Sitting of 19 February 1892

PETITION.

  THE OPIUM TRADE.
  MR. MARK STEWARTI have to present a spontaneous Petition, signed by 22,000 inhabitants of India and Burmah, against the opium trade in India, and I request that the prayer of the Petitioners may be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  Petition presented, and read by the Clerk.
  MR. MAC NEILLI beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, can this Petition be placed on the Minutes of

  811
  the House, and appear as part of our proceedings?
  MR. SPEAKERIt will be treated as Petitions are treated—in the ordinary way.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  COUNTY COURT JUDGES IN WALES.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI rise, Sir, to call attention to the recent appointment of a County Court Judge in Wales, and to move—
    "That this House, in the interests of the due administration of justice, and in face of the Resolution of this House of the 8th March, 1872, regrets the appointment to the judgeship of a County Court District in which the Welsh language is generally spoken, of a gentleman who is unable to speak or understand that language."
    828
    In submitting this Resolution to the House I wish at the outset to disclaim any personal feeling and any desire to make any personal attack upon the gentleman who has been fortunate in securing this appointment. I have some experience of the courtesy with which he treats professional men and suitors; that disarms opposition on this head. It is only as a matter of duty that I have brought this Resolution before the House, and I think we are justified in asking from the Minister responsible some explanation for the perpetration of what appears uncommonly like a job. The great majority of the people of the district over which this Judge has control—the well-to-do classes, the squirearchy and the tradesmen—understand the English language, but the poorer classes have not sufficient practical acquaintance with it to enable them to conduct their affairs with anything like precision in the County Court, which is pre-eminently a Court of the poor. The artisans, the quarrymen, and the agricultural labourers transact all their business in the Welsh language, and it is a monstrous injustice that to a district in which the vast majority of the people speak nothing but Welsh, a Judge should be appointed to determine their differences who does not understand the language in which they plead their causes. It may, of course, be said that competent interpreters are appointed in these Courts, and I have no desire to say anything derogatory of these gentlemen, but as a rule they are professional men, who are better acquainted with the English than with the Welsh language, and they very often fail thoroughly to understand either the answers or the questions. In Carnarvon and in Bangor the gentlemen who act as interpreters have great knowledge of the language and great literary gifts; but, Sir, it is impossible for an interpreter, however skilful, to convey to the Court all the shades and differences of meaning in a witness's answers. In cases where words are used which have a double meaning the interpreter is really the Judge. In 1872, on the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), the House passed a Resolution to the effect—

    829
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interest of the due administration of justice, that the Judge of a County Court District in which the Welsh language is generally spoken should, so far as the limits of selection will allow, be able to speak and understand that language."
    Now, here is a Judge recently appointed to a Welsh-speaking district, and it is not pretended that he has any knowledge whatever of the Welsh language, although there were at least half-a-dozen barristers qualified by their knowledge of the language amongst the applicants for this judgeship. The opinion of all classes throughout Wales is hostile to this appointment. Not merely Welsh Liberals deprecate it, but gentlemen who have no sympathy with the views of those sitting on this side of the House condemn it. Sir John Treleaven, the Bishop of Bangor, Dean Vaughan—men who do not hold strong political views—are agreed in condemning the action of the Government. In University and in legal circles the appointment is condemned. The Law Times says:—
    "Lord Halsbury has appointed his brothers, his wife's relations, his friends' friends, and, occasionally those who have done service to the Party; but it never seems to have occurred to him to be necessary that a man should be a good lawyer, and have some experience at the Bar in order to be a good Judge."
    Similar opinions have been expressed by other legal authorities, but I rest my case upon the Resolution of the House of Lords, and I think appointments of this character, in defiance of the express order of the House of Commons, really amounts to contempt. I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, in the interests of the due administration of justice, and in face of the Resolution of this House of 8th March 1872, regrets the appointment to the judgeship of a County Court District in which the Welsh language is generally spoken, of a gentleman who is unable to speak or understand that language,"—
    (Mr. Lloyd-George,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
    MR. DAVID THOMASI desire, Sir, to second the
    830
    Motion, and I do so on precisely similar grounds to those upon which my hon. Friend based his case. I am sorry it should be necessary to dispel certain illusions which have taken hold of the mind of the people in England. It is suggested again that we are once more raising the cry of "Wales for the Welsh," and that we are endeavouring to foster the Welsh language. For my own part, I desire explicitly to repudiate that suggestion. We have no desire to raise any such cry, for that would imply a confession of our inability to compete with Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen upon equal grounds. Nor have we any desire to stimulate the Welsh language by artificial means. The Welsh language is very well able to take care of itself. But, Sir, what I wish to point out to the House is this: that the Resolution passed in 1872 refers particularly to this district to which Judge Beresford has been appointed, a district which forms one of the most Welsh parts of Wales. I do not know what the defence of the Government may be, or if they will set up any at all, but it has occurred to me that possibly this appointment was due to an oversight on their part. If they defend themselves by saying this is not a Welsh-speaking district, I would remind them that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire raised the question in 1872 in relation to this very circuit to which Judge Beresford has been appointed. A larger number of people speak Welsh to-day than was the case in 1872, though I do not say that the proportion is larger; but, in consequence of the increase in population, the actual number is greater now than in 1872. The present Government has repeatedly recognised the necessity for appointing Welsh-speaking officials. That was done, for example, in the Factory Act and in the Mines Regulation Act. I have nothing to say against Judge Beresford. I have always heard him spoken of as an extremely fair-minded man, and until to-day I knew nothing about his connection with the Prime Minister. Upon his legal qualifications I do not feel competent to express any opinion, but I do say that the appointment of an English-speaking Judge to a Welsh-speaking district,

    831
    in the face of the Resolution of 1872, is more or less a reflection on the Welsh-speaking barristers of the North and South Wales Circuits, and on the Welsh Stipendiary Magistrates, who are of sufficient standing for the post of County Court Judge. Selections from the Stipendiary Magistrates have already been made, as in the case of Judge Bishop and Judge Gwilym Williams. If the Government are prepared to defend the appointment, I hope the House will not hesitate to express its strong condemnation of the contempt shown by the Government for the Resolution passed in 1872. That Resolution requires not merely that ceteris paribus preference should be given to Welsh-speaking barristers, but that a Welsh-speaking barrister shall be appointed to the Mid Wales Circuit if a competent man can be found.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALI can assure the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment that I sympathise to a very great extent with what I may call the national sentiment to which they have referred in many of the observations they have made. I have not the slightest intention of saying a word in depreciation of the Welsh language, with which, unfortunately, I am not acquainted. But I confess that as this Amendment has been moved and seconded in language which suggests that a contempt of the Resolution of the House of Commons has been committed, I think it is desirable that the House should have a few facts, and should know a little more about the history of this matter. If what the hon. Gentlemen allege is a contempt of the House of Commons it is a contempt of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and many other right hon. Gentlemen who acted when the Resolution was much more recent than it is at the present time, have also been guilty. I am not going to draw distinctions between the barristers who could and who could not speak Welsh, because I have, in my present position, the privilege of knowing a great deal of the members of my profession, and I will assume the Mover and the Seconder
    832
    of this Amendment said what was perfectly right when they said that there were gentlemen at the Bar who do possess a knowledge of Welsh, and who would be well qualified to discharge the duties of a County Court Judge. But having regard to the history of this Resolution and what has happened since, I would submit to those who proposed this Amendment, that in their somewhat severe strictures upon Her Majesty's Government they rather overshot the mark. The Resolution that was passed in 1872 was passed upon a question that referred to this particular Circuit—the Mid Wales Circuit. The first appointment made after the Resolution of 1872 was in October, 1874, when one of the most honoured of the County Court Judges was appointed, and I am quite sure that than Mr. (afterwards Sir) Horatio Lloyd, there never was a more competent man who sat upon the Bench. I believe that Sir Horatio Lloyd was not able to speak Welsh, and was not able to do more than understand a very little of it. He was appointed on his merits. I know Sir Horatio Lloyd has constantly been in Welsh-speaking districts, and I am not aware of a single complaint ever having been made against him based upon the fact that he was not able to speak the Welsh language. The next appointment that was made was in January, 1878, and it was that of a very distinguished lawyer, the father of the gentleman whose name has given rise to this Amendment. I knew him intimately; and though he did not wear a silk gown, there was no more distinguished lawyer. He was constantly consulted, as I know, in cases of great importance. Parts of the circuit over which Judge Beresford presided were most unquestionably in the Welsh-speaking districts. He was there for 13 years. Mr. Beresford presided with great satisfaction over his Court for all these years. (Cries of ?No, no.") Hon. Members opposite must pardon me for saying that I speak with an intimate knowledge of the profession, and I am not aware of any suggestion ever made that he was not one of the most distinguished and competent of our County Court Judges. The next appointment was in February, 1884,

