forbade the second reading of an imprinted Bill; and the House might, perhaps, have allowed it on rare and special occasions. This was not, however, such an occasion; and the description of the Bill, as given by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), made it plain that the Bill included an important and novel principle which the House ought to have distinctly before it. He could not regard the Bill as in the least a Bill of small proportions, or so pressing that they should deviate from the usual custom. He must, therefore, ask the House to adjourn the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, in his opinion, the hon. and gallant Member could not resist the Motion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which was not unreasonable. He hoped the Government would on a future occasion be able to consider the Bill in a favourable light, as there was a strong feeling on the subject in Ireland.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROVINCIAL SITTINGS) BILL.— [BILL 121.]
  (Mr. Whitley, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Lewis Fry, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Slagg, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Agnew.)
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROVINCIAL SITTINGS) BILL.— [BILL 121.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WHITLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he was sure that on this subject, at least, he would have the sympathy of every Member of the House, for the question of cheap and ready justice near to the place where the cause of action arose must be a matter of very deep interest to a great trading community like this country. It had occupied the con-

    1837
    sideration of Parliament more or less for many years past, and in the year 1872 a Royal Commission reported on the subject. That Commission recognized the great evils which attended the existing system. They admitted that under the system of centralization which had prevailed for a long time in this country causes of action in the great manufacturing and commercial districts of the country were transferred to the Central Courts in London at a very great expense to the suitors. Now, the port of Liverpool, which he represented, though a great commercial centre, and with an immense mercantile marine business— its tonnage being greater than that of the Metropolis—had, up to the present time, no Admiralty Court, and the causes had to be brought to London at very great expense, and oftentimes with very great difficulty, as in the case of sailors, who had to be kept in order to bring them to London as witnesses. This caused a great amount of dissatisfaction on the part of the commercial community, and for a long time past they had been very anxious to secure for the great towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire and other great commercial centres Courts giving that access to speedy justice which could only be secured in immediate connection with the localities. In their Report, the Judicature Committee of 1872 did recognize the difficulties and expense to which suitors in these great centres were put, and they recommended, with regard to Liverpool and Manchester—
    "That there should be four sittings in each year for the trial of civil causes in the Superior Branch of the Courts of Liverpool and Manchester; that the duration of these sittings should not be limited; neither should it be necessary for the same Judge to be in attendance during the whole sitting; and that two Judges should be empowered to sit at a time when that course should be deemed more convenient."
    Earl Cairns, who was a great authority on this subject, went a great deal further, and more in the direction to which he asked the assent of the House. His Lordship said—
    "I am of opinion that the arrangements suggested in the Report taken in connection with the thickly-populated part of the country, and especially of the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, are utterly and entirely inadequate."
    Now, that pointed to what they desired to accomplish by this Bill. They proposed by the Bill that there should be
    1838
    districts set apart by the Crown in the centre of Lancashire and part of Cheshire if the Crown should think there was no objection to it; and under this Bill there would be power to extend the system to other communities, such as Bristol. There was a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill. He believed every commercial community had reported in its favour, and every legal Society throughout the country, with one exception, had unanimously supported it. What, then, were the difficulties which presented themselves? In 1879, the present Attorney General brought forward a Motion to the same effect as the present Bill; and, in proposing that Motion, he said that—
    "Continuous sittings in the great centres of industry were the only remedy for the present state of things."
