Sitting of 31 July 1897

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.

POONA OUTRAGES (PERSONAL EXPLANATION).
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: With the permission of the House, I desire to make a personal explanation, because by to-day's Indian telegrams I see that Professor Gokhlee acknowledges without reservation that he was misled by his correspondents, and that he withdraws his charge against British soldiers engaged in plague operations in Poona. ["Hear, hoar!"] As I was the means of introducing Professor Gokhlee, with other Indian witnesses, to Members of this House in the Conference Room, and thus afforded him an opportunity of making these statements, I desire unreservedly to express my deep regret that, directly or indirectly, I should have aided in giving currency to a charge which proves to have been unfounded. [Cheers.]
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: If I am in order I should like to ask the hon. Member whether it is also the case that Professor Gokhlee attributes some statements—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in raising a discussion upon a personal explanation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  As amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that he was entirely opposed to the policy of this Measure, but that he should defer stating his objections to it until it came on for Third Reading. He desired, however, to refer to a statement he had, made the other night as to the conduct of a young officer in connection with the subject. On reading the report of his speech the next morning in The Times, he thought that his language had been far too strong, and, as he should not enjoy his holiday if he felt that he had given, needless cause of offence to any Gentleman, he begged to express his regret that he had been led to use such language. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member moved the following clause:—

  DURATION OF ACT.
  "This Act shall continue in force till December 31, 1899, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine."
  The object of his Amendment was to retain the control of the House of Commons over this Bill when it became law. It was not just that, where a Measure gave the military authorities such highhanded powers over the rights of private individuals it should be made permanent and there irrevocable except with the assent of the House of Lords. He denied that under the present new rules of procedure relating to Supply, the House of Commons could keep its control over the Measure by refusing the money necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Measure, because towards the close of the Session the Government might force the Vote for the expenses through the House by closuring all discussion upon it upon the last "appointed" day. He begged to move the new clause which stood upon the Paper in his name. ["Hear!"]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that by moving the

  5
  clause the hon. Member suggested that the Government should go back upon the whole principle of their Bill, which was that the military authorities should have power permanently to carry out the manœuvres. In these circumstances he could not accept the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. DILLONsaid that there could be no doubt that this Bill proposed to set aside the ordinary rights of the subject in certain cases. If the Measure passed in its present form the House of Commons would lose all control over it, because the whole machinery of the Bill evidently contemplated that it should be of a permanent character. If the Bill were made a temporary one only the House of Commons might refuse to allow it to be renewed, no matter what the House of Lords might desire; but if it were passed as a permanent Measure the House of Commons could not repeal it without the consent of the House of Lords. It would be no safeguard whatever that the Order in Council putting the Act in force should be subject to disallowance by an address of both Houses of Parliament, because the Government might put down the Motion for the address at the bottom of the list of Government Orders of the Day every night, and thus tire out those who were opposed to the provisions of the Act being put in force; or they might, by suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule, bring the matter on at a time when the House was worn out. The fact that the House had to vote the money to defray the expenses of putting the Act in force afforded no security whatever, because the expenses might be provided for in a supplementary Estimate which the House might have no opportunity of discussing. One never could tell how new rules would work and what developments might follow them. Already he saw that notice had been given within the last few days of certain supplementary Estimates—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling beyond the subject of the clause under discussion.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he was aware of that—[laughter]—but he was merely endeavouring to show that the fact that the House of Commons was to vote the money necessary to defray the expenses of putting the Act into operation would afford no security whatever. He should
  6
  support what appeared to him to be the very moderate demand of his hon. Friend. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYSsaid that he had many soldiers in his constituency, and among them there was a strong and unanimous feeling that the Bill should be passed and made permanent. He had even heard this excellent Government abused for not having forced the Bill through last year. The agriculturists in his constituency had had a good deal of experience of manœuvres, and they liked them.
  MR. W. WOODALLsaid that he could not agree with his hon. Friends in desiring that this Bill should be temporary. Under the safeguards provided by the Bill there would be ample opportunity of discussing the operation of the Bill—far more than if it were included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. However, the important concessions made by the Government entirely justified the opposition to the Bill of last year. Unfortunately, the areas available for manœuvres in this country were very few, and the provision that no area might be utilised more than once in five years might be found inconvenient. He knew some parts of the country where the manœuvres would be welcomed.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that this was a very drastic Measure, and some of its provisions were of an experimental character, so that it was most likely that amendment would be found necessary after a time. If the clause were agreed to, manœuvres could be carried on for two years, and thus the necessary experience would be afforded of the working of the Bill. If the Measure worked well, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the renewal of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be Read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 16; Noes, 94.—(Division List, No. 353).
  Clause 1,—

  POWER TO AUTHORISE EXECUTION OF MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  (1.) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, authorise the execution of military manœuvres within specified limits and during a specified period not exceeding three months. Provided

  7
  that the same limits, or any part thereof, shall not be specified more than once in any period of five years.
  (2.) Whenever it is proposed to make any such Order a draft thereof shall, not less than six months before the Order is to come into force, be sent to the council of each county, county borough, district, and parish wholly or partly within the specified limits, and in the case of the New Forest to the court of verderers; and notice of this intention to make the Order shall, not less than three months before the Order is to come into force, be advertised in at least two papers circulating generally within the district.
  (3.) The draft Order shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has lain before each House of Parliament for thirty days on which that House is sitting, nor unless each House presents an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Order may be made.
  MR. MACNEILLmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out "three months" and insert "one month." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the manœuvres might be authorised for a period not exceeding one month, instead of three months, as proposed in the Bill. He pointed out that under the Bill as it stood, agricultural operations over the land taken might be entirely stopped during a quarter of the year while it was given over to the military power. He begged to move formally, having no intention to divide the House on the subject.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the shortest time possible was taken in the Bill, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENSmoved to leave out "five" and insert "ten," so that land once taken for military manœuvres should be exempted for a period of ten years afterwards. No doubt it was said that whatever damage was done, whether small or considerable, would be paid for; but enormous damage might occur from prejudice and apprehension, created by specifying of particular land. Take the case of a residential estate. Three fourths of its value might consist in its value for residential purposes; but when once it was marked down, as land which might be taken recurrently for military manœuvres, any land valuer would at once say its market value was reduced from that of a first-class residential estate to the probability of a third-class agricultural estate. They
  8
  might do damage of many thousands of pounds that would never be recognised at all. He thought longer breathing time ought to be allowed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,)hoped his hon. Friend would not insist on pressing the Amendment to a Division. The point was carefully considered in Grand Committee, and last year, when the Bill was before Parliament, the concession made of five years was regarded by all those who had raised difficulties as being a very substantial one in the direction of meeting their wishes. It ought to be remembered, too, that if the Amendment were carried, not even a small corner of an area, once taken, could be used again for ten years to come, and that might have a most serious effect in preventing manœuvres from taking place.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsupported the Amendment, remarking that the arguments advanced in favour of it were unanswerable.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. CALDWELLmoved to leave out "papers," and insert "newspapers."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2,—

  POWERS EXERCISEABLE FOR PURPOSES OF MANŒUVRES.
  Where an Order in Council under this Act authorises the execution of military manœuvres, such persons as are under the authority of Her Majesty engaged in the manœuvres (in the Act referred to as the authorised forces) may, under the direction of the Secretary of State within the specified limits and during the specified period,

  (a) pass over, and encamp, construct military works, and execute military manœuvres on any authorised land; and

  (b) supply themselves with water from any authorised sources of water, and, for that purpose, dam up any running water. Provided always, that such damming up of water does not interfere with the exercise of any trade or industry, and that nothing in this Act shall authorise the taking of water from any source of supply belonging to a private owner, except subject to the supply shown to be required by such owner.

  Provided as follows—

  (1.) Nothing in this Act shall authorise entry on or interference with (except for the purpose of using authorised roads) any dwelling-house, farmyard, garden, orchard, pleasure ground or nursery ground, burial ground, ground attached to any place of worship, or school, or any premises enclosed within the curtilage of or attached to any dwelling-house, or any enclosed wood or plantation.