    833
    at the time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was Home Secretary, and Lord Selborne was Lord Chancellor. At that time the Resolution of the House of Commons was well known. Yet who was appointed? Why, Mr. Owen to Brecknockshire and Glamorganshire, and he had no qualification whatever as to speaking Welsh. I will not argue the merits of the case; but we know that the Government, which had as a Member of it one who is as much a Welshman as my right hon. Friend opposite, made appointments inconsistent with this Resolution. It seems to me to be very strong to speak of action taken some seven years later as being in contempt of that Resolution. In October, 1884, Mr. G. Williams was appointed by the then Lord Chancellor to the Circuit also including Brecknock and parts of Glamorganshire. In January, 1886, Mr. Bishop was appointed and I call the attention of the House to the fact that the Lord Chancellor, who is said to be contemptuous of the Resolution, so appointed a gentleman who did speak the Welsh language. In July, 1885, just after our coming into office, Mr. Brymnor Jones was appointed. He also is able to speak Welsh, although he is now a distinguished County Court Judge in districts where Welsh speaking is not required. I desire, further, to point out that Her Majesty's Government, when they have had to decide these questions mainly on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, have made more appointments of Welsh-speaking Judges than the Government of the right hon. Member for Midlothian. I am not here to say that his Honour, Judge Beresford, is a better lawyer, or better qualified to sit as a County Court Judge, than other members of the Bar of that Circuit. In fact, I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Carnarvon limit the number of other gentlemen equally well qualified to six. The circumstances affecting Mr. Beresford were certainly unusual. His father was a County Court Judge for 13 years in the adjoining district, Circuit 31. He had not been in good health during his later years, and Mr.
    834
    Cecil Beresford had sat for him repeatedly. I am doing no more than justice when I state that while so sitting as a Deputy Judge he gave universal satisfaction, and I do not believe that any professional Member of this House, who ever practised before him, will say anything to the contrary. And that is not all. There came from the district in which he had sat as a Judge—a district in which, according to the contention of the hon. Mover and Seconder of this Motion, a Welsh-speaking Judge was required—a very largely signed Petition asking for his appointment. I do not suppose the gentlemen who presented that Petition were indifferent to the consideration as to a Welsh-speaking Judge, and I dare say they were ignorant of the Resolution of the House of Commons, which had been disregarded on five or six occasions before. But Mr. Beresford was appointed accordingly. His Honor Judge Bishop, who was then Judge of Circuit No. 28, Mid-Wales, was transferred to the Circuit over which the late Judge Beresford had presided, and Mr. Beresford was appointed to No. 28. I have taken some pains to inform myself as to what has happened during the time Mr. Beresford has been sitting as Judge, and it is no exaggeration to say that when the question arose of his removal to another place, persons of all parties and all sections of the Press, without regard to politics, expressed a hope that he would not be removed. I think it is only common fairness to an absent Member of the Government to ask hon. Members to come to the conclusion that he fairly considered this point on its merits, especially as he had himself on two previous occasions appointed a gentleman who could speak Welsh, and I would suggest to this House that the idea of a contemptuous intention to disregard the Resolution of 1872 is an exaggeration. I do not wish to argue at any length the question of the necessity of appointing Welsh-speaking Judges. I am not going to suggest that it should not be taken into consideration; but I do know this, from barristers practising in these Courts, that repeatedly witnesses who are examined in Welsh answer in English, and also ask that questions

    835
    may be put in English. I am not suggesting that there are no cases at times when knowledge of the language would be desirable, but I am referring to the general practice. I believe that for many years past every child in Wales has been taught English as well as Welsh. It is an honour to the Welsh nation that that should be so; but so far as this demand is concerned, it has been certainly decreasing in importance from 1872 down to 1891. I hope I have shown no feeling but one of sympathy with the national sentiment of Wales, for I have not the slightest intention of going in face of the Resolution of the House of Commons, or outraging the feelings of hon. Members from Wales; and I trust that those who may follow me will deal with my remarks in the same spirit as that in which I have addressed them in this House.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGANI must say I am very much disappointed with the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has offered. The only defence he has set up for the Government of which he is a Member is, that other Governments have done the same thing; but even if that were so, two blacks do not make a white. I do not regard this as in any way a Party question, and therefore I shall put aside all he has said on that subject. Now what are the facts? Mr. Horatio Lloyd, who, I believe, was appointed under the Government of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, does not speak the Welsh language; but, if my memory serves me, he told me on the occasion of his appointment that he was able to understand what Welsh witnesses said, and to check any mistakes they made. In February, 1884, Mr. Gwyn-Owen was appointed to the post, and I should have supposed that anyone bearing that name would speak Welsh. He was very soon after transferred to another post, and Mr. Gwilym Williams, one of the best Welsh scholars, I know, was appointed to it. From that time every County Court Judge who has held that post has been perfectly competent to deal with Welsh witnesses, and to speak and understand the language. The Attorney General says that he does not wish to
    836
    argue the question of appointing Welsh-speaking Judges in Welsh-speaking districts, and I am not surprised, because the question is concluded by the Resolution of the House of Commons, which, if it means anything, means that if you can get a competent man who speaks the Welsh language, he should be appointed. The Resolution which I had the honour of bringing forward, and I am sorry to say I believe I am the only Member now left in the House of Commons who took part in the Debate on that occasion, dealt with the very circuit with which we are now dealing, and there never was a question so exhaustively debated, or a Resolution at which the House arrived with such perfect unanimity. The only shadow of objection to it was an old Statute of Henry VIII., which has since been repealed. Speaking on that occasion as the representative of the Government, my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, then Mr. Bruce, said legal fitness was, of course, always the first consideration; but he was sure, after what they had heard that night, that for the future Governments would have regard to a knowledge of Welsh in making these appointments. Are we to understand that there is a Government now in Office which has no regard to the qualification of speaking Welsh? because, if it is so, it is desirable that we should know it. I see the Home Secretary in his place, and remember the answer he gave in reply to a Motion I made as to the appointment of a Sub-Inspector, who could not speak Welsh, to a mining district in which the Welsh language was almost exclusively spoken. As soon as that appointment was made I had, as Chairman of Petty Sessions, to adjudicate upon a summons taken out by that gentleman against the lessees of the mine for a breach of the Mines Regulation Act. The prosecution broke down on other grounds, but in any case it must have broken down, because the Mining Inspector could not speak a word of Welsh, and those from whom he got his information could not speak a word of English, so that the whole of the proceedings had to be carried on in a sort of dumb show. That is not exactly the same case as this, but, at any rate, if the

    837
    right hon. Gentleman had heard it argued, he would have felt as I do, that it was wrong to appoint a gentleman to that office who could not speak the Welsh language. The hon. Gentleman the Attorney General did not put forward any kind of defence against the Motion, for he did not even suggest that a good man could not have been found who could speak Welsh. It used to be said, when complaints were made of the non-appointment of Welsh-speaking Bishops, that you could not find a Welshman competent to take the post, but that objection is now never raised, and whatever we may think of the political or other opinions of the Welsh Bishops, abler men do not sit upon the Episcopal Bench. What I want to impress upon the hon. and learned Gentleman is the fact that it is not only important that we should have men who will administer justice duly, but that the people before whom they administer it should be perfectly confident that it is so administered; and unless you have a man who is familiar with the Welsh people and the Welsh language, is is perfectly impossible that such a feeling of confidence can be created. I do not think it necessary to argue the question any further, for it is really concluded by the Resolution, and as long as it stands on the Order Book of this House, to treat it as my hon. and learned Friend has just done is to treat it as if it were nothing better than waste paper. If the answer we have heard from him is all the Government can give, I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend will persevere with his Motion, and I shall be very happy to support it.
    SIR J. PULESTONI have never wavered in my contention in favour of the principle of the Motion now moved by the hon. Member opposite, and on more than one occasion, when the question has been raised during the nearly 19 years in which I have been in this House, I have always taken exactly the same position as I do now, namely, that a Welsh-speaking barrister should always be appointed to a County Court Judgeship in the Principality. The right hon. Gentleman opposite found it convenient, in view of the facts presented by the Attorney General, to say
    838
    this was not a Party question; but he will not hesitate to call it a Party question directly he gets outside this House, and he will take very good care not to explain his want of Welsh patriotism in failing to call attention to this question within a few years after the passing of his own Resolution. He passed over, in solemn silence, jobs committed by the Government of which he was himself a Member. Reference has been made to the case of Mr. Brymnor Jones. It was generally understood that there was no more brilliant man at the Bar, but when he was appointed it so happened he had just been defeated as the Liberal candidate for Mid Glamorgan.
    MR. S. EVANSMr. Jones never was a candidate for that constituency.
    SIR J. PULESTONHe was a well-known politician, and while I apologise very gladly for what I have said, I may explain that he was, at all events, mentioned in the papers as a possible candidate. I do not defend this appointment of Mr. Beresford. On the contrary, I condemn it in the strongest possible manner, and I shall vote gladly in favour of the Resolution; but I think that the Lord Chancellor probably did not have in his mind the Resolution of the House of Commons, and did have regard to precedents set by former Liberal Governments. He had other reasons, however, to suppose that the appointment of Mr. Beresford would be acceptable in Wales, for a memorial was presented which I believe was signed by an hon. Member opposite.
    MR. S. EVANSI did not sign the memorial, and I refused to do so.
    SIR J. PULESTONMy authority is a paper published in his own part of Wales, and I regret that I have been misled into that statement. I do not admit that such circumstances ever occur that there is not one Welshman to be found in eight or ten years fitted to occupy the position of County Court Judge. I do not know how many applicants there were for this post, but I know several men eminent at the Bar and thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language—including a Member of this House—who would have, adorned the position. I agree that what has been said does not suggest