    The evil had been admitted again and again by the Attorney General, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now, he believed, on the part of the Government, by the Lord Chancellor. But its supporters were met by the old cry—"Put it off till a more convenient season." They were told that the Treasury had great difficulty in finding the money; but they believed that that was a difficulty more imaginary than real; for, if he was correctly informed, the fees of the suitors would more than compensate for any addition to the number of Judges. The Attorney General said, last night, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that he admitted that there was a great hardship in Admiralty cases, and that there was no provision whatever with regard to them at Liverpool. Now, what was the provision that they were told was to be given to them? They were told that there was to be in future three Assizes; but he would point out to the Government that it was the recommendation of the Commission that there should be four Assizes to deal with civil causes. He understood that the Attorney General's present idea was to give them three for civil causes and an additional one for criminal business. But even if that was the case, it was really not sufficient to meet the emergencies of business. To give an idea of the causes which arose in connection with Liverpool and Manchester, he might say that last year, at Liverpool Assizes, there were 252 causes actually tried. Besides

    1839
    that, there were 150 Liverpool causes tried in London, owing to the present system of non-continuons sittings; while in the Chancery Division in London there were Liverpool causes to the number of 300, making a total of 702. In Manchester, last year, 203 causes were entered for trial at the Assizes; 150 Manchester causes were tried in London, which otherwise would have been tried at Manchester; and there were no fewer than 487 causes in Chancery which ought to have been tried at Manchester, but which were tried in London; making a total of 840. No provision whatever, he understood, was made for any but civil causes; no provision was to be made for Chancery causes. [Mr. COURTNEY: Oh, yes; there is.] He was misinformed if that was so. He admitted that they had a very eminent Judge in the Chancery Court of Lancashire; but unfortunately, as the House would see from the number of Chancery causes he had quoted as having been transferred to London, they could not avail themselves of that Court to the extent that they desired, because its jurisdiction was confined to the county of Lancaster. There was not the slightest provision made in the Rules of the Judges for the trial of Admiralty causes; but they were to go on in the old fashion of bringing up the witnesses to London at immense expense, and often with great detriment to the cause itself. Their opponents were certainly neither the commercial world nor the suitors, and he believed nine-tenths of the House would say that the case for the Bill was irresistible. He felt that the Judges did the best they could with the time at their disposal; but there were difficulties in the way. They asked, however, that the Treasury should not stand in their way, and that the number of Judges should be increased, especially the number of eminent Judges, to deal with Probate cases. They felt that, in the interest of suitors, such an arrangement was absolutely necessary, and that it was not right that they should again and again be told that the Treasury could not pay, or that the convenience of Her Majesty's Judges should stand in the way. They were told that they were opposed by a section of the Bar. He should be very sorry to find that was the case. He looked upon the Bar as a highly honourable class of
    1840
    men; and while it might be objected by some members of the Bar that it would do away with the old Circuit system, to which they had been accustomed, and cause some inconvenience to them, they would be the first to admit that it should not stand in the way of a Bill which would bring so much advantage to those whose interests were committed to them. He therefore appealed to the members of the Bar to meet the unanimous wish of the commercial community and of the legal bodies throughout the country. He was sure that the proposals of the Bill would in the end be as beneficial to the Bar as to the other classes of the community. At the same time, he had always felt that, if necessary, the interests of any one class must be sacrificed for the general good, and there was no doubt it must be so in some cases; but he did not think that the Bar would contend that their private interests should stand in the way of a great public good. There was not a Member connected with the county of Lancaster who would not speak in the strongest terms as to the way in which this Bill had been urged upon them by their constituents. The support came not from one quarter, but from every quarter. As he had already said, the Attorney General and the Home Secretary had spoken in favour of the principle of the Bill; and he was sure the President of the Board of Trade would, if he had been present, have said that Birmingham had spoken in the strongest way in its favour. He therefore asked the House to assent to the second reading. He would be quite willing to leave the Bill in the hands of the Government for further consideration, and he did not want—particularly at the present time —to unduly press it. But he did ask the House to affirm the principle contained in the Bill—a Bill to which the commercial communities had been looking forward to with the greatest anxiety; and he was sure that the House by supporting the Bill would gain the gratitude of the commercial classes of this country—the classes to whom the prosperity of the country was greatly owing.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in seconding the Motion, acknowledged the great readiness which the Government had shown to make an advance in the direction of the demands which were uni-

    1841
    versally pressed by the Representatives from Lancashire. By pressure which was brought to bear upon the Government by a deputation which waited on the Lord Chancellor they had succeeded in obtaining what he could not but regard as an important step in the direction of their demands, and the desire shown by the Government to consider the object of this Bill was an encouragement to go on. In agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, he did not urge every provision in this Bill so much as he wished to press for still further efforts on the part of the Government to meet the wishes of the great commercial communities. He moved last year for a Return of the surplus of suitors' fees derived from Courts in Salford Hundred and other parts of Lancashire; and the Solicitor General would see from that Return that it supplied him with a sufficient rejoinder to any who were disposed to remark that the adoption of the object of this Bill would entail large cost upon the Treasury. He thought, too, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that there had been a disposition to centralize the administration of our law far more than in any other country, and possibly more than was for the advantage of this country. They were all proud of the conglomeration of population which was called London; but no one could forget that in Lancashire alone there was a population equal to that within the Metropolitan area, and it was not wise or just to demand that population should at all times resort to London for the administration of justice. With regard to the Admiralty causes, there was some force in the objection that might be raised as to the desirability of keeping the Admiralty jurisdiction as far as possible on one line, if not in the same hands, because the administration of justice in the Court of Admiralty was naturally very technical. In the reply which the Attorney General made to him on the 16th June, he said he intended to make considerable change in the Assize arrangements of the county of Lancaster, and that announcement was generally received with satisfaction in the county. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman announced that there would be one Equity Judge sitting in Manchester for dealing with Chancery cases; but the remark on that point was not very
    1842
    precise, and possibly the Attorney General might be able to give a more certain statement as to what would be done in that direction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Whitey.)