  (2.) The officer in command of the authorised forces shall take care that there is no interference with earthworks, ruins, or other remains of antiquarian or historical interest, or with any picturesque or valuable timber, or other natural features of exceptional interest or beauty, and shall cause all lands used under the powers conferred by this Act to be restored as soon and as far as practicable to their previous condition.

  (3.) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to—

  (a) the closing of roads and footpaths; and

  (b) obstruction of or interference with military manœuvres; and

  (c) entering or remaining in a camp, nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect any public right or any right of common.

  MR. DILLONmoved to leave out "construct military works." What was meant by "military works?" If they gave unlimited control to the military to construct military works they might do an amount of mischief to an ornamental demesne which would take years to remedy, and which it would be difficult to estimate in value. He gathered from the Under Secretary for War that the intention was to construct military works as if troops were engaged in actual battle. If that was so, then there was nothing to protect the ornamental grounds of any residents from destruction and injury which it might take years to efface, and for which it would be impossible for any arbitrator to appraise the fair compensation which should be paid.
  MR. BRODRICKthought that the hon. Member had forgotten the strong limitation which was embodied in Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause which forbade officers to interfere with a recognised park or the like, and especially safeguarding anything of natural interest and beauty. The officer, first of all was not allowed from the point of view of expense to interfere with these objects, and then there was a safeguard with regard to the expense. Officers were not so foolish as to turn up grounds and spoil them where compensation would
  10
  necessarily have to be paid. The limitation to five years was a most substantial concession, and the Government could not go any further without completely hampering the utility of the Bill.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that the explanation was good so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. Was it meant by military works the erection of buildings or anything of a permanent character?
  MR. BRODRICK: No; nothing of the kind.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSwas glad to hear this, for they were all familiar with certain schemes for the erection of fortifications to defend London; and there were people who seemed to have the possibility of invasion on the brain.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Solicitor-General for an explanation of the phrase—"construction of military works." Did it include the construction of camps, mines, trenches and counter trenches, blockhouses and forts? The clause would give a free hand to officers all over the country. The works should be limited to the erection of a few covered trenches, because the construction of military works as explained would be against popular rights.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that as there was an apprehension on the subject he was ready to make the clause read that the works should not be of "a permanent character."
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. BRODRICKmoved after "works" to insert "not of a permanent character."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MACNEILLmoved to strikeout the proviso in paragraph (b) permitting the military authorities to dam up running water provided that it did not interfere with any trade or industry. It was needful of course to give the troops a fair supply for their requirements, but the section permitted the diversion of ornamental water and running water.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. Sometimes it

  11
  was necessary in the course of manœuvres that horses should be watered, and that some running water should be dammed for that purpose. The protection given in the sub-section was ample, but the power was necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELLmoved in paragraph (b) to leave out "exercise," and to insert "carrying on."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. STEPHENSmoved after "owner" to insert "or public authority."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRODRICKmoved to insert at the end of Sub-section (b) that there should be no interference with the water supply of a private owner "or of those entitled to use such water supply." This would cover the case raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark who was anxious to protect the rights of tenants as well as of owners in Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FLYNNmoved to leave out the words ("except for the purpose of using authorised roads.") He did not understand the sub-section as it stood, and asked for some explanation. It seemed to imply that for the purpose of using authorised roads the troops might enter on all the kinds of private property specified. At any rate, it was vague and difficult to understand, and he hoped some explanation, would be given.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite appreciated the object of the words. If they were omitted, the military might be entirely barred from the use of long lines of road across country covered in some cases by woods and parks. The provision had been accepted by those who would be most affected by it. The whole value of the manœuvres would be spoilt if the words were taken out.
  MR. DILLONsaid the explanation showed that the hon. Gentleman had not carefully studied the subsection (which he proceeded to quote). His point was
  12
  this, that unless they put in words to qualify the sub-section, a man might get troops tramping through his back kitchen—[laughter]—in order to get a short cut. Under this sub-section as it stood, if the troops thought they could get a short cut to one of the authorised roads they would have a perfect right to go in at the back door and out at the front. [Much laughter.] He maintained that that was the meaning of the subsection, and challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove the contrary. Whatever the sub-section forbade might be done under the exception contained in the parenthesis.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid if the hon. Member would look at Clause 5 he would see that the Commissioners might determine what were to be authorised lands and roads. They could not determine that which was not a road to be a road.
  MR. DILLONasked what was the meaning of putting in this provision if there was nothing else in the Act authorising interference with dwellings, farmyards, etc. If there was nothing of the kind in the Act the sub-section was absolutely unnecessary. It was perfectly manifest that without the sub-section there was something in the Act giving this power.
  MR. BRODRICK: No.
  MR. DILLON: Then why put in the sub-section? It was preposterous. As a layman, he was entitled to some explanation. It appeared to him as clear as daylight. Either the words of the sub-section were silly, absurd, and unnecessary, and ought not to be there, or else they had some meaning. And the meaning to any ordinary man, and he believed the legal meaning too—though he did not profess to be a legal authority—was this, that if the troops saw fit to pass through a dwelling-house or a farmyard, or any other place forbidden by the sub-section, for the purpose of entering upon an authorised road, the words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit specifically authorised them to do so. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] He invited the hon. Gentleman to show on what ground he denied that interpretation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I think the hon. Gentleman would see that

  13
  what he had said was based on a misconception. If he will look at the fifth clause, he will see that the Military Manœuvres Commission had power to make orders to determine what laud, roads, and sources of water shall be "authorised land, roads, and sources of water" within the meaning of the Act. The word "land" is a very general term; and if it is not guarded it might be extended so as to enable the Commissioners to make orders for the use of houses, and gardens attached to them, and so on. I think that after this explanation the hon. Gentleman will see that the epithets he bestowed upon the sub-section as being ridiculous and unnecessary, are not deserved.
  MR. DILLON: I did not say it was ridiculous and unnecessary. I said that either it was necessary or it was not. I am content to leave it to any lawyer to say if I am not right. The contention of the Solicitor General was that it was entirely unnecessary, because he said that under Clause 5 the Military Commission had no power to order any interference with roads and houses—h—
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: No. What I said was, that it was necessary in order to restrict the generality of the words in Clause 5.
  MR. DILLON: That is my contention.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Then we are agreed—[laughter]—and I do not care to stop to inquire by what process we have come to that agreement. [Laughter.] If you were to leave the general terms of Section 5 unqualified, it might be extended to enable the Commissioners to make orders that land should be considered as "authorised land" which ought to be exempted; and you want this sub-section in order to qualify those general terms. [Mr. DILLON: "Hear, hear!"] To that extent we are in absolute agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman in supposing that he stigmatised the sub-section as ridiculous and unnecessary. Then the hon. Gentleman objects to these words "except for the purpose of using authorised roads." The only application to those words which is intended is in the case specified by my hon. Friend, where you have roads running through the kinds of property described in the sub-section. Suppose you
  14
  have a wood with roads running across if. It might be said, if you did not introduce this qualification, "You are not entitled to go on a private road which crosses a line of wood, because thereby you are entering the wood." It is perfectly obvious that you must introduce such a qualification, because otherwise if you have a wood 20 miles long only traversed by private roads you might block out a great part of the country from the troops for the purposes of the manœuvres. I don't think hon. Gentlemen need be under any apprehension that under these words a dwelling-house can be construed as a road. [Laughter.]
  MR. DILLONsaid he was sorry to interrupt. His point was—and he was convinced he was right—that in the place in which the words were inserted they did give the power of passing through a dwelling-house or a yard for the purpose of entering on an authorised road; and if the object of the right hon. Gentleman was only to give power to pass through woods, the only thing he had to do was to transfer the parenthesis containing the words of exception to the end of the sub-section.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: You will have sometimes a road which may pass through other places mentioned here. You might have a road crossing a pleasure ground or running through an orchard. Of course the Commissioners would not use their powers in an unreasonable way. But we are quite prepared to make it perfectly clear; and if it will meet the hon. Gentleman's views we will say "to the extent of using authorised roads."
  MR. DILLON: I agree to that.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: That is what the words mean at present; but if it satisfies the hon. Gentleman we will alter the words "for the purpose of using" to "to the extent of using."
  MR. DILLON: I accept.
  MR. FLYNN, by leave, withdrew his Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALmoved to amend the clause by inserting "to the extent" in the place of "for the purpose."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELLmoved to amend the clause by inserting after "dwelling house" the words—
  "land attached to any place of worship, school, factory, workshop, store, or premises used for carrying on any business or manufacture."
  MR. BRODRICK: Of course there is not the slightest intention of entering any of these places, but I have no objection to putting in the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ELYNNmoved, in Sub-section (2), after "forces" to insert "in any portion thereof."
  MR. BRODRICKresisted the Amendment on the ground that the responsibility imposed by the second proviso of the clause was responsibility which ought to fall on the officer in command. It was he who ought to see that the provisions or clause were carried out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRODRICKmoved in Subsection (2) after the word "beauty" to insert—
  "and shall be empowered to prevent trespass or damage to property by persons not belonging to the forces."
  He explained that the object was to enable the commanding officer to prevent sightseers from doing damage.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that in 1871 the manœuvres were carried out admirably, and that the only difficulty that arose was due to the fact that the troops were accompanied by sightseers who did a good deal of damage. It was very desirable that after conference between the General Commanding and the county police, practical steps should be taken on such occasions to prevent damage from being done. He was glad to think that this Amendment would call the General's attention to the importance of the point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3,—