    839
    that Mr. Beresford had not the proper legal qualifications for the post, and I regret that the hon. Member, after stating that, should have thought it necessary to read an extract from a letter to the Law Times condemnatory of his qualification. I hope, now that the question has been again so prominently brought forward, no appointments will in future be made in contravention of the Resolution passed in 1872. Apart from the question of the Welsh language, which is a very serious matter, we claim that we have a sentimental right to have Welshmen in Welsh places, especially as a knowledge of Welsh is essential to the right administration of justice in peculiarly Welsh districts. It is impossible to administer justice with equity through the medium of an interpreter; we know the difficulty in our own English Courts. I trust that, in future, no Lord Chancellor of any Party will venture to disregard the national aspirations and national feelings of justice and right which is attached to the appointment of Welsh County Court Judges.
    MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS (Cardiganshire)I only desire, Sir, to say a few words on the observations which fell from the Attorney General, and first, as usual, I am bound to congratulate him upon the admirable tone and temper in which he dealt with the question. I did not expect anything else, but I was surprised at the weakness of the case he made out. He confessed that a knowledge of Welsh is an important element to consider in making the appointment of County Court Judges; then, I ask, what peculiar characteristics are there in the person now holding the post which led to that important element being disregarded in this case? I ask this the more because, though I have the honour of being acquainted with Judge Beresford, I am acquainted with barristers who are conversant with the Welsh language, and eminently qualified to adorn the position. What are the distinguishing characteristics which led to the appointment of Mr. Beresford in disregard of this admittedly important qualification, instead of others whom the Attorney General admits were capable, as capable, of
    840
    performing the duties of the office? I think the Attorney General surrenders the whole case when he admits that there were others qualified to fulfil the duties, unless some supporter of the Government gets up and points out some distinguishing characteristics in the case. Names of other Judges have been mentioned as those of men well worthy of respect. Sir Horatio Lloyd was mentioned. He was a worthy and competent Judge, but he understood Welsh enough to check witnesses, and was imbued with a thorough knowledge of Welsh life, so that he could follow the reasoning of witnesses in describing their conduct on particular occasions. All his case proves, if he were not, that some man of great ability and special qualification may be so fitted for a post as to be able to surmount the great objection of want of knowledge of the language. There is another Judge, Mr. Stevenson Owen, County Court Judge for Cardiff. The Attorney General said that he was Judge for the district of Brecknockshire and part of Glamorganshire. That is somewhat misleading. The most important part of his work is done in the English-speaking Courts of Cardiff and Newport, though he is also Judge of some small part of Brecknock. The Attorney General spoke of a memorial in Judge Beresford's favour. I do not think such memorials are to be preferred to the popular election of Judges, to which hon. Gentlemen opposite have such an objection. The right hon. Gentleman said that when it was proposed to remove him, every section of politics and school of thought united in his favour. I should like to ask, why was it proposed to remove him, unless in obedience to a large national demand for his removal? I can hardly conceive it entering into the head of the Government, unless their conscience pricked them—
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI said I understood that, in consequence of some correspondence as to his not speaking Welsh, a paragraph appeared in a paper to the effect that he was going to be removed, and that paragraph was repeated for some weeks.
    MR. B. ROWLANDSI thought he said it was proposed to remove Judge Beresford. I understand now that there was a tumult or excite-

    841
    ment in the country, which was shown by a large number of letters in newspapers, and articles pointing out that he was not so distinguished in other respects as to justify his being made an exception to the rule laid down so many years ago, which the Attorney General admits is very applicable to cases analagous to the present one. That there was this feeling—not against Mr. Beresford personally—is undeniable; there was a unanimous chorus of disapprobation of the appointment which was supposed, rightly or wrongly, not to be the work of the Lord Chancellor, who from his connection with Wales would have been desirous to do what was right and proper; it was supposed to be the result of some powerful motive with which the Lord Chancellor had no personal or immediate concern. If there were no particular motive, what was the reason of the appointment? Was it that his father had previously held the post of County Court Judge? The Attorney General referred to witnesses who spoke English. I do not quite understand the purport of it. He said that some witnesses about to speak in Welsh, the interpreter being sworn, answered in English instead. I have known great wrong to have been done in consequence of witnesses having been forced to speak in English who ought to have been allowed to speak in Welsh. They were able to understand the ordinary language of the oath in English, but were unable to follow the intricacies of a subtle argument, into which they were led by a skilful person. One of these Courts is in the county I represent, and I honestly believe, from my knowledge of these and other places, that a knowledge of Welsh is a very desirable thing. No one suggests that a knowledge of Welsh is to be so preferentially considered that eminent legal and other qualifications are to be deferred to it, but there is no claim of superior qualification in this case. The Attorney General says that one benefit of the Debate will be that the Resolution of 1872 will be brought into greater prominence, but he says the Government had taken it into consideration already. If these facts—the circumstances of the locality and the Resolution—had been committed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would, I am
    842
    certain, have appointed a person satisfactory to the Welsh people in regard to his knowledge of Welsh. The Government have disregarded a Resolution passed by the House of Commons, and whether it be called contempt or disregard is a mere question of words. This gentleman was appointed to the dissatisfaction of the Welsh people, who expressed their feeling in every constitutional way, and they now speak through their Representatives and some who desire in the future to represent them, and the hon. Gentleman opposite found himself so placed that he was bound to rise and join in the unanimous denunciation.
    SIR J. PULESTONI particularly called attention to the fact that long ago, before the question was present to the mind of the hon. Gentleman, I had spoken in this House and elsewhere as strongly on it as I have spoken to-night.
    MR. B. ROWLANDSThat is what I meant to say; he is able conscientiously, in accordance with his feelings, to join us in repeating his condemnation to which he has so patriotically given voice on other occasions, and which I cordially agree with.
    MR. KENYONI hold somewhat strong opinions on the Welsh language, especially in regard to its use and influence in Wales, but I hope not so much as to bias my judgment on this point. If we were to consider the Welsh language in all its bearings in this respect I am afraid some of us who represent Welsh constituencies might not occupy the positions that we do. When the question was raised some years ago I could only find one hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who was capable of speaking Welsh. I do not, however, carry my loved Welsh to a ridiculous point. I am a lawyer myself, but, having never practised, I should like to look at this question quite apart from its legal aspect. It seems to me that this Resolution, passed in 1872, stands upon its own merits. It was proposed by a Welshman on one side of the House and accepted by a typical Welshman on the other side; but since it was passed, Governments, whether from this side or that, have refused to acknowledge the force of it. My knowledge