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He did not object to the Bill as a member of the Legal Profession, but as a Member for a Welsh constituency, and that because it proposed to absorb either the whole or a portion of North Wales in the Liverpool scheme. That was a proposal to which the people of North Wales, or the larger proportion of them, strongly objected; and he believed that it would be equally objected to by the great county of Chester, which it was proposed to include within it. He thought that any scheme for altering the method of the administration of justice should be undertaken by the Government—for it was impossible for any private Member to carry out a scheme calculated to affect the country at large. This scheme was evidently brought forward in the interests of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham being added just to strengthen the case of Liverpool. He did not object to any extension of judicial power as far as Liverpool, or Manchester, or Birmingham were concerned; but he did object to this piecemeal attempt to deal with the matter. The Circuit system had worked well hitherto. Whether there was some change desired in the system he did not at that time propose to inquire; but there was less necessity for local centres than there was before the development of railways. The Bill proposed to establish Courts at Liverpool, which were to be independent of London, except so far as the right of appeal was concerned; but they ought to consider what was to happen to the rest of the country. It was clear that the people of North Wales would have to go to Liverpool to get justice, and if they did not choose to go to Liverpool for it they would have to do without it; and the Bill, therefore, seemed to have been drawn utterly regardless of the convenience of the people of North Wales. If they were to have continuous sittings at Liverpool, there ought to be a reconstruction of the whole Circuit system.

    1843
    But whatever might be said with regard to an alteration of the present system, the Bill seemed to him so thoroughly objectionable that it would not be safe even to read it a second time; and he did not think it could be so amended in Committee as to be made a satisfactory measure.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. WESTsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the ground that he had had a longer experience of the working of the administration of justice in Lancashire than most people in the House. He had often remarked that Lancashire was the most long-suffering-population he knew in the whole Kingdom with regard to the administration of the law. He had frequently remarked from the Bench and elsewhere that they had for many years put up with a system which was not at all adequate to the demands of a population so large, so wealthy—he would not say so litigious; but a population which liked to settle their matters in dispute in Courts of Law quite as well as any other part of the country. His hon. Friend who last spoke had used an argument which he thought was a very good one, when he said a magnificent and entire scheme for a more satisfactory administration of the law all over the country would be better than this Bill. He quite agreed with him in that; but if Lancashire had to wait until such a scheme were prepared, it might have to wait many years. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) said the people of Lancashire were grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the way in which they had taken in hand proposals for giving greater facilities for the administration of justice. He would like to point out what were the great advantages for which the hon. Member for Salford was so grateful. Lancashire had for a considerable time complained that it had only four Assizes in the course of the year, and that the time allowed at these Assizes was not sufficient.
    1844
    He (Mr. West) did not agree with many persons who said that those times were altogether inadequate. They were very inadequate at times; but that was not the normal condition of affairs. Two years ago the time allowed was perfectly inadequate. He hardly liked to say the time was scandalously insufficient; but his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell), who had more business there than he had, would remember that the actual number of oases tried in Court did not equal the number of remanets when the Judges left Manchester. At Manchester and Liverpool there were four Assizes a-year; but it was now proposed that instead of four there should in future be only three Assizes; and it might be assumed that the sittings of the Court would be more protracted; but instead of being longer the sittings were to be shorter.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): No; that is not so.