  POWER TO CLOSE ROADS.
  (1.) "Two justices of the peace may, if they shall think fit, on the application of a commissioned officer in command of the authorised forces or part thereof, by order, suspend, for a time not exceeding forty-eight hours, any right of way over any road or footpath within those limits and within their jurisdiction. Provided that any such Order shall only be made with regard to any county, or main, or parish road by at least two justices, not being military officers in command of the forces, sitting in petty sessions in the petty sessional division or divisions within which such road or part of road to be stopped is situate, and for a time not exceeding twelve hours, and after seven days notice of such intended application published in a newspaper circulating in the district, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be required by the said justices for the protection of individuals or of the public or of public bodies."
  (2.) "The officer in command of the authorised forces shall cause such public notice of the Order as the justices may require to be given not less than twelve hours before the Order comes into force, and shall give all reasonable facilities for traffic whilst the Order is in force."
  MR. DILLONmoved in Sub-section (1) after the words "Two justices of the peace" to insert the words "not being military officers in command of the forces."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MACNEILLmoved to leave out "forty-eight" and to insert "twelve" as the period during which a right of way over a road or footpath could be suspended.
  MR. BRODRICKcould not accept the Amendment. It was possible to imagine a footpath running straight through a camp and that camp might have to remain in the same place for two nights. In such cases it would be necessary to stop the right of way for 48 hours. He might mention that last year an Amendment was moved from the other side of the House which would have allowed a right of way to be suspended for three months. [Laughter.] He had been generous, and had reduced the period to two days.
  MR. DILLONquite recognised that it would be necessary to control the use of footpaths running through a camp. The presence of strangers in the camp at all hours might, of course, be a great

  17
  nuisance. He believed, however, there was a largo number of small, narrow, private roads leading to the main roads; and it would be a great hardship upon many people if such bye lanes were closed even for 48 hours. In some cases the effect would be to cut off communication with the outside world for that time. He hoped, therefore, that commanding officers would be directed to exercise this right, with some regard to the convenience of the inhabitants of localities. He thought that leave might be given to use the roads for necessary purposes at certain hours in the morning and evening.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSthought that the hon. Member need be under no apprehension. When manœuvres had taken place in the past and footpaths had been stopped, the officers in command had always given reasonable facilities to people who were accustomed to make use of them, and he had no reason to believe that that practice would be discontinued in future.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALmoved to substitute "within the specified limits" for the words "within those limits."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALmoved to substitute "at least one" for "a" before the words "newspaper circulating in the district."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELLmoved to insert the word "generally" after the words "newspaper circulating."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4,—

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES COMMISSION.
  (1.) "Whenever an Order in Council is made under this Act a Commission (in this Act called the Military Mamœuvres Commission) shall be formed consisting of as representative members (a) and (b).

  (a) two persons appointed by the council of each county and one person appointed by
  18
  the council of each county borough (if any) wholly or partly within the specified limits; and

  (b) if those limits include any part of the New Forest, two persons appointed by the court of verderers; and

  (c) such other persons, being resident owners or occupiers of land within those limits, as may be appointed by the Secretary of State, but not exceeding in number the representative members actually appointed.

  (2) The commission may act by three of their number, and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
  (3.) Any question arising at any meeting of the Commission may be decided by the majority of those voting on the question, and if the votes are equal the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
  MR. MACNEILLmoved in paragraph (a), after "borough" to add—
  "and each district council representing a population of not less than 1,000 should send a representative to the Manœuvres Commission."
  He wanted a fair representation of public opinion. He contended that it was absolutely essential that they should have some popular representation of the public view. He hoped that the Under Secretary would be able to accede to this. What they wanted was that this Bill should not compromise the rights of the people. It was absolutely essential to have persons in touch who had local knowledge.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid in practice such a course would be impossible. In several parts of the country the effect of the Amendment would be to create a very large and altogether unworkable body. The difficulty was the extraordinary number of Urban District Councils in some counties. In Cornwall it would add fifty, increased to 100, if the War Office exercised its right.
  MR. DILLONsaid that as they had no County Councils this power would be necessary for the Boards of Guardians so that they might protect the public interest, the difficulty might be overcome by fixing the population.
  MR. W. B. BEACHsaid he was sure full consideration would be given to all claims brought before it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 130.—(Division List, No. 354.)
  MR. DILLONsaid be understood the Under Secretary accepted the principle of the following Amendment which he had on the Paper—in Paragraph (c) to leave out "but not exceeding in number the representative members actually appointed," and insert,—
  "provided always that the representative members actually appointed exceed in number the persons appointed by the Secretary of State."
  He would not, therefore, move the Amendment.
  MR. BRODRICKmoved to leave out from "State" to "appointed," and to insert,—
  "provided always the persons appointed under the foregoing provisions of this Section exceed in number the persons appointed by the Secretary of State."
  MR. DILLONthanked the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment. They had been so fairly met by the right hon. Gentleman and had obtained such substantial concessions that he would advise his Friends to move no more Amendments. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELLmoved in Sub-section (3), to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6,

  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE.
  (1.) Where an Order in Council authorises the execution of military manŒuvres, full compensation shall be made out of money to be provided by Parliament for any damage to person or property or interference with rights, arising from putting in force any of the provisions of this Act, and whether or not occasioned by the acts or defaults of the authorised forces, including therein all expenses reasonably incurred in protecting person, property, rights, and privileges, and any damage by reason of excessive weight or extraordinary traffic caused to any highway for the repair of which any public body or any individual is responsible.
  (2.) The Military ManŒuvres Commission shall, with the concurrence of the Treasury, appoint a compensation officer or compensation officers to determine as speedily as possible any
  20
  claim for compensation under this Act, and settle the amount payable.
  (3.) The Commission may make regulations with respect to the procedure for making and determining claims for compensation, for limiting the time within which claims must be made, and for regulating the mode in which compensation is to be paid.
  (4.) If the amount of compensation is not settled by agreement between the compensation officer and the claimant, the difference between them shall be referred to arbitration, and for this purpose the service in manner directed by the regulations of a notice of claim for compensation shall be treated as a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Act 1889, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after "rights," insert "or privileges."—(Mr. H. C. Stephens.)
  Clause 7,—

  OFFENCES.
  (1.) If, within the limits and during the period specified in an Order authorising military manŒuvres under this Act, any person—

  (a) wilfully and unlawfully obstructs or interferes with the execution of the manŒuvres; or

  (b) without due authority enters or remains in any camp,

  he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and he and any animal or vehicle under his charge may be removed by any constable, or by, or by order of, any commissioned officer of the authorised forces.
  (2.) If within the limits and during the period aforesaid any person—

  (a) without due authority moves any flag or other mark distinguishing any lands; or

  (b) maliciously cuts or damages any telegraph wire laid down by or for the use of the authorised forces,

  he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after "distinguishing," insert "for the purposes of the manŒuvres." (Mr. Stephens.)
  Clause 8,—

  APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
  In the application of this Act to Scotland—

  (1.) References to a county borough shall be construed as references to a royal burgh, parliamentary burgh, or police burgh.