    843
    of Welshmen is sufficient to enable me to say how deeply it touches the Welsh people that, in matters connected with their official arrangements, in matters where their real interests are concerned, where evidence is tendered in the Welsh language, the officials are not able to understand it. Surely, Sir, the spirit of the Resolution meant that, where possible, Welsh Judges were to be appointed. Now that the question has been brought up, I think we may fairly ask the Government to give us a further promise that the spirit of the Resolution shall be acted on honestly and in the full sense, and every sense, of the word. I have had some little experience of the smaller Courts, and I can honestly say this: that it has been a great trouble to me that I have not been able to master the Welsh language. I would venture to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether something more positive than a mere reiteration of his promise can be given to us, and whether in the future we may congratulate ourselves that, in the interests of the administration of justice in Wales, those difficulties which have hitherto attended it in the Principality, and of which we complain, shall be removed, and that fair-play will be given to the Members of the Principality, independent of politics or creed.
    MR. ABEL THOMASI think it is impossible for the Attorney General to maintain that the appointment to which the Resolution refers was made upon its merits, having regard to the choice the Lord Chancellor had at the time of several other gentlemen of large practice at the Bar, and of large experience, who could speak and understand the Welsh language. I think I can say with accuracy that I have had as great experience in Mid Wales and some of those districts just referred to as most other people. I know the whole of the district, and I know the gentlemen whose names the Attorney General read out, and all the facts connected with their appointment. Those appointments by no means meet the point in dispute, and it is therefore no answer to the case put forward by the Welsh Members to-night. Sir Horatio Lloyd was a man of very large practice. Mr. Judge Beresford, although it was a mistake to
    844
    have appointed him to a Welsh district still would have made a most excellent Judge if appointed to England. I cannot understand why he should be sent into Cardiganshire, where he would have Welsh witnesses before him. But he was a good man at the same time. The next appointment to which the Attorney General referred was that of Mr. Gwynne Owen, who, it is true, was appointed by a Liberal Government. He was a Welshman, and a well-known Welshman—but neither speaking nor understanding Welsh—and he was removed from Mid Wales to an English-speaking district. He was a most excellent Judge. There was a large settlement of English-speaking people in and around the district, and the fact that he was removed to it from Wales because he was unable to speak Welsh shows the force of the case we are now complaining of. The next appointment was that of Mr. Gwilym Williams. He speaks Welsh very well. The next is Mr. Judge Bishop, who was appointed for Mid Wales, and who speaks Welsh very well; I have heard him many times, and he both understands and speaks it. The next was Mr. Brynmore Jones, who was appointed to Mid Wales, but who was removed to another district. These were the appointments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I say it is no answer to the case. I know the circuit well, and I could point to many names of men, some of them of longer experience, and some of infinitely greater worth at the Bar than Mr. Cecil Beresford; three of these were of greater ability and could speak Welsh, and they were passed over for a man who could not speak Welsh. Having had before them the Resolution of the House, that in Welsh-speaking districts like Mid Wales gentlemen who had a knowledge of the Welsh language should be appointed, if possible, for County Court Judgeships, I say it is absurd to contend that the appointment of Judge Beresford was made upon its merits. It has been said that there were petitions presented in favour of the appointment of that gentleman. Are we going to appoint our Judges upon petitions? Surely that is no proper reason for the selection, seeing how easily

    845
    petitions can be got up upon one side or the other, and I am surprised that petitions should be put forward as a justification of the appointment. Just imagine a man who is seeking for an appointment as a County Court Judge having to rely upon a round-robin in his favour, or having to rely upon petitions in order to get the Lord Chancellor to give him the appointment. Why, we all know how easy it is to get up such petitions. It has been stated by the Attorney General that the appointment has been received with acclamation, and that it has been regarded by the public with favour, but he did not go to the proper quarter for evidence of this.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI stated that I had it from all sections and parties, and from quotations from public newspapers.
    MR. ABEL THOMASI suppose he has had copies of newspapers sent him, but that is not the way to arrive at what is the public sentiment. Mere statements in Party newspapers go for little in such matters. Nor is it conclusive when a certain number of gentlemen practising in Mr. Judge Beresford's Court sign a document stating that they believe it to be a most excellent appointment. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman go to the poor whose cases are to be tried in Court. The vast majority of cases are generally only relating to small debts of a few shillings, and most of the suitors speak only Welsh, and have to rely upon the Court interpreter provided for them. It is in such cases that injustice is done; not in big cases, where solicitors can be employed who understand the case. In Cardiff and in other large and populous centres, where those heavy actions are tried, there may be little injustice in having a Judge who is not acquainted with the Welsh language; but in small places in the Welsh-speaking district, where poor men go into Court, it is of the greatest importance to have a Judge who speaks and understands the language. I have seen injustice done over and over again in consequence simply of the Judge's ignorance of Welsh. It is done inadvertently; he tries to do his best. Take the interpreter. He generally is an educated man, and yet you have the solicitor
    846
    correcting him over and over again because of the fact that the idioms of the languages are so different. Such a Court is that to which Judge Beresford was appointed. I say if you are going to appoint County Court Judges because of the fact that they sit for their father, you are not likely to find the right man. The Lord Chancellor must have known of his own knowledge the South Western Circuit of Cardiff, and he must have known that there are men of much larger business and experience than Mr. Beresford at the Bar who would have thoroughly understood the language and been popular with the people if any one of them had been selected. If it were a matter of politics these were men who were known to be Conservatives, and not Liberals. I say this was not an appointment on its merits, and I hope the House will show that it is not going to permit a definite Resolution passed by it to be set aside without any decent pretext, and that the House will accept the Motion.
    MR. H. T. KNATCHBULLHUGESSENAs an independent supporter of Her Majesty's Government I regret I cannot upon this occasion go into the Lobby with them. I feel it to be my duty to vote with the hon. Members opposite in case of a Division being taken. I had confidently hoped that the Government would have been able to say that the reason why they did not appoint a gentleman who was able to speak Welsh was because they could not find any member of the Bar having that as well as the other necessary qualifications. But the Attorney General did not take that ground of defence. It was not suggested that there were not such gentlemen; the only defence was that the Liberal Lord Chancellor had also disregarded the Resolution of 1872. Now, two wrongs do not make a right—and that is no defence at all. Having regard to the Resolution of 1872, which I think is more required at present than when it was passed, and looking at the case as put by the other side, and the way it has been answered, I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Government.
    MR. SAMUEL T. EVANSI think it is observable, and everyone who has spoken, with the single exception of the Attorney General, has spoken against the conduct of the Lord Chancellor. It is a curious fact that we are discussing an appointment of a County Court Judge to the very Circuit in reference to which this Resolution of 1872 was passed. Nobody has been able to deny that this is a Welsh district, that the vast majority of the people speak Welsh, and Welsh only; and that it is, therefore, a district which came within the Resolution. There are also many barristers on the Welsh Circuits who could speak the language, who are otherwise qualified. Let me say that we are not attacking the Government upon this matter. The appointment was made by the Lord Chancellor, and it is his conduct we challenge. The Attorney General seemed to take it for granted that the Lord Chancellor did not act in forgetfulness of this Resolution, and one hon. Gentleman told us that the Lord Chancellor did not have this Resolution in his mind.
    SIR L PULESTONI said that I assumed he had not; I had no authority.
    MR. S. EVANSI so understood the hon. Member. We may now take it for granted that the Government is the keeper of the Lord Chancellor's conscience. In regard to the defence of the Attorney General, it appears to me to be this: that Mr. Cecil Beresford was appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who knew that he had not a knowledge of the Welsh language, who knew that it was a Welsh-speaking district, and who knew that there were other men on the Circuit well qualified. I think the whole defence of the Lord Chancellor has crumbled into atoms. As for Mr. Beresford's merits—
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI said I would not discuss the merits of Mr. Beresford; but my refusal must not be taken to indicate that the gentleman was not considered to be the best candidate for the appointment.
    MR. S. EVANSWe hear it now for the first time that those applicants for the post who could speak Welsh were not well qualified in other respects.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERSo well qualified.
    MR. S. EVANSI venture to affirm that they are. I have had the honour of practising before Mr. Cecil Beresford, and although I do not say he is unfit to discharge the duties of a County Court Judge, I will answer without hesitation that there are other men attached to the Welsh Bar who speak Welsh, and who are quite as well qualified as he from a legal point of view. It might be interesting to know that when County Courts were first established in Wales the Judges were most perfectly conversant with the Welsh language. If we only brought this matter on for the first time to-day, we should have an abundantly strong case, but we have the Resolution of the House to further strengthen it. This is a Resolution of the House of Commons; the Lord Chancellor is the Speaker of the House of Lords, and if we have any respect for ourselves at all as a Democratic Assembly we will express the sense of the House at the Lord Chancellor in another House conducting himself in such a way as to disregard the Resolution of this House. The Attorney General has expressed his sympathy with Welsh national sentiments; but we should be much more thankful if he practically illustrates it by going into the Lobby in support of the Resolution, as there is little use expressing sympathy with national sentiments and then disregarding them.
    MR. CHARLES J. DARLINGIt appears that not only are Members prompted by a desire to abuse the County Court Judge for Mid Wales, but that they are prompted by a desire to attack the Lord Chancellor; that they desire this Democratic Asssembly to pass a Resolution because it welcomes an opportunity to inflict some injury, some stigma, some insult upon him as Speaker of the House of Lords. How is the Lord Chancellor to meet this? He is not able to come to this House, fortunately, perhaps, for some Members. But it has been shown by the Attorney General that since the Resolution was passed appointments of a similar character have been made by the other side. I understood the Attorney General to say