    MR. WEST: His hon. and learned Friend said they were not; he would therefore give the dates according to the scale published in the Schedule of the Order in Council. His experience was a good deal older than that of the Solicitor General, and he had known in times long gone by the sittings extended by the Judges returning to an Assize town after they had finished the work elsewhere. The dates which had been fixed were—Manchester, October 25; Liverpool, November 5. That was only eleven days, although the usual time had been a fortnight. There were to be no Winter Assizes, and persons who would otherwise have had their cases tried in January would now have to wait to the Assizes which commenced on February 15th and extended to March 1st. The April Assizes were to be done away with, and in its place there was to be a sitting on the 15th of June, the 26th of June being fixed for Liverpool Assizes. This was the great change for which the hon. Member for Salford was so grateful. He thought he could remedy the present evil in a very simple and effectual way; but he would not at present detain the House with his plan. He was opposed to continuous sittings, for which he did not believe there was sufficient business in Lancashire whatever local practitioners might think. But when he knew what was the scheme

    1845
    which the Government had offered to Lancashire in exchange for the proposal of continuous sittings, he considered it a mockery. The scheme of the Government was utterly destructive of the interests of the Bar. Gentlemen would be taken from London in the midst of the most pressing times of business to go to Lancashire. As the only alternative to such a proposal as that proposed by the Government, he would give his hearty support to the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. West) had rather been in condemnation of the scheme of the Judges and the Lord Chancellor for the re-arrangement of the Circuits than a speech in support of the Bill. Now, it was inconvenient to discuss a scheme that was not before the House. He agreed with the remark made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitley), that neither the interests of the Bar nor the interests of any class should stand in the way of necessary change in the interest of the public convenience; but first there must be a demonstrated necessity for the change, and it must be shown that the proposed remedy was efficient. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not say the present arrangements in Manchester and Liverpool were adequate and satisfactory, He did not think they were adequate or satisfactory. He did not think the new scheme of the Lord Chancellor met at all the needs of the case; but he thought, at any rate, it would serve as some means of testing the reliability of the figures which the hon. Member for Liverpool had put before the House, and of testing more accurately the extent of the evil which existed and the necessity for dealing with it, and whether the measure now before them was adequate. The figures of the hon. Member did not fairly represent the case—they were vitiated by the assumption that the Admiralty, Chancery, and Probate cases which were now heard in London would hereafter be heard at Liverpool and Manchester. He grouped together a number of cases tried at Manchester and Liverpool respectively, to which he added the number of cases emanating from Manchester and Liverpool, and tried in London. He proceeded, without any sort of classification of these cases, on the assumption that if
    1846
    there were continuous sittings in Manchester and Liverpool all these cases would be tried there; but a closer examination of the various categories of cases showed that very many of them would still be tried with greater convenience and advantage in London, and not in Manchester and Liverpool. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) had objected to the Government scheme on the ground that it did not give longer, but shorter, sittings of the Judges in Manchester and Liverpool; but, as he understood, the Judges would be not only empowered, but enjoined, to continue their sittings until they had finished the cause lists, going back to Manchester, if necessary, after the Liverpool business had been finished. He was not prepared to say that this scheme was adequate to the needs of the case; but he thought if put in force it would serve as some means of testing more accurately the extent of the existing evil, and of providing a means of remedying it. As to the scheme proposed in the Bill, there were some difficulties which the promoters had not faced. The Bill started with the initial and insuperable difficulty that it did not ask for an increase of Judges who should devote their time to dealing with the litigation which arose in Manchester and Liverpool; but it proposed that the Judges who were to hold almost continuous sittings should be selected from the existing Judges. Was it to be supposed, in the face of the statements made by the Lord Chancellor again and again, that Judges could be spared from London and the other Circuits to go on those sittings? He thought it was perfectly clear that they could not, and it was quite obvious that no practical effect could be given to that scheme at all, unless there was a provision for additional Judges to serve. That being so, the question arose, If the Bill passed would it meet the needs of the case? He thought it would not; and, in his opinion, the case of Lancashire, of Birmingham, Leeds, and Newcastle—in fact, of all the great centres—needed a consideration which they had hitherto failed to attain. He thought the Bill was crude and imperfect, and that it did not provide a remedy for the evils which existed, though he thought these evils had been exaggerated, and therefore he thought it was unworthy the acceptance of the House.