  (2.) Cases of compensation not settled by agreement shall be settled as questions of disputed compensation under Sub-section 10 of Section twenty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894.

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out "police"; at the end of Sub-section (1), after "burgh," insert "the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892"; insert, after the words last added—
  "the expressions Council of District, or District Council, shall mean district committee acting under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, of the county council, where no such district committee exists."
  Insert after the words last added—
  "the expressions Petty Sessions, or Petty Sessions Division or Divisions, shall mean justices of the peace court."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. BRODRICKhoped that the House would now allow him to take the Third Reading.
  MR. DILLONsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had treated them so courteously he hoped his hon. Friends would not object to the Third Reading being taken.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSjoined with the hon. Member for East Mayo in acknowledging the very conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Bill through the House. He desired to add that the improvements which had been effected in the Bill amply justified the opposition which had been offered to previous Measures.
  Bill Read a Third time amid cheers, and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

AMALGAMATION OF EXCHEQUER DIVISION WITH QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
(1.) The Exchequer Division shall be fused and amalgamated with the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Justice, and in all other respects shall have and enjoy the same title, rank, precedence, patronage, rights, salary, and emoluments as he had and enjoyed immediately
22
before the passing of this Act; and shall have the same rights in relation to appointments to the offices held by the existing officers of the Exchequer Division (save the office of master) and in relation to any office which may be created in substitution for any such existing office, as if such new office were in the office in the Exchequer Division.
(2.) Any order which may be made, during the continuance in office of the Lord Chief Baron, for consolidating, or reducing the number of the existing offices in the Queen's Bench and Exchequer Divisions, shall state which of the new or continuing offices shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been created in substitution for an existing office in the Exchequer Division.
(3.) All causes and matters pending in the Exchequer Division, and all causes and matters which would have been assigned to that Division, if this Act had not passed, shall be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.
MR. DILLONmoved to leave out
"and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Justice,"
and to insert—
"the Lord Chief Justice shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Baron."
He failed to understand on what principle the Government had proposed to give the present Lord Chief Justice precedence over the Lord Chief Baron. He himself was not an admirer of the judiciary in Ireland, but he could not conceive how any one who thought the Irish Judges were an honour to the Bench could reconcile himself to seeing, in the event of this amalgamation, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench taking precedence over the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Would it be contended that the legal knowledge or the position as a Judge of the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench could be placed in competition for a single moment with that of the Chief Baron? [" Hear, hear!"] The Chief Baron had been for 25 years the head of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, occupying that position when the present Chief Justice was a very insignificant member of the outer Bar. Was this proposal to place the Chief Justice in point of honour and of precedence over the head of the Chief Baron a reward for his zeal on the famous occasion when he wept in Court while defending himself and 14 other Irish traversers who were charged with criminal conspiracy, and when he declared, with

23
the tears coursing down his cheeks, that the accused were the noblest young men whom he had ever known? [Laughter.] Were the Government so grateful to Sir Peter O'Brien for that noble speech, in which he denounced the Government of the day for their oppressive laws and for their infamous prosecutions, that they were now anxious to reward him by giving him this precedence? [Cheers.] At the time of the prosecutions to which he referred he was himself young and innocent enough to imagine that a barrister who was paid his fee for defending prisoners believed all he said, and when Mr. Peter O'Brien—as he then was—described the defendants as gallant young men who were risking their lives in defence of the liberties of their people he was affected, and his emotion was rendered still more intense when he actually observed the tears trickling down the cheeks of his counsel. [Laughter.] But as they grew older many of the illusions of youth passed away, and he lived to hear the same Mr. Peter O'Brien, as Attorney General, five years afterwards in another Government prosecution, denouncing him and other Irishmen as among the most infamous scoundrels who ever lived. [Laughter.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is aware that if any attack is to be made on a Judge there is a proper way of doing it—by Motion in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not see how the personal question can be brought up on this Amendment. The only question now before the Committee is whether the office of Chief Justice or Chief Baron is to take precedence, and therefore any Debate must be confined to the comparison between the two offices. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. DILLONobserved that the Court of Exchequer was to be amalgamated with the Queen's Bench, and the question was whether in that amalgamation the Chief Baron ought to take precedence over the Chief Justice. He was perhaps straying a little from the strict rules of order by old recollections. His contention was that this was essentially and largely a question of the personal standing of the two men. He had had to criticise and condemn the action of the Chief Baron, notably in the Woodford cases, when he thought he sentenced men most unfairly, but undoubtedly his Lordship
24
had the reputation of being one of the greatest lawyers on the Irish Bench, and if his Court was to be amalgamated with that of the Queen's Bench it was only right that he should be given that precedence in rank and position to which his reputation and knowledge as a lawyer and his standing on the Bench plainly entitled him. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the Government what was their justification for saying that Sir Peter O'Brien should be given precedence over a man who could teach him more law in a fortnight than he had ever learned in the whole course of his life. ["Hear!"]
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The last statement of the hon. Gentleman seems distinctly to trench upon the Rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman is now criticising the legal ability of the Chief Justice, and if he desires to take exception to that there is a proper way of bringing the question before the House. It must be done by a distinct Motion; this is not the proper opportunity of raising it. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. DILLONshould be glad if it was in his power to bring such a Motion before the House, because he thought he could make out a strong case against the Chief Justice and the whole history of his appointment. He recognised that that was entirely out of order on the present occasion. The Government, however, had brought in a Bill to abolish the position of the Chief Baron by fusing his Court with that of the Queen's Bench, and to place the present occupant of that great office second in rank to his junior in the profession, to his junior on the Bench, and his junior in legal knowledge. The Chief Baron was himself indifferent to this question of precedence and honour, but the Government ought not to take advantage of that to place him in a subordinate position to one who was in every respect his inferior. ["Hear, hear!"] He held that this was a question between persons, and not between offices. He was informed by those having a knowledge of legal matters to which he had no claim that such a proceeding was without precedent in this country or in Ireland. The custom in Judicature Acts had always been to recognise the position of the chief of the Court to be amalgamated until he resigned or died. In these very high offices of State this