    849
    that the Lord Chancellor had not this Resolution present to his mind. ("No.") I understood him to say so. I understood him to say that the Lord Chancellor had forgotten it when appointing Mr. Beresford, as Lord Selborne had forgotten it when he appointed Mr. Owen, a gentleman who could not speak Welsh, but had only a somewhat Welsh name. Nor is this forgetfulness to be wondered at, having regard to the number of Resolutions of this House. I admit that it is not likely that any appointment to a Welsh Judgeship will be made in the future by Lord Halsbury without some regard being paid to this Resolution. What may be done when a Liberal Government comes into Office I can only judge of by the case of Mr. Owen. It seems to me that the matter might be allowed to drop, because no good can be done by the passing of this Resolution more than has been done already. That being so, I have no difficulty in voting against it.
    MR. ALFRED THOMASI have to say that I believe it is almost impossible that justice can be done under any other circumstances than those indicated in the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon. I heard of a very remarkable case that occurred some months ago in the Court in which Judge Gwilym Williams sits. I wrote to Judge Williams and asked him to give me the particulars of the case; and with the permission of the House I will read his reply:—
    "Miskin Manor, Pontyclun,
    "February 18th, 1892.
    "Dear Mr. Thomas,—The case, I think, to which you refer is that of a man who had failed to make himself understood to the Registrar, and on whom an order was made and a judgment summons issued, and on this being heard before me I discovered his utter ignorance of English, and that he was not indebted to his creditor, the result being that I struck out the case. I am of opinion that the mistake arose from the man's ignorance of English, and my knowledge of Welsh prevented a further miscarriage of justice."
    I consider that a very strong case indeed, and no comment is needed upon it. I have also known similar cases of the miscarriage of justice in the Criminal Courts. I know one case where a man was tried for murder, and was sentenced to the extreme penalty
    850
    of the law. The man did not know that he was sentenced to death until the gaoler who was putting him into the cells explained to him in Welsh that sentence of death had been passed upon him. I have heard a great deal in this Debate regarding appointments. I have no wish—I disclaim any desire—to cast any aspersion on His Honor Judge Beresford. Except that he does not speak the Welsh language, I believe he is a most excellent Judge. But with regard to the appointment, I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor did not follow the precedent which occurred with regard to the appointment of Judge Gwilym Williams. There never was an appointment made to a County Court judgeship in Wales that was more popular than that of Judge Gwilym Williams, who was promoted from being a Stipendiary Magistrate. I regret that the precedent has not been followed in the case of Judge Beresford, and that the Stipendiary Magistrate who succeeded Judge Gwilym Williams has not been appointed, or another Stipendiary Magistrate, the Stipendiary Magistrate for Cardiff, who, I believe, would have been equally qualified to fill the position. Let me say, in conclusion, that I heartily hope that some good will come of the present Debate, and that gentlemen will be appointed in future who can be reasonably expected to do justice to this position.
    MR. DAVID RANDELLIn rising to support this Motion I have no desire to say anything against Judge Beresford. On the contrary; from my experience of him he seems extremely courteous to suitors and gentlemen practising in his Court; and he shows consideration for the disabilities of Welsh witnesses in allowing their evidence to be interpreted. But the very anxiety and solicitude shown by the late Judge Beresford in getting the evidence of Welsh witnesses interpreted into English seems to me to be the strongest argument in favour of this Motion and the appointment of Welsh-speaking Judges. I have often heard the late Judge Beresford defend Welsh witnesses from unjust attacks made upon them in reference to the allegation of perjury. Indeed, the Judge has himself many times in his Court alluded to the difficulty of Welsh witnesses in making

    851
    themselves properly understood. I would wish to call attention to the fact that gentlemen, when appointed to judicial posts in India, are supposed to possess the indispensable qualification of a knowledge of the language of the native population; and if that is a precedent that has been established in this House in reference to appointments in India, surely that qualification ought to be indispensable in relation to judicial appointments nearer home—namely, in the Principality. I think, myself, that it is a somewhat humiliating position for Judges in County Courts in Wales to occupy; to be helplessly in the hands of Welsh witnesses, and oftentimes ignorant interpreters. I am of opinion, having had considerable experience in County Courts in Welsh districts, that it is absolutely necessary to appoint Judges conversant with the Welsh language. On personal grounds I wish to say that I would have much preferred that this discussion had arisen on another appointment; but, on general and public grounds, I must unhesitatingly, and without any qualification, vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, and I trust it will have support from all sides of the House.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMIt needs no apology on the part of the Welsh Members to call the attention of the House and the Government to the important question of the necessity of giving due recognition and consideration to a knowledge of the Welsh language in the case of judicial appointments. The present Government, I hope, will not think that all the Welsh Members here are attacking them on this question. Unfortunately for Wales, the previous Government have been guilty of the same thing. I quite agree with the Attorney General that the question should not be made a Party question. It is not a Party question, and I am very glad to find that there are Conservatives, inside and outside of this House, that have raised the question above Party considerations, and pride themselves on defending their own language, the language of their Mother Country, and the necessity thereof, especially in all judicial appointments, in Wales. More
    852
    than that, I believe that a number of the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on that Front Bench this afternoon, if we were to know their inner thoughts, their heart of hearts—that they are in full sympathy with us on this question—and that they are compelled to be there to defend the bungling and stupidity of the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has already recognised this necessity for Wales in a less important question than this one. I believe there are other gentlemen who are quite as ready to give us proper recognition in this matter. I am very glad to find that there is such a unanimity of opinion on this question outside of the House as well as inside of the House. I should like to call attention to the fact that this district is one of the most essentially Welsh districts in the Principality. Mid-Wales County Court district extends along the west coast of Wales from Aberystwith to Pwllheli, including large portions of the Counties of Cardigan, Merioneth, and Carnarvon, where Welsh is the only language which the inhabitants easily understand. To say that His Honor Judge Beresford was able to conduct the business of his Court in another district which was an industrial district, and where English is largely spoken, is no justification whatever for his removal to another district which is essentially a Welsh-speaking district. I think a great mistake has been made, and I would call the attention of the Attorney General to this fact. This is not a Party question. It is a national question, and I am very glad to be able to inform this House that there is such a unanimity of opinion among typical Welshmen outside this House as well as inside this House as there never was upon any other question before. I should like to refer, among others, to a great number of letters which have been written to the South Wales Star condemning this appointment, and, in fact, bearing upon the general principle. I should like to read a brief letter from Sir John T. Llewelyn, Bart. He says that—
    " In consequence of my absence from home 1 have not received the South Wales Star, which you tell me you sent. I have, however, received your letter of the 23rd this morning;

    853
    and in answer to your question, I beg to say I have always considered a knowledge of the Welsh language desirable as a qualification for legal and some other public appointments in the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales."
    There are others representing the other side—from Sir William Thomas Lewis, a gentleman well-known in Wales for his ability, who has been appointed upon at least four Royal Commissions, and is now a member of three Royal Commissions; from Sir John M. Stingin, and Mr. Lewis Morris. All these gentlemen hold different political opinions, still they are unanimous upon this necessity. In this House you have a wonderful combination. Imagine for a moment; just think of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbigh shire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), a Gladstonian Liberal; then you have another, the hon. Member for West Denbigh-(Colonel W. Cornwallis West), a Liberal Unionist; and the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Hon. George T. Kenyon), a Conservative. All these gentlemen are at one on this question. Take another group; you have the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea District (Sir H. Hussey Vivian), representing Wales that was, with no professed knowledge of the Welsh language. You have the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport (Sir John Henry Puleston), representing Wales that is, with a smattering of the Welsh language, but not quite sufficient for the continuity of Welsh arguments nor conversation. You have another; he is not a Baronet by title, but he is a true Welsh Baronet, the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas Edward Ellis). He is a son of the land; he is able to speak the language perfectly, and makes no mistake about his letters. Here, again, you have three gentlemen, and these three are at one upon this question. You may go over Wales in this way, finding them in triplets here and there, and find them all at one upon this question. Allow me to say again, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a Party question, nor is it a question of a religious sect nor of religious creeds. I have a letter upon this very appointment, in the South Wales Star, from the Very Rev. the Dean of Llandaff (the Very Rev. C. J. Vaughan), in which he says—
    854
    "Sir,—The general principle can scarcely be gainsaid, and it is desirable that the Law should be administered, as well as the Gospel preached, by those who understand the language of the people. What practical difficulties may beset this application of the principle to particular cases I am scarcely competent to say."
    I have another letter from Principal F. C. Edwards, D.D., Bala College, in which he says—
    "Dear Sir,—I agree with you that a knowledge of Welsh is an essential qualification in any person, however eminent he may be, for legal and other public appointments in the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. It is now practically acknowledged in ecclesiastical appointments. It is notorious that injustice is often unwittingly done in a Court of Law, because the jury understand neither counsel nor Judge. This accounts, in a measure, for the tendency of a Welsh jury to acquit the prisoner against the evidence or the Judges summing up. I take exception only to the implied inference that every appointment of a Judge who does not know Welsh is a job. It may or may not be. My belief is, that those who make such appointments do not know the hardship they inflict upon the Welsh people generally. For this reason I thank you for raising the question and eliciting opinions upon it."
    They all agree upon this question. It may be said of Wales on this question, that they have the Radicals and the Nonconformists on one hand, the Conservatives and the Churchmen upon the other hand—the lions and the lambs of Wales all lying down together, and led by my young friend, the Member for Carnarvon. They are perfectly unanimous upon the point; but I believe that the question is a question of justice and a question of necessity. I am not a lawyer, but fortunately I have a number of legal friends around me. I have been told that there is a maxim of law that a man should be tried by his peers, and I am told, also, that this is carried out as a general rule almost everywhere but in Wales. Why should the monoglot Welshman be placed at a disadvantage that no other member of the British Empire, that belongs to a distinct nationality having a language of its own, is placed at? In fact, Wales ought to be considered by England as the nearest of kin, as it were in a sense the loveliest, nay, I would almost say the best of her children. I claim that the relationship of England with Wales is closer than any other part of the United Kingdom. You cannot have a King in England without his being first