    MR. GREGORYwas of opinion that the Bill as it stood would lead to a considerable waste of valuable judicial power. The proposal to make these Courts hold continuous sittings during the whole period when the High Court was sitting was a great waste of power; and he thought it would be much more advantageous that an Order in Council should be passed directing that the Judges should sit in these towns as long as there was any business to bring before them. He did not think there would be the amount of business which his hon. Friend anticipated. He did not think his hon. Friend had a right to assume that all the local cases which were now tried in London would under his Bill be tried in their respective localities. On the contrary, there would be found to be many reasons why certain cases should be tried in London. He appreciated the efforts of his hon. Friend in endeavouring to meet existing evils in the Bill; but he must protest against the waste of judicial power which it entailed.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the object of the Bill was one in which he was interested as representing a borough in Lancashire (Preston). He should say nothing about the part of the Bill which dealt with the Queen's Bench Division, as he had had little experience of that branch of the Judicature. He had had some experience, however, of the working of the Chancery Courts, particularly of the Chancery Court of the County Palatine, which was at present in full vigour, notwithstanding that, as at present constituted, it did not meet all the wants of the district. He should support the second reading, in order to express his sense of the insufficiency of' the mode proposed the other clay by the Attorney General of dealing with trials in the County Palatine of Lancaster. He believed that the proper system of dealing with the cases which would come properly before the Chancery Division would be to take the County Palatine Court as the model, and extend it so as to make it a branch of the High Court, and then in other parts of the country establish tribunals of a similar kind. He would let the Judges have London and also district sittings, and in that way a great deal of the existing evil might be met. That, or some such arrangement as that, was, he believed, the only one which would meet the
    1848
    wants of the Chancery Division in Lancashire. He would not go into the other branches of the Judicature with which he was less acquainted; but the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), he thought, inadequately appreciated the necessity of sittings of the Admiralty Court. Perhaps that might be owing to the fact that Manchester was not yet a seaport, and that his attention had not been directed to the subject. He considered that a provision for the trial of causes in the Admiralty Division was quite as much a necessity as for Courts of Chancery. He should give his support to the Bill, which, however, he thought required amendment in many details.
    MR. MUNTZsupported the Bill on the ground of the expediency of having local tribunals at which causes arising in the districts could be conveniently heard; and he would point to the hardships felt by the people of Birmingham in having to go to Warwick, 20 miles away, to try the most miserable causes. There could be no harm in passing the second rending of the Bill as proof of the earnestness of the demand for reform.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill very deeply interested the constituency which he represented (South-West Lancashire), and it had fallen to his lot to introduce a deputation from Manchester and Liverpool to the Lord Chancellor in favour of continuous sittings in those towns. The Lord Chancellor and the other authorities received them very kindly, and listened to all that was said, but, at the same time, intimated that the demand could not be acceded to. Now, it appeared, the Government were going to reduce the number of Civil Assizes from four to three; and, at the same time, as far as Manchester was concerned, they were going to shorten the time during which these sittings would be held. He had himself once or twice put Questions to the Attorney General on the subject of advancing the Admiralty and Probate causes which were for hearing in the district; but the Attorney General, in reply, though he hoped something might be done, had always said he did not think a Judge could be spared from London for that purpose. He contended that it would be an enormous advantage for a Judge to go there and try the

    1849
    cases as long as they came up. It was one of the matters which had been most strongly pressed on him by the magistrates of the County of Lancaster, and he believed every Member for that county would tell the same tale. He was quite aware of the objections raised to the present proposal. In the first place, it was said there was the scheme brought forward by the Government; but he contended that that scheme being incomplete, the hon. Member for Liverpool had no course to pursue but to bring forward his Bill. Then it was said they should wait for the whole scheme of the Government; but while they were doing so they would have no scheme at all. Again, when they were dealing with a Profession like the Bar, they must remember that nothing could be more inconvenient for suitors than to make such regulations as would prevent them, from selecting the most able counsel. He was bound to say they would have a Bar at Liverpool and Manchester; but all the leaders of the Bar must necessarily be in London, and nothing could be more unfortunate for the suitor.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HEKSCHELL)said, it must be remembered that the question with which they were dealing was not a new one, and had not arisen only since the present Government came into power. He remembered a discussion on the question some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down held a position in the Government; and he had no doubt that if he considered it a subject to be dealt with he and those associated with him would have dealt with it. But the right hon. Gentleman and those who were associated with him considered it a matter not easily to be dealt with; and, considering the fact that the matter had not been dealt with since, he thought that circumstance might be accepted as evidence that the question was not one to be disposed of readily. They must be careful that in trying to do away with one evil they did not get another. No doubt in a certain sense they were all agreed that hitherto the provision made for the administration of justice in Lancashire and in other populous parts of the country had been inadequate. That fact, he believed, was not contested, and that difficulty was proposed to be dealt with in this Bill,