25
question of precedence was a matter to which most men attached a good deal of importance, and it was not customary in connection with amalgamation to lower a man from the position of precedence and rank he had occupied for a number of years. The Government said the Chief Baron had raised no objection, and it was to his credit if that was so, but that did not relieve the Government from the responsibility of dealing honestly and fairly with this matter. He did not profess to express the opinion of the Bar, but he believed that this Amendment would give voice to the universal opinion in Ireland of the outside public that the Chief Baron by his long service, his great legal acquirements, and high character in the Court to be amalgamated, was entitled to precedence over a man who could not for a moment compare with him in ability and qualifications.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the hon. Member had expressed curiosity to know with what arguments the Government could possibly support the proposal against which his Amendment was directed, and in a few sentences he thought he could convince even the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the recollections he had introduced into the discussion, that the Amendment was unreasonable. The question was not one as between man and man, it was a question as between one office and another office. At the present time the Lord Chief Justice as such takes precedence over the Chief Baron, and the Government in their Bill simply left this matter as they found it. They had not raised any personal question, but if the Committee were to accept the Amendment that would be precisely the question that would be raised. If the Amendment were adopted the existing Order would be inverted, substituting a new Order and thereby inflicting a very serious slur on the present occupant of the office of Lord Chief Justice. In whose interest was the Amendment proposed? Certainly not in that of the Chief Baron. He assured the Committee that this clause had the full concurrence of the Chief Baron. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had spoken as if the Government had forced this proposal on the Chief Baron
26
and had forced the immediate amalgamation of the Exchequer Court with the Court of Queen's Bench, but that was altogether wide from the fact. The Government would never have made the proposal if they had not ascertained beforehand that the Chief Baron was perfectly ready and willing to acquiesce in it, and nobody would be more pained by the acceptance of the Amendment than the Chief Baron himself. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
MR. EDWARD CARSONthought it was quite evident that the hon. Member for Mayo was simply taking the opportunity of doing what he was always prepared to do—to make an attack on the Judges of Ireland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was sure the Committee were glad that the Chairman's ruling prevented the manŒuvre going to the extent to which no doubt the hon. Member wished to carry it. For many years he had had the honour of knowing both the Judges mentioned, and he could say that if there was one man more than another in the whole profession who would deprecate the Amendment of the hon. Member it was the Lord Chief Baron himself, who he was aware had the greatest possible friendship and admiration for the Lord Chief Justice—[laughter from Nationalist Members]—the greatest possible friendship—intimate friendship and greatest admiration of the Lord Chief Justice for his attainments as a lawyer and a Judge. ["Hear, hear!"] He was perfectly certain that, so far as the Lord Chief Justice was concerned, he would much rather have the words in the Bill giving him his proper precedence struck out than that any proposal of the nature of that suggested by the hon. Member should be entertained. What was the position at the moment of the Lord Chief Justice? As President of the Queen's Bench and as Chief Justice he was chief or head of the common law Bar of Ireland, and this Motion was made, not as against any proposal to take away any precedence the Chief Baron already had, but made with a view to deposing the Lord Chief Justice from the high position he had enjoyed, and it could only be put forward with a view of causing annoyance. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was an attempt to give vent to a kind of personal spite

27
against the Lord Chief Justice [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. MACNEILLrose to order. Was it not contrary to the rules of order to accuse a Member of personal spite?
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member had not been attacked.
MR. CARSONsaid it was to give vent to personal spite, and the hon. Member knew that from his position the Lord Chief Justice could not answer.
DR. CLARKrose to order. Was it order for an hon. Member to attribute motives to another? The right hon. Gentleman had imputed personal spite as the motive for the course the hon. Member had taken. He had always understood it was not in order to impute motives.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It is not in order to impute motives, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has imputed a motive I am sure he will see it is undesirable to do so and will not do so.
MR. CARSONsaid he did not want to impute any personal motive, and, if he had done so, did not in the least wish to persevere. If what he had said bore that construction it would be doing exactly what he deprecated the hon. Member doing in relation to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. The only argument he had heard put forward for the Amendment was that one of the Judges was senior to the other, the Chief Baron to the Lord Chief Justice. It was an absolutely ridiculous argument, as the hon. Member must know. As well might it be said that the Lord Chief Justice of England ought to be deposed from his high position because he was one of the junior Judges on the Bench. It was said that one was a better lawyer than the other, but it had never yet been suggested that the position of Judge should be filled up after competitive examination. He had only risen to deprecate these attacks, founded on no substantial ground or argument whatsoever, and he hoped the House would appraise at their true value the characters of Irish Judges as given by hon. Members opposite. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. FLYNNsaid that the question of man against man was really raised by the Bill itself. He did not wish to
28
appraise the respective merits of the Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice; that had been long since settled by public opinion and the Bar of Ireland. Here was a senior Judge of great reputation and high standing, and the Government put this indignity upon him of placing over him another Judge, whose qualifications he would not discuss, and which, notwithstanding the absence of competitive examination, had been fairly estimated as not equal to those of the Chief Baron on any point. It was unfair to the Chief Baron to put the alternative before him of agreeing or disagreeing with the Bill. The Amendment of his hon. Friend had the approval of public opinion in Ireland, and if any invidious comparison between one who was a great lawyer and one who was not was raised, it was the Government who had raised the issue in the clause.
MR. DILLONsaid the answer of the Chief Secretary had not convinced him. At present the Chief Baron was head of a Court, and from that position he was to be degraded. He should certainly proceed to a Division.
MR. DAVID SHEEHY, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to support the Amendment.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 32.—-(Division List, No. 355.)
Clause 2,—

AS TO JUDGESHIPS IN QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
(1.) One of the existing vacancies in the office of puisne Judge of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court shall not be filled until the occurrence of the vacancy next ensuing after the passing of this Act in the office of Judge of the Probate and Matrimonial Division.
(2.) The other such vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of the Honourable Walter Boyd, and that appointment shall be effected by, and on the passing of this Act.
MR. DILLONmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "one of." This Bill, in its main lines, was not a reform but a job. There were many abuses connected with the judicial system of Ireland, but the greatest abuse was

29
involved in the relation of judicial salaries to the emoluments earned by the leaders of the Bar. So great had been the falling off in legal business in the country and in the general prosperity of the country that, at the present moment, he believed he was well within the mark in saying that there were not six barristers in Ireland earning £2,000 a year. [A laugh.] The leaders of the Bar in Ireland thought themselves well off if they were making £2,000 a year. It was a question of the utmost importance to consider what ought to be the proportion between the salaries of the Judges and the salaries commonly earned by the leaders of the Bar in order to secure for the Judicial Bench the very best talent which the Bar could give. In Ireland, at the present moment, there existed a relation between the salaries of the Judges and the earnings of the barristers such as existed in no other country in the world. If the same relation between the salaries of the Judges and the earnings of the leaders of the Bar were to exist in London as existed at present in Dublin, they would have to raise the salaries of the English Judges to about £15,000 a year. It was perfectly well known that when leaders of the Bar in England accepted Judgeships, they generally consented to a considerable reduction in their incomes. That was perfectly right, because a man accepted a Judgeship for several reasons; he was willing to accept an office giving him a lesser income because he obtained dignity of position, security of position, and an assurance of a good retiring allowance after a certain number of years' service. The terms ought to be sufficient to tempt the best intellects of the Bar, but not such as to permit them to double the incomes they were now making by their profession. The sound principles which obtained in England had been departed from in Ireland. The reason was to be found in the history of the Union and in the whole political history of the country. The educated classes of Ireland had been corrupted—["hear hear!"]—and partly because the salaries of the Irish Judges had been maintained at double the figure which would easily command the best intellect of the Bar of Ireland. That was the main abuse connected with the Judiciary in Ireland.
30
There were in Ireland 17 Judges. Two of them received £2,000 a year, and the others received from £3,500 to £8,000 a year, the latter being the monstrous salary paid to the Lord Chancellor. One would imagine that if the Government found it necessary to abolish any Judgeships they would abolish some of the more highly paid offices. It was evident, however, that this Government had said to themselves, "let us abolish the lower paid Judges, so that we may say to the world that no man can be got to act as a Judge for less than £3,500 a year." That was an admirable idea in the interests of the Bar. The two Bankruptcy Judgeships, to which were attached salaries of £2,000 a year, were to be abolished. When making such a proposal the Government were bound to give the Committee some grounds for the belief that competent men could not be procured to do the work for £2,000 a year. The Bankruptcy Court, in Dublin had existed for a long time, and no one had found fault with it. Judge Boyd was to be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division at a salary of £3,500. Judge Boyd was glad to accept a Judgeship in the Bankruptcy Court at £2,000 ten years ago when he could have no idea that this Bill would be introduced. What had happened in the business of the Bankruptcy Court, or in the general level of the incomes of Irish Barristers, to justify the Government in saying that in future no man could be got to do the duty at, £2,000 a year? He maintained that nothing had happened to justify such an assertion. As a matter of fact, the volume of legal business had decreased, and he did not think the Government were even justified in keeping the number of Irish Judges at that which was contemplated by the Bill.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the only two Judgeships in Ireland, apart from the County Courts, which were paid at a salary of £2,000, were the Bankruptcy Judgeships. All the Judges of the High Court received £3,500, and it was for the hon. Member for Mayo to show that that salary was too high. The hon. Member forgot that when Judge Boyd became a Judge of Queen's Bench he would have to deal with the whole of the Bankruptcy business, which, up to the time of Judge Miller's death was shared with that Judge. In the somewhat misplaced anxiety of the hon.