    855
    a Prince of Wales. Why, then, should Wales be treated in such an exceptional way as it is℄to have its national rights disregarded by this or any other Government? I do not think that any lawyer in the House would for a moment question the ability of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General as a lawyer to sit upon Welsh questions. But supposing for a moment that this House was a County Court, and the right hon. Gentleman presided in that Court, and that I, a Welshman, appeared before him, and could not understand exactly what was going on, and supposing I would say "Mae'r Achos i'm erbyn yn hollol annheg Siaradwch Gymraeg— parablwch eich geirian—Bhowch i'm chwaren-teg," what would he say? With all his knowledge of the law, and with all the kindliness of his heart, he would be still unable to do me justice. Therefore, if that would be the case between him and me, what would it be between a Welshman and a gentleman who could not understand Welsh in the same position? That is the real difficulty; and, at all events, I have this opinion of the great English nation, that if they could for a moment substantiate those difficulties they would remove them at once, that they would do everything in their power to remove them. My position as a miner has given me occasion oftentimes to appear in Courts with some of my legal friends defending the cases of workmen, and I could point to a number of special occasions where, by the kindness of the Judge, I was allowed to interfere between Englishmen and Welshmen. I remember a case where an English employer, who did not understand the language of his workman, shouted out in Court that the man was perjuring himself; and the Judge, who was not a Welshman, but a kind-hearted man, of himself would have had no power to question this man had it not been for the fact that there was a Welshman in Court. Although I had no standing there, still I stood up in the Court, begged pardon of the Judge, and asked to be allowed to state the case. Again and again have I jumped up in Court and begged pardon of the Judge, and asked to be allowed to explain to him. When the case was explained to him, not only did the Judge declare
    856
    that the man was right, but the manager would say the same thing. I could cite many instances of that kind, but I will only say that I have confidence that the Leader of the House will help us in this matter.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSSir, I should have thought that the attention of the Attorney General having been drawn to this matter, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have sought the earliest opportunity of repairing the mistake he has made. The Attorney General has not been instructed to do anything of the kind. That being so, I can only say that if this gentleman is left to administer justice or injustice, and half of his Circuit is in the division which I represent, then, as opportunities will arise every Session on the County Court Vote for the discussion of his salary, this Government and succeeding Governments will not hear an end of the matter until the grievance of which we complain is removed.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,Sir, I think everybody who has heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rhondda Valley will have listened to it with very great sympathy, and certainly, so far as I am personally concerned, I may tell the hon. Gentleman that I heard it with a very large measure of agreement. The hon. Gentleman had two points in view in his speech. One was, if I may say so, the sentimental or national point of view; the other was the practical and legal point of view that arises when a Judge who presides in a Court does not understand the language of those who are called before him. With regard to the first point—the national point—I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I believe all the Judges in the County Courts of Wales who have been appointed for many years past have been Welshmen; and although, unfortunately, it is true that many of them do not understand the Welsh language, it has never occurred to the present Government, or to any of their predecessors, so far as I know, to do anything in the disposal of their Welsh patronage which could by any possibility hurt the feelings of even the most sensitive of the hon. Gentleman's fellow-country-

    857
    men. With regard to the most important issue raised by the hon. Gentleman and those who preceded him in Debate—the point connected with the language spoken by the County Court Judges—I would lay down a general proposition. I entirely agree with every single word that has been said as to its being an enormous advantage, other things being equal, that the Judge who presides over a Court should understand the language of every person called before him, whether as litigant or witness. And, Sir, I do not think that the Lord Chancellor or any of his predecessors have ever taken any other view, though perhaps the terms of the Resolution of twenty years ago may not always have been present in full strength in their minds. But while concurring in that general proposition, we cannot deduce from it that every County Court Judge who is to be appointed in Wales should be a gentleman speaking the Welsh language. If hon. Members will look back to the Debate of twenty years ago, in a House of very different complexion and composition, elected by a very different constituency, they will see that the Government of the day, headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, did not accept the Amendment or Resolution in the terms in which it was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire. On the contrary, they thought it necessary to add qualifying words, which were inserted obviously for the purpose of allowing the Lord Chancellor, if he thought the interests of justice or the interests of local administration required it, to appoint other than Welsh-speaking Judges. How has that Resolution been interpreted by successive Governments? Of course, I am not mentioning this point for the purpose of raising Party strife, or for the purpose of making comparisons between the merits or demerits of the various Parties. I think that, with perhaps one exception, we have avoided anything in the nature of Party recrimination in this Debate, and I am the last man to desire to introduce it. I only draw attention to this fact: that of all the Judges appointed by the very eminent men of both Parties who have filled the office
    858
    of Lord Chancellor since 1872, only two, or possibly three, gentlemen have been appointed who actually spoke Welsh with facility, and decidedly the larger number, though Welshmen, were not acquainted with the Welsh tongue. The reason of this is that, rightly or wrongly—very likely wrongly; I do not pretend to prejudge the matter—the various Lord Chancellors in question conceived that though there were real objections to appointing a man who did not know Welsh, those objections were outweighed by the other qualifications possessed by the candidate. And I conceive that some such licence of judgment must be left to the Lord Chancellor, unless you are going to circumscribe, much more than was done in the Resolution passed by the House in 1872, the area within which there must be a Welsh-speaking Judge. The Circuit which is in question today, as in 1872, is, I am informed, the most Welsh-speaking Circuit. Yet I apprehend that even in that Circuit a very large proportion of the inhabitants know English as well as Welsh. I daresay the larger number know Welsh; many of course do not know Welsh, and a very large proportion know English as well as Welsh. I am informed that while Aberystwith is no doubt the centre of a very large Welsh-speaking population, that even there probably the majority of the inhabitants speak English as well as Welsh; whilst the important districts of Newtown and Welshpool are both very broadly composed of English-speaking rather than Welsh-speaking people; whilst that same district includes Radnorshire, which is, I am informed, an almost entirely English-speaking county, and part of Herefordshire, which is not only an English-speaking county, but is actually in England. Even in this most Welsh-speaking district there is an enormous population which is well served by the English County Court. Now, Sir, though Welsh is largely spoken in that Circuit, you would do a great injury to the purely English-speaking population if you limited every Lord Chancellor, under every circumstance of the case, to choose a Judge not from the relatively enormous number of members of the English Bar as a whole, but from the relatively restricted number of those