    1850
    and it proposed to deal with it in a particular way. His objection was not to dealing with the evil, but to the manner of dealing with it. The Bill proposed to have a Judge at Liverpool to sit the whole legal year there, the same thing to be done in Manchester, and the same thing in Birmingham. If that were done, he was of opinion that they would do a great deal more than was necessary in those centres, and it would be to the prejudice of London and the rest of the country. There was not, as far as experience went, sufficient work to keep a Judge at work in each of those centres the whole of the year. The experience of Birmingham was that there was not sufficient business to keep a Judge at work except for comparatively a small part of the legal year. The proposal of the Bill was not merely that further provision should be made for those three centres; but that provision amounted to the necessity of a Judge sitting in each of them throughout the entire year. But this was more than was necessary for each of these places; and if it were sanctioned it would be to the public detriment, for Judges would have to be taken from places where they were wanted. There were, however, some extraordinary omissions from the Bill. By the Bill, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham were to have Judges; but Yorkshire, for some inscrutable reason, was altogether left out in the cold. He should have thought Yorkshire at least should be included, as the business at Leeds, Sheffield, and York far exceeded that in the neighbourhood of Warwickshire. If the House agreed to this Bill, of course they must not stop at its proposals, and the whole country would have to be carved out into districts for the administration of justice, and that was one of his objections to the Bill. If the scheme was to be absolutely to localize the administration of justice, and to carve out the country, he would point out the difficulties that would arise. When they had all the parties to a cause, the witnesses and the solicitors residing in the same place, it would be convenient to try the cause there; but where they had some of the parties and some of the witnesses at Liverpool, and others at other places, it was not cheaper to try in Liverpool than in London; and if they had district centres, with Judges going there at a particular

    1851
    time, where they had not sufficient business to occupy a Judge the whole time, then, they would only come to a modification of the Circuit system. He would remind the hon. Gentleman of the subject of the expenses of litigation. Where they had to take counsel down from London to places where the Judge held continuous sitting, the expenses would be largely increased. Litigants might be wise, or they might be foolish; but they would take counsel down from London. It was thought when they localized the trial of Election Petitions they would make the expenses of the litigation much cheaper than when they were tried in London. Experience had proved that it was more expensive, for the simple reason that they would take special counsel down and give them a large fee, and also that, having the witnesses on the spot, they were not careful in their selection of evidence, but summoned all manner of people. They must look at both sides of the question. If they had those continuous sittings instead of sittings at particular times they would have local Bars and nothing but local Bars. There were, no doubt, men of ability and experience at those local Bars; but the advantage of the present system was that the learned gentlemen went Circuit, and the suitors got the very best advocacy a man could have for a moderate fee. That was one of the advantages of the Circuit system, not to the Bar, but to the suitor. It could not be of advantage that only the rich should get the most able counsel. The present was not a question for the Bar, but for the suitor. He approved of the principle that there should be greater facilities for the local administration of justice in these great centres. Having pointed out that the Bill went, as he considered, beyond what was necessary, he would call attention to what it was proposed to do. One great complaint undoubtedly was not only that the Judges did not come often enough, but that, when they did come, the time was so short that the causes were to some extent scamped; or that when it was felt that cases could not be properly tried on a Circuit, they were made remanets. Efforts had been made to remedy that complaint. The essential object was that where cases were set down to be tried at a particular place they should be fully and fairly tried out
    1852
    at those sittings; and when the difficulty arose, assistance should be sent in the shape of an additional Judge from London. Another part of the scheme was that a Judge should not be more than 35 days away from London on Circuit. Like other people the Judges liked their homes, and there had been a tendency to bring business to an end in order to shorten their stay at a particular place. Feeling that more than 35 days was too long to be on Circuit, and that cases set down for certain sittings should be finished at those sittings, another Judge was, if the Judge on Circuit desired it, to be sent down at the end of that time. Attention had been called to the particular days having been fixed. This was done subject to variation, according to the requirements of business, and not as setting a hard-and-fast line. The scheme would no doubt need considerable alteration, and they must see how it would work in judicial economy before fixing on a final scheme. The present system was tentative merely. With regard to the Assizes, Government had the desire to meet the difficulties which had been