31
Member to reduce the salaries of the Irish Judges he had forgotten the amalgamations and consolidations which were the principal objects of the Bill. Every reformer of the judicial system in Ireland had long been anxious to amalgamate the Bankruptcy Court with the Court of Queen's Bench, but the hon. Member would sacrifice that result merely for the sake of reducing salaries. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR. MICHAEL DAVITTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the work of all the Judges in Ireland was decreasing year by year in consequence of diminishing population and litigation. But at no time in the history of the Irish Bench had Irish Judges worked as laboriously as did the Judges in England. Even after the Bill became law the number of Judges in Ireland would be far out of proportion to the number in England. There would be 17 for a population of a little over four millions. On the same scale England would have nearly 140 Judges. Crime and litigation in Ireland, too, were much less than in England relatively to the population. The cost of the administration of the law in Ireland was £2,000,000 a year. On the same scale England would pay £15,000,000 a year. Would not English Members protest against such a charge? Why, then, did they not support Irishmen in their protest? This was a dishonest and "stop-gap" Bill, the object of which was to prevent the carrying out of any real reform.
MR. J. COGHILLsaid that most people were of opinion that there were too many Judges in Ireland, and that the Judges were too highly paid. [Nationalist cheers.] When the Chief Secretary found hon. Members opposite in the mood to assist in reducing the Irish Bench he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of the opportunity. [Nationalist cheers.]
MR. CARSONsaid that the hon. Member for Stoke spoke no doubt with an intimate knowledge of the internal condition of Ireland, and his statements as to the overmanning of the Bench were most interesting. [Laughter.] He wished to state emphatically—and he had no personal interest in the matter—that this Bill reduced the number of Irish Judges to the very
32
extreme limit possible under existing circumstances. Any further reduction would require the repeal of every single Act of Parliament at present regulating the judicial system in Ireland. The whole of the circuit system would have to be altered, and the system of summoning jurors, who at present were often brought from inconvenient distances. In addition, the real business of the country people of Ireland—the civil bill appeals—would have to be left undone. That was an almost perfect system for the poor. It enabled every case heard before a Connty Court, on the mere service of notice, to be taken before a Judge of a High Court sitting on the spot, and rehearing all the evidence. There were 4,000 or 5,000 of those cases every year. When hon. Members demanded a further reduction in the number of Judges did they wish to interfere with that system? Then a change would have to be made in the Court of Appeal in Ireland. That would be most undesirable, because a strong Court of Appeal was very necessary in Ireland, Irish suitors not being able to afford an appeal to the House of Lords. If the duties of the Bench were still further subdivided it would no longer be possible to have more than occasional sittings of the Court of Appeal. To his mind nothing could be more calamitous than to so alter the system of judicature as to take away any of the existing advantages that were to be gained by having a strong appellate tribunal sitting in Dublin. The argument derived from relative population was not a fair test. Take, for instance, the Appeal Court. There was one Appeal Court in Ireland, and only two in London; but they could not therefore say the Court of Appeal in Ireland ought to be abolished. Whatever the number of cases that came before them, it was absolutely necessary the Court of Appeal should be there for such cases as arose. As to the question of the relative incomes made by Irish barristers and the salaries of Irish Judges, he entirely joined issue with the figures of the hon. Member for East Mayo. He did not believe that the incomes of the Irish Bar had been reduced to the figures cited. At all events, if they had, he could state positively that it must be within the last three or four years, because when he was

33
more intimately acquainted with the Irish Bar, there certainly were a very large number of men in Dublin who were making sums equal to the salaries that were given to the Irish Judges in the superior Courts—£3,500 a year—and he believed at the present time there were several men who were making incomes in advance of the salaries given to the Judges. The comparison of England and Ireland was a most unfortunate one, and for this reason, that they did get at the Irish Bar the best talent and the most successful for the incomes that were by statute given to the Judges. That they did not get at the English Bar, and without in the least degree wishing to make any invidious comparisons, he did not think that the majority of the Judges who were appointed in England were men who make any great sacrifice in relation to their incomes when they go on the Bench. [AN HON. MEMBER:"£12,000 or £15,000 a year!"] These were not men who took Puisne Judgeships. And when he cast his mind over the more recent appointments, if their incomes were to be tested, the House would be amazed at the incomes of some of the men who had been promoted. He would also say that, in his opinion, appointments to the Bench ought to have no relationship to the income a man was making at the Bar. It did not follow that because a man was making a large income at the Bar he was therefore the most suitable man for the Bench. That was a statement which any lawyer would entirely agree with. On the grounds he had indicated, he saw no justification for the attack made, whether on the salaries or on the number of Judges as they would be after the Bill was passed; and, for his own part, he suggested that in this matter of maintaining the Irish Bench, its high position and its great traditions, it was not for this House to be considering in any niggardly or cheeseparing way whether they were to add on this or take away that from a great institution which had hitherto worked well in Ireland. He would recommend his hon. Friend, before he again gave the House his interesting opinions, to make himself a little more acquainted with the institution which he had ventured to attack.
MR. DAVITTsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman was always ready to sneer either at a fellow-countryman or any English Members who had the courage to utter a word of sympathy with Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had made a very able speech in defence of his brethren of the Bar in Ireland, and had lauded them to the skies at the expense of Members of the same profession in England. He seemed to forget that one of the greatest Judges, Chief Justice Whitehead, once said of the Irish Bar that it was one of the most corrupt professions in the world. If the present number of Judges in this great country, with its teeming population and its enormous trade and commerce, could carry on the administration, why could not a number of Judges relative to the population and the trade and commerce of Ireland do similar work? The number of Judges in Ireland ought to be cut down to ten or eight. That would be quite enough to carry on the Courts in Ireland if Irish Judges attended to their work like English Judges, and did not do so much political work for the right hon. Gentleman and men of his political party. [Cheers.] And if the profession of the Bar in Ireland was so profitable, why had the right hon. Gentleman fled the country and come over here? [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman's presence here in England and his speech were ample proof that they were entitled to cut down the number of Judges in Ireland.
MR. FLYNNsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that at the present moment the Irish Judges had been going round and getting white gloves all over the country, so little had they to do at the assizes. The Chief Secretary seemed to forget that there had been a great devolution of bankruptcy business in Ireland, and that since the establishment of local Courts in Cork and Belfast, a large amount of work hitherto done by the Superior Courts in Bankruptcy in Dublin had vanished. If there was to be a reform of the judiciary system, it would be this, that Judge Boyd be retained in his present position as a single Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy and at the same salary, and that vacancies in the Court of Queen's Bench should not be filled up; that would be a saving of three of the