    859
    who were Welshmen, and who are not only Welshmen, but speak Welsh. I am not suggesting for a moment that you may not find suitable men who can speak Welsh; but I say that, so far as the English inhabitants are concerned, if you lay down a rigid rule that a Lord Chancellor is to be bound to make his selection not from the English Bar as a whole, but from that practically small fraction acquainted with the Welsh tongue, then, to begin with, some inquiry should be held in order to mark out that area where the number of Welsh-speaking inhabitants is so great that a practical injustice would accrue to them from the appointment of an English-speaking Judge. It has not been maintained by a single speaker on the other side that Judge Beresford is not fitted for his office, or that he has not shown himself absolutely adequate to perform his duties. (Opposition cries of "No, no.") I do not wish to press the point too far; but, from all the information which has reached me, I am disposed to believe that Judge Beresford, who has already had experience as a County Court Judge in a part of Wales where Welsh is largely spoken, has given satisfaction. If the House were to adopt the Resolution it would be not merely a reflection upon the Lord Chancellor, but upon a gentleman who has for many years been carrying out the duties of a County Court Judge adequately in the past, and who is likely to do so efficiently in the future. That is surely a step we should not take. It can do no possible good. I should be perfectly ready to assent to any reasonable plan, if one can be proposed, for the delimitation of the Welsh-speaking area, so that in those districts where the Welsh language predominates it should be obligatory to appoint a Welsh-speaking Judge. So long, however, as you do not make that delimitation, you must allow licence to the Lord Chancellor; and by re-affirming the Resolution of 1872 and carrying this Amendment we shall do nothing to strengthen the Resolution already passed by the House of Commons. The Government fully agree and adhere to the terms of the Resolution of 1872, and our views of the importance of that Resolution have been strengthened by the Debate
    860
    that has occurred. I can assure the House that a note will be taken of all that has been said this evening, and if it falls to the Government again to deal with the question of legal patronage in Wales, it will be guided by what has been said. But unless some plan can be devised for delimitation, I would earnestly deprecate the House taking a step which cannot serve the cause the Welsh Members have at heart, namely, the appointment of gentlemen speaking the Welsh language to deal with Welsh legal business. If the House were to pass the Resolution it would cast a most undeserved slight upon a very distinguished County Court Judge, and they would, at the same time, make an attack upon a Member of the Government which I, at all events, as his colleague and a Member of his Party, cannot admit to be justified and cannot acquiesce in.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with those who have said that this discussion ought to he kept quite free from Party politics. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government desired to adhere to and carry out the Resolution of 1872. But in order that they may abide by that Resolution, I should with great respect recommend that they should read it. It is perfectly plain that that preliminary process has not been performed either by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down or by the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman said the Resolution applied to the whole of Wales, and that unless you limited it, it would be impossible to carry it out. The Resolution does not apply to the whole of Wales, but it is specifically pointed out that it only applies to those parts of Wales where the Welsh language is generally spoken. Therefore, Sir, the delimitation which the right hon. Gentleman desired has already been made, and is the basis of the Resolution, and the only qualification is, "as far as the limits of selection will allow." The Resolution does not speak of Wales generally, but of limited parts where the Welsh language is the predominant language; and the right hon. Gentleman thought he removed that argument by pointing out that in Welshpool, Radnorshire, and Newtown the English language is

    861
    spoken. It is not suggested that you should appoint a man who cannot speak English, and it is astounding that logic should be expended upon a proposition of that character.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURI must contradict the right hon. Gentleman's version of my speech. The injury I anticipated in the English-speaking parts was not in the fact that the Judge knew Welsh, but that if you made that necessary, the choice must be made from a very restricted number of men.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI will come to that directly. I am now upon the Resolution, which is to this effect: that in the districts where the Welsh language is predominant, the Judge appointed shall be able to speak and understand the Welsh language—with this limitation, "so far as the limits of selection will admit." Now, what does that mean but that you are bound to appoint a man who can speak the Welsh language, and upon you lies the onus, when you depart from the principle laid down, of proving that within the limits of selection there was no such man available, possessing the necessary qualifications. I do not go back upon former cases, for I have no means of knowing what were the means of selection. What we have to do with is this particular appointment. Now, Sir, the Government have to show one of two things. They have either to show that this was done when the Resolution was not fully in view, and from that standpoint the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) felt the weakness of the position. The Attorney General has not accepted it; the First Lord of the Treasury has not accepted it. The Lord Chancellor might say he had not the Resolution immediately under his notice. That was what the Member for Deptford tried to put into the mouth of the Attorney General; and I may say that it is not quite professional for a junior to put an argument of that kind into the mouth of his leader. The Government must either show that a properly qualified Welsh-speaking barrister could not be found, or that the Lord Chancellor acted per incuriam, without having fully in view the obligation imposed upon him by the Resolution of the House. If the Government had said, " This was an oversight, it
    862
    was not done deliberately, and we will take the earliest opportunity of removing this gentleman, against whom nobody desires to say a word, and who, no doubt, is perfectly qualified, and put into that district a gentleman who can speak Welsh," that would have been what I call a business-like way of dealing with the matter. Nobody would have desired to press unduly on the Lord Chancellor. But that is not the course that has been taken. They have said this is a justifiable appointment, and that places us in a very difficult position. The Government are bound to tell us what were the overwhelming reasons which induced them to override the Resolution of 1872, and what was the great superiority of this gentleman over other gentlemen that made it necessary for them to depart from the Resolution. I listened to the elaborate ingenuity of the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury, but it never came near the real point, which is, that the House of Commons has said that you ought to appoint as Judges in Welsh-speaking districts men who can speak the Welsh language. If the House of Commons had not said so, every man of common sense would have held that opinion. Why have you not done it? Because the limits of selection did not allow it in this particular case? If so, it means that this individual was so greatly superior to every man who could talk the Welsh language as to overpower his ignorance of the Welsh language and oblige you to place him in that position. But has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make that statement to the House? The Government have not asserted that, and it is a statement which they would find it very difficult to prove. That being the case, it seems to me that this appointment was distinctly contrary to the Resolution of 1872; and unless you wish to bring that Resolution into contempt, and to fly in the face of every obvious principle which it asserts, I do not think that you can do otherwise than vote for the Resolution. There has been no attempt whatever to show that, in this particular case, there was any necessity for departing from the principle of appointing a gentleman who could talk the Welsh language; and in the absence of any allegation of there being any reason or general principle

    863
    why the Resolution should not be adhered to, I cannot conceive, independently of Party considerations, why we should not give a unanimous vote on this occasion.
    MR. T. E. ELLISI cannot but express the great disappointment with which my hon. Colleagues on this side of the House have listened to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. We had hoped he would give us something besides a very clever dialectical argument. But no amount of dialectics will do away with the grievance felt by the peasantry on this subject. In this matter we have had to fight not only against the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, but against the patronage of every Minister. We have brought conviction home in the case of the Education Department; and the Home Secretary, in the matter of factory and mine inspection, has admitted into an Act of Parliament the principle for which we have contended; and the Prime Minister, in appointing Bishops, has admitted the same argument. No Prime Minister would think now of appointing anybody but a Welsh-speaking Bishop to a Welsh see. But in two Departments, the Inland Revenue and that of the Lord Chancellor, we still meet with this difficulty; and the appointment of County Court Judges, the Clerkships of Assize, and Revising Barristers is still a scandal to the administration of justice. I venture to ask the Government to give us a promise that His Honor Judge Beresford shall be removed to some English County Court District, and that on the first opportunity they will appoint a Welsh-speaking barrister to this thoroughly Welsh-speaking district.
    Question put.
    (7.10.) The House:—divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 143.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
    Main Question again proposed.

  THE BALLOT ACT—ILLITERATE VOTERS.
  MR. WEBSTERI rise to call attention to the infringement of the object of the Ballot Act for the protection of the voter from intimidation, practised by means of certain clauses in that Act permitting the illiterate to vote; and
  864
  I should have desired to move that, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of true freedom of election, the clauses in the Ballot Act which permit the illiterate to vote should be abolished. It appears to me that the Ballot Act tends to defeat its own object, for some of its clauses have lent themselves to the perpetration of intimidation of the worst description. What are the particular provisions which I maintain require amendment? They are contained in 35 & 36 Vict. (Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, C. 33, Section 26), which permits thatߞ
  "Any voter who makes a declaration, as hereinafter mentioned, that he is unable to read, shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates, cause the vote of such voter to be marked on a ballot paper in manner directed by such voter," &c.
  I find that in Italy, where they have universal suffrage, in America, where the electoral franchise can be obtained by all males after a short residence, no such system prevails which permits, or allows who those are so uneducated as to be unable to fill up a ballot paper, to exercise the franchise. My objection to this section is not based solely on the undesirability of giving to the uneducated electoral power; but that, under cover of this permission, intimidation can be and is practised—worse intimidation than, I believe, ever was practised under the old system of open voting to all, and of a more flagrant character than in elections in any other civilised State in the world. Those are the provisions with respect to illiterate voting, and in theory there may be little that is objectionable in them. But what have they been in practice? What was the object and intention of the alteration of the system of open voting in this country? Why was the sweeping and radical change from open voting to voting by ballot made? The Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Dowse, who was a Member of the Government of the right hon. Member for Midlothian at the time, said—
  "That it would secure the elector from landlord coercion on the one hand, and from intimidation on the other."
  It is not material now to discuss whether there was any necessity for the Act from the point of view of "landlord coercion," except to say that there is no such allegation made now. But