suggested; but there had been another concession to meet the view of gentlemen from Liverpool, who said it was not Common Law business, but the Chancery business that they were concerned with, where all the parties and the witnesses were brought up to London. He believed that to be a great and serious evil, and they had endeavoured and intended to meet it. Where the cause of action arose in Liverpool or in Manchester, and all the parties and witnesses were resident there, the case could now be heard there; but there were cases where all the parties did not live there, but where that was the most convenient place of trial, and for this purpose there were to be sittings at Manchester and Liverpool. That was doing something to meet some of the grievances. The only other matter was the trial of Admiralty cases. They could not have a sitting for a definite time for the Admiralty causes, because some of the witnesses would always be absent at different places, and if the cause were not heard immediately, there would be difficulty in collecting them at any one time. It was only when both vessels belonged to Liverpool that it would be necessary or desirable to try in Liverpool; but when one vessel be-

    1853
    longed to London and the other to Liverpool, it would be of advantage to try in London. He thought it would be an immense advantage to the public to have the same Judge, in order that there might be a definite course of decision. If they used Judges who did not know much about the subject, there would be a danger of a difference of idea as to what ought to be done under different circumstances. The very best possible thing they could have was that those who were navigating vessels should know what was the mind of those who dealt with those cases. While sympathizing with the objects of the hon. Gentleman, he could not assent to the second reading of the Bill until the efforts of the Government in the same direction had received a fair trial, and had proved inadequate to meet the requirements of justice.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was sure that he was only repeating the sense of the legal mind of Liverpool and Manchester when he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) for the very courteous and considerate manner in which he had received the proposals of his hon. Friend. There was no doubt that, though he had been unable to accept the Bill or the principle it involved, at the same time, he had given them an assurance of the most important character—namely, that the proposals contained in the Judicature Bill were only tentative in character in regard to Manchester and Liverpool, and that the Government would be ready to entertain the consideration of further Amendments. After such an assurance, he thought it might be doubtful whether his hon. Friend would be wise in pressing on the second reading, as he thought that Her Majesty's Government had gone a long way in endeavouring to meet the objections which the people of Manchester and Liverpool obviously entertained as to the present system of administration of justice in those cities. Although his name was on the back of the Bill, he should advise his hon. Friend not to press it to the second reading, but rest content with the assurance of the Government. Should, however, his hon. Friend deem it right to go to a Division, he would, of course, support him; but he thought it might probably be better, under the circumstances, not to press for a Division.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he would venture to add his appeal to that of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton). If they were recasting the whole judicial system of the country, he should not find much objection to take to the views of the hon. Member as embodied in the Bill before the House, nor was he prepared to say that they were not ideally and theoretically perfect. But to ask the House to reconstruct the whole administration of justice to meet the grievances of one or two places was rather a large proposal. If the Government had not shown a real desire to remedy the grievances which the Bill was designed to meet, he should vote for the second reading. As it was, however, he thought the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would best serve the cause which he represented by refraining from dividing the House.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was sorry that he could not see his way to accede to the appeal of his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton). He wanted to place on record that the present commercial centres were not satisfied wtth the present arrangements for conducting the legal business of those districts, and to strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with the question. Whilst acknowledging to the full the courtesy with which the Bill had been received by the Government and by all quarters of the House, yet he was compelled to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill; and then he would leave it in the hands of the Government, for them to do what they liked with it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, whilst the Government were spending money in all directions, they objected to spending a paltry £15,000 or £20,000 in improving the administration of justice. He could not trust the assurances of the Government, because they shut their eyes and ears to the real state of the case. No mere shuffling of the cards—no mere alteration of the Circuits — would do. What was wanted was more Judges.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 64: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to,
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

MOTION.

  EAST INDIAN UNCLAIMED STOCKS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KYNASTON CROSS, Bill for making provision for the transfer to the Secretary of State in Council of India of unclaimed Indian Stocks and Dividends, and for amending the East Indian Railway Company Purchase Act, 1879, and the East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) Act, 1881; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KYNASTON CROSS and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 269.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.