35
higher positions, and a salary of £2,000 would be ample to recompense any Judge in transacting that business. He showed that on the basis of population there was an excess of £163,000 in the legal salaries of Ireland as compared with those in this country. He had been informed by one well acquainted with the Irish Bar that over 90 per cent. of those practising would be glad to take a County Court Judgeship.
MR. DILLONcould not admit the correctness of the Chief Secretary's statement that Judge Boyd would have to do the work of two Judges. He had seen it stated in a Dublin newspaper the other day that the Recorder of Antrim and Belfast discharged more Bankruptcy Court business than the Bankruptcy Judge in Dublin. His salary was less than £2,000; but here it was proposed to raise the salary of the Bankruptcy Court Judge to £3,500. If the Government would agree to the suggestion that Judge Boyd should come into the Queen's Bench at £2,000, and that the salaries of future Puisne Judges should be £2,000, his objection would be withdrawn. But he objected to a system whereby, under the guise of a Reform Bill, the Government were really perpetrating a job.
MR. J. J. SHEEcommented on the discrepancy between the view of the Chief Secretary and the intention of the Bill. The Chief Secretary had stated that the main object of the Bill was to effect a consolidation of courts and offices in Dublin, but the intention of the Bill was to reduce the admittedly extravagant expenditure of the Irish judiciary.
MR. J. G. WEIRadvised the Government to bring forward a substantial reform, and not tinkering legislation like this. It appeared to him that Ireland was eaten up with Judges. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a remark with which he agreed—that if you impose extra work on a man you ought to give him extra pay. If Judge Boyd was fit to do double work and get double pay, they had either given him far too little work to do hitherto, or they were going to work him to death in the future. They had been told, however, that the work of the Judges in Ireland was falling off considerably, and to double the pay of one of them was simply monstrous. It was not fair that Ireland
36
should be burdened with these heavy charges and with this excessive number of Judges, and it appeared to him that the whole business was very much like a political job—as though they were keeping a place warm for some younger man. [Irish cheers. He should certainly vote with the hon. Member for East Mayo if he went to a Division.
Question put, "That the words 'one of' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 32.—(Division List, No. 356.)
MR. DILLONmoved to omit Sub-section (2). He said the House had been condemned to a forlorn and dreary afternoon sitting for the purpose of rewarding Judge Boyd by an addition of £1,500 to his salary, and he did not think hon. Members, when they went home to dinner, would be able to reflect that they had done very much useful public service that day. ["Hear, hear!"] He maintained that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not, up to that moment, attempted to give a single reason why Judge Boyd should be paid £3,500 a year for doing what he had been doing for two years for £2,000 a year. He did not believe that it was proposed to throw any additional work upon Judge Boyd. Nothing of the kind. Either he had not had sufficient work to occupy his time in the past, or—as he believed was the fact—the business of his Court had decreased so much that one Judge was perfectly able to do it. As he had pointed out, the wording of the subsequent section—which said that the Lord Lieutenant should assign one Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in future to do the work of the Bankruptcy Court, while Section (4) provided that this Judge should have all the powers of the Bankruptcy Court—was sufficient to show that the Government expected—no doubt on good information—that one Judge would be enough to do all the Bankruptcy business. Did the Government mean to tell them that they were going to ask one man to do two men's work? He never heard of a Judge doing two men's work in Ireland, and he did not believe it would ever be done there. He did not believe there was a shadow of justification for this increase of Judge Boyd's salary

37
unless it were to be in the shape of a reward for political services. That was the ground of his objection to the whole Bill, and especially to this section—that it proposed to increase the salary of Judges in Ireland without any excuse whatever, and that it therefore came within the definition of a political job. [Irish cheers.] They heard the other day a statement made in reference to Judge Boyd, when mention was made of his great services in defending Mr. William O'Brien—though he could hardly see why that should be stated as a claim for his promotion as an Irish Judge. No doubt he had on a certain occasion ably defended Mr. William O'Brien from the attacks made upon him by a gang of men then located at Dublin Castle. But he could hardly fancy that was the reason for rewarding him, for he found that this gentleman, who was held up to the admiration of the House of Commons for his able conduct as an advocate in defending Mr. O'Brien, within two months took a brief for Mr. French, the leader of this Dublin gang, whom he defended with the same fidelity and ability as he had displayed on behalf of Mr. O'Brien, and in the course of defending Mr. French denounced his former client in the most scandalous manner. [Laughter.] Seeing that, as counsel for Mr. O'Brien, the infamous character of Mr. French must have come to his knowledge, it did appear to be rather a singular thing that he should have afterwards taken up the defence of Mr. French. He had himself but little doubt that the action of the Government in regard to Judge Boyd was based on the fact that he placed his Court at the service of Dublin Castle when it was wished to imprison men who had won the confidence of the Nationalist Party. Unfortunately in Ireland the Bench was manned by political partisans, and that evil was not likely to be remedied as long as there were such high judicial salaries to tempt the Irish Bar.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALEOUR,)said that he did not intend to occupy any time by a defence of Judge Boyd, who was an eminent Judge requiring no defence at his hands. But the hon. Member charged the Government with attempting to perpetrate a job in favour of an individual member of the Bench.
38
If the hon. Member referred to the proposal to give an increased salary to that individual, he would point out to him that a Bill was not necessary for the purpose, and that there was not the slightest ground for supposing that the failure of this Bill to pass would in any way injure the prospects of Judge Boyd. The only result of the failure of the Bill would be to perpetuate what was admitted to be an undesirable state of things in connection with the Irish Bench. But the chief reason for his rising was to say that the Government could not ask the House of Commons to sit for an indefinite period. ["Hear, hear!"] He was himself most anxious that the Bill should pass, and he did not suppose that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite really desired to kill it. But they were pursuing a course which must have that result. Unless the Bill could be got through Committee that day, hon. Members must know that it could not survive, having regard to the period of the Session which had been reached. He therefore would ask hon. Members to assist the Government to pass the Measure through the present stage. If impediments were to be put in the way, there would be no probability of their being able to complete this legislation this Session, nor, as far as he could see, in the course of any near Session. The responsibility must rest upon those who took the course to which he was referring. A large part of the Debate had turned upon the question of Judge Boyd's salary, and he thought that question had now been threshed out. If the hon. Member for East Mayo would consent to take a Division now, they might, he believed, dispose of the remaining Amendments in a brief time. But if a Division were not taken without further delay, he could not hold out any prospects to the House and the hon. Member that he would be able to find the necessary time for completing the Bill. [Cheers.]
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORopposed the Amendment. The purpose of the Bill was to effect economies, and one of the economies proposed was the abolition of the office of Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy and the inclusion of that Court in the Queen's Bench Division. That seemed to him, in the circumstances of the case, to be a very rational purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] The

39
rejection of the words referring to Judge Boyd would not prevent him from getting any appointment that the Government chose to give him. The Amendment, therefore, would fail to prevent this particular gentleman from obtaining promotion.
MR. DAVITTsaid that he objected to the Bill because it was a stop-gap Measure which would prevent any real reform in the judiciary of Ireland for many years. The Irish Bench was greatly overmanned, and the demand for a reform was not satisfied by the proposed small reduction in the number of Judges. To bring the number of Irish Judges into proportion with the number of Judges in England the former would have to be reduced by ten or more. The sum thus saved would be of some use to Ireland. He objected to the proposed increase of Judge Boyd's salary because, in his opinion, all the Irish Judges were overpaid, and he believed it was admitted that Judge Boyd had less work to do now than when he was first made a Judge in the Bankruptcy Court. Since then there had been some devolution of his work. The Recorder of Belfast, he understood, performed part of it. Judges in Ireland did not work on nearly as many days in the year as the English Judges did.
MR. GRANT LAWSONreminded the hon. Member that as a result of the abolition of the Bankruptcy Judgeship £2,000 a year would be saved, and would be devoted to useful purposes in Ireland.
MR. DAVITTsaid that he should always refuse to be influenced by such considerations. What had hon. Members, who made so much of such paltry sums, as £2,000 and £3,000, to say about the millions that had been stolen from Ireland by this country. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]
Question put, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 28.—(Division List, No. 357.)
Clause 3,—