  865
  what is the state of the case with respect to the prevention of intimidation? Why is it that intimidation is still largely practised, and how? I maintain that it is practised through these illiterate provisions. The object which the Government had in view when these provisions were added to the Ballot Bill was the prevention of disfranchisement by reason of illiteracy. This was unmistakably set forth by the late Mr. W. E. Forster, who said—
  "All the Government wished to determine by this Amendment was that persons who could not read should not be disfranchised."
  But there is no secrecy in the existing law, and the present system allows persons who are not illiterate to pretend that they are illiterate, for the purpose of intimidation. I find, with regard to the election of 1886, in Ireland, the agent of the Roman Catholic candidate For one division of the Midland Counties states that if a voter were doubtful he told him to say he was illiterate; and I have evidence of such practices elsewhere, and of a more recent date. The Daily News of December last refers to intimidation of a totally different class. I would point out that at this election at Waterford a totally different condition of affairs existed. We are aware that on that occasion the hon. Member for Waterford was a supporter of the policy of the late Mr. Parnell. On the 24th December, 1891, the Daily News, writing on the subject, saysߞ
  "At noon more than half the expected total had been polled, and at that time large crowds had collected round the majority of the polling booths, many voters being intimidated by the displays of Party feeling. The crowding round the stations of demonstrative crowds had great effect upon the illiterate voters, the result being that in this class Mr. Redmond obtained a large majority."
  I speak on this question as one of broad public policy, for, as far as London is concerned, the right has been legitimately exercised in a bonâ fide manner by bonâ fide illiterates. In my own constituency at the last General Election I believe only four persons claimed to vote as illiterates. The number who voted in this class in England and Scotland was infinitesimally small. The Education Act was passed 20 years ago, and, therefore, every person under 30 ought to be able to read and write
  866
  sufficiently to record his vote. The State—that is, the taxpayers—pays nearly the whole cost of education, and, therefore, it has a right to say whether the right of , voting should be with those who are so absolutely ignorant that they cannot put a cross against their name. I think the right of illiterates to vote is bad, because it gives power to those who are least able to resist intimidation. Although the case is a very small one as regards England, it is very strong as regards Ireland. Let me give the figures at Donegal election in 1886. Out of 18,000 voters 7,903 claimed that they were unable to read or write, and voted before the returning officer in the presence of the personation agent. In Fermanagh, out of 11,863 voters there were 2,968 illiterates. In Monaghan, out of 12,177 voters there were 3,220; and in Tyrone, out of 26,787 there were 6,957. These figures amount to this, that at the last Election one out of every 74 in Scotland, one out of every 64 in England, and one out of every five in Ireland claimed to vote as illiterate. I admit that at present the people of Ireland are not so well educated as those of England, but that is not the fault of the present Government. In Ulster and Belfast the education is fairly good, equal to that in many parts of England; but I fear the state of things is due to other circumstances. In no part of England is there any great proportion of illiterates, except in Dudley, where there were 1,293. In Marylebone there were only two, and in South Paddington only one. It is a matter of common notoriety that many elections in the past were won by the intimidation of the League, sustained, in some instances, by the terrors of the Church. The wretched voters in many constituencies found themselves forced to obey the agents of the Home Rule Party. They were driven like sheep to the poll, while within the booth itself were local League officials to see that they voted according to orders. This was a clear violation of the secrecy of the Ballot, but it is a system which has grown under the Illiterate Voters' Clause of the Act, specially framed to prevent coercion. Though there is no better form of Government than that which derives its power from a real representative

  867
  system, there is none worse than that which permits electors to be driven like sheep to the poll to give their votes in fear of spiritual and bodily danger. I have no wish to entirely disfranchise these voters; there are many ways in which the most illiterate can give his vote with the utmost secrecy, and these will probably be discussed when the Bill of my hon. Friend comes to be considered. As long as you can give the vote secretly I have no objection to it; but under the present system, when the vote is practically given openly before the personation agent it tends to a large amount of danger to the voter, and the chance of his being intimidated. I think in the public interest we should have all the electors equally free to go to the poll. We hear a great deal from our opponents about one man one vote, but I do not think we should consider that under the existing state of affairs. I find that in Wandsworth 15,000 voters have one Representative, while in Derry, 5,000, many of whom are illiterate, have three Representatives. I hope that at some future time the First Lord of the Treasury may take up the question, not only as regards Local Government in Ireland, but as it affects political representation in that country. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a political question. I know for a fact that there are several leading Members of the opposite Party who thoroughly agree that there are anomalies in the Ballot Act; and I would also point out that at the meeting of the Conservative Party at Birmingham, where I had the honour of bringing forward the proposal that the illiterate vote should be abolished, it met with unanimous approval, on the grounds that by it great injury was done to the freedom of election of Members of Parliament.
  MR. M. J. KENNYI listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman to see if he gave any specific cases of infringement of the Ballot Act, and found, as I expected, that it would be an attack directed against Ireland. Instead of making an argument in favour of his Motion, he indulged in a violent tirade and an irrelevant attack on the religious gentlemen of Ireland. I have had some
  868
  experience of elections, and, so far as I know, in no instance has any attempt been made by any person of legal responsibility to indulge in illegal conduct on those occasions. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has ever heard of the Corrupt Practices Act, which makes the most stringent provision against any attempt at the intimidation of any class of voters. The Act was passed in 1884, and a special clause was inserted to deal with the case of any person exercising any form of spiritual intimidation. We have had two General Elections and many bye-elections since that Act was passed, and yet no clergyman has brought himself within the penal clauses. It is a ground for voiding an election if intimidation of that kind is exercised. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, intimidation was practised at certain elections, why were not proceedings taken against the offending parties? I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to be more careful before he makes charges of this kind against any class of the community which he is unable to substantiate. There was not a priest in any booth at the Derry election. A clergyman made the usual declaration as to secrecy, but I did not allow him to enter the booth. During the Sligo election no priests entered the booths on the eastern side of the county, nor do I believe they did so on the western side. Not only do Catholic clergymen take an interest in elections, but clergymen of other denominations also, and I have never heard their conduct questioned. The hon. Gentleman alleges that no protection of the illiterates was exercised. Every person in the booths had to make the statutory declaration as to secrecy, and no attempt has been made to bring a charge against any man for a violation of that declaration. The Ballot Act has been in operation for something like 20 years—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being found present,
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock.

INDIAN COUNCILS ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 3.)
House in Committee (according to order) Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
INDIAN COUNCILS ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 3.)

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of Standing Committees:

  E. Chancellor.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Cadogan.

  E. Kimberley.

  (L.Privy Seal.)

  L. Monk Bretton.

  E. Derby.

  L. Herschell.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Basing.

  E. Morley.

  And that the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVI.) nominated the following Lords to serve on the standing Committee appointed on Thursday last:

  L. Archbp. of Canterbury.

  E. Brownlow.

  E. Morley.

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Archbp. of York.

  E. Yarborough.

  V. Cranbrook.(L. President.)

  E. Dudely.

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Cadogan. (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Ravensworth.

  E. Wharncliffe.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Northbrook.

  D. Devonshire

  E. Selborne.

  D. Rutland.

  L. Bramwell.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Monk Bretton.

  M. Bath.

  L. de Vesci.(V. de Vesci.)

  M. Abercorn.(D. Abercorn.)

  L. Northington. (L. Henley.)

  M. Ripon.

  E. Mount-Edgcumbe. (L. Steward.)

  L. Rothschild.

  L. Monkswell.

  E. Lathom.(L. Chamberlain.)

  L. Lingen.

  L. Ashbourne.

  E. Derby.

  L. Elphinstone.

  E. Winchilsea and Nottingham.

  L. Herschell

  L. Hillingdon.

  E. Chesterfield.

  V. Sidmouth.

  E. Lauderdale.

  V. Gordon.(E. Aberdeen.)

  E. Dundonald.

  E. Cowper.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  E. Stanhope.

  V. Cross.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Bp. London.

  E. Spencer.

  L. Bp. Winchester.

  E. Lucan.

  L. Bp. Ely.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Bp. Manchester.

  E. Harrowby.

  810

  L. Knutsford. (One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.)

  L. Kenry. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  L. Hartismere (L. Henniker.)

  L. Willoughby de Eresby.

  L. Wolverton.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Harlech.

  L. Windsor.

  L. Norton.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  L. Shute. (V. Barrington.)

  L. Balfour.

  L. Watson.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Lamington.

  L. Rowton.

  L. Lovaine. (E. Percy.)

  L. Brabourne.

  L. Reay.

  L. Thurlow.

  L. Hothfield.

  L. Carrington.

  L. Grimthorpe.

  L. Meldrum. (M. Huntly.)

  L. Kensington.

  L. Brassey.

  L. Foxford. (E. Limerick.)

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Basing.

  L. Ker. (M. Lothian.)

  L. De Ramsey.

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Morris.

  L. Leigh.

  L. Field.

  L. Belper.

  L. Sandford.

  L. Houghton.

  L. Hannen.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 17.)
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, till Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.