ABOLITION OF JUDGESHIPS OF COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND PROVISION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THAT COURT WITH THE SUPREME COURT.
(1.) The office of Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy shall be abolished, and that Court shall be united and consolidated with the Supreme Court, and all jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Bankruptcy, under any Act or otherwise, and of the Judges thereof or either of them, shall vest in and be exercised by the High Court, and all causes and matters pending in the Court of Bankruptcy, or which would have been within the cognisance of that Court if this Act had not passed, shall be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.
(2.) The Judicature (Ireland) Acts 1877 to 1888 shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have effect for the purpose of such union and consolidation as if the same had been effected by those Acts, except that all expressions referring to the time appointed for the commencement of the principal Act shall be construed as referring to the date of the passing of this Act, and all rules and orders to be made after the passing of this Act in reference to bankruptcy jurisdiction shall be made and altered by the authorities in that behalf provided by the Judicature (Ireland) Acts 1877 to 1888, as amended by this Act; provided that the existing rules and orders in bankruptcy shall remain in force until altered.
MR. CARSONmoved at the end of the clause to add:—
(3) A solicitor shall have the same right of audience in all proceedings in bankruptcy, as before the passing of this Act.
He said that the Incorporated Law Society were very anxious, to have this Amendment carried. They thought that when the amalgamation took place there might be some doubt as to whether the right of audience was preserved, and it was in order to make the matter clear that he had put down the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4,—

(1.) All causes and matters in bankruptcy shall be ordinarily disposed of by or under the direction of one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division, to be assigned by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Judge so assigned shall have for that purpose the same jurisdiction and authority as the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy would have had if this Act had not passed, and may also appoint and remove the Chief Registrar and Official Assignees in bankruptcy, subject to any changes in the official staff which may be made under the Judicature (Ireland) Acts 1877 to 1888, as amended by this Act, or otherwise. The Honourable Walter Boyd shall be deemed to be the Judge first assigned under this provision, and he shall not act under any Commission of Assize, Nisi

41
Prius, Oyer and Terminer, or Gaol Delivery, unless so required by the Lord Chancellor.

(2.) Appeals in bankruptcy matters shall lie to the Court of Appeal in the same manner and in respect of the same proceedings as before the passing of this Act.

(3.) The percentages payable to the Official Assignees in pursuance of Section sixty-seven of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act 1857 shall be fixed, by means of a scale or otherwise, by the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and consent of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chief Baron, or either of them, and with the concurrence of the Treasury.

(4.) Subject to the provisions of the principal Act and this Act, all officers (including Official Assignees), clerks, and subordinate persons who are at the passing of this Act, attached to the Court of Bankruptcy, shall be attached to the High Court; and the offices in bankruptcy shall be consolidated with the offices of the Queen's Bench Division in such manner as may be provided by order made, with the concurrence of the Treasury, by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord Chief Baron, or any two of them, of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one; provided that no officer or clerk at the passing of this Act attached to the Court of Bankruptcy shall be in a worse position as regards tenure of office, salary, or superannuation allowance (if any), than he would have been in if this Act had not passed.

(5.) The vacancy in the office of Official Assignee in bankruptcy next occurring after the passing of this Act shall not be filled, unless in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor it is desirable and necessary, and if not filled there shall be in Dublin one Official Assignee only, who shall, subject to rules of court, discharge all the duties of the office.

(6.) Subject to rules of court, all bankruptcy matters shall be entitled "In bankruptcy."

(7.) Subject to rules of court, any Judge of the High Court may exercise in Chambers the whole or any part of his jurisdiction in bankruptcy.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)moved to omit from that part of Sub-section (1) which refers to Judge Boyd, the words "he shall not," and insert "neither he nor any Judge subsequently assigned as aforesaid shall."
Amendment agreed to.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDmoved at the end of Sub-section (1) to add,—
"but this provision shall not apply to any Judge, appointed before the passing of this Act, without his own consent."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. FLYNNmoved in Sub-section (3) after "assignees," to insert "and their staff."
MR. DILLONsaid that he understood that considerable alarm was felt amongst
42
the staff of the official assignees as to what their position would be in the event of one of the official assignees being abolished.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR. DILLONthought it was a very hard case. The Government went out of their way to put in special words to protect the official assignees, but their unfortunate assistants, some of whom had been 15 or 20 years in the Service, were left out. Was that common justice? If they were going outside the technical definition of an officer of the Court in order to protect the official assignees, why should the staff be left out?
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that part of the staff, if not the whole, were appointed by the official assignees themselves. They were not public servants.
MR. DILLONasked if the office of one of the official assignees was abolished, were the Government going to turn adrift without compensation the unfortunate subordinates of that officer? While they went out of their way to safeguard the official assignee, were they going to leave him with five or six clerks in the deplorable condition of expecting to be kicked out of office without any compensation?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that several Acts of Parliament recognised the official assignee as an official of the Court for certain purposes, and this clause was put in to make it clear that every person attached to the Court in the service of the Crown would be covered by the words "subordinate persons." The official assignees had the power to employ for their own purposes certain assistants, who were in no way Government officials. They were simply private servants of the official assignees.
MR. DILLON: Is not the official assignee paid in exactly the same way his staff is?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: No, certainly not. His staff is paid by him out of his own pocket.
MR. CARSONsaid he knew there was a good deal of feeling about this matter amongst the clerks, and really, although they might be paid in a particular way, they were in reality servants of the Court of Bankruptcy, and some of them very efficient servants. He did not want the Government to put these men in a

43
better position than they were in before, but he was very anxious they should not suffer from amalgamation. He would ask whether his right hon. Friend could not put in some words to secure that they should not find themselves in a worse position than they were before.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought that such a provision would be absolutely without precedent, but he would consider between this and Report if anything could be done.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid this was a matter in which there was certainly room for improvement in the existing system. In certain branches of the public Services, there was a system of farming out clerical work. ["Hear, hear!"] There were a number of men who were in all respects practically Civil Servants, but this system placed them absolutely under the control of the man who hired them. They were the clerks of a man who was allowed a certain amount of public money for the purpose of providing clerks. The result was that there was a sweating system in the public service. ["Hear, hear!"] He was afraid it would not do to place them upon the staff of the legal establishment, because they had not undertaken those tests or complied with those conditions which are de rigeur to men in the Civil Service proper. He thought the suggestion that the Chief Secretary should consider before Report a way of protecting these men who had given such long and faithful service, a good one. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. FLYNNsaid that on the understanding that the Government would consider the matter he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CARSONmoved to insert after the word "entitled" in Sub-section (6) the words "in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, Queen's Bench Division." He said that this Amendment was also asked for by the Incorporated Law Society.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Question "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
MR. W. O. CLOUGHmoved to report progress. He protested against the management of the business of the House, and against hon. Members being brought down to the House on a Saturday afternoon to discuss a Bill of
44
this important character in a ridiculously small House. It seemed to him that the business of the House was so managed that they had to work when they ought to be at leisure, and were at leisure when they ought to be working.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was quite out of the question that the Government should accede to this Motion.
MR. DILLONhoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. ["Hear, hear!"] He had himself complained of the conduct of business, but what he had insisted on was that the Irish Members should have a fair opportunity for discussing this Bill. The Government had given them a fair opportunity, and they had been beaten. He therefore hoped the progress of the Bill would not be interrupted. ["Hear, hear!"]
Motion to report progress, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8,—

AS TO ORDERS IN COUNCIL, EXERCISE OF PATRONAGE, ETC.
(1.) The Lord Lieutenant may, for the purpose of the fusion and amalgamation of the Exchequer Division, or the Probate and Matrimonial Division with the Queen's Bench Division, or of the union and consolidation of the Court of Bankruptcy with the Supreme Court, by Order in Council, give such directions as may appear to him necessary and proper for carrying such fusion and amalgamation or union and consolidation into effect, and may by such Order make provision for any matters and things incidental thereto.
(2.) Any question that may arise in reference to the right of any Judge assigned by the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act to appoint or remove any officer, shall, in case of difference of opinion, be decided by the Lord Chancellor.
(3.) Any such appointment or order of removal made by any such Judge shall be subject to the approval of the Lord Chief Justice; Provided that if any such appointment is not made and approved of within one month after the occurrence of the vacancy in the office, the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, make the appointment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out all the words after "effect" to the end of the Sub-section.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13,—

SALARIES.
An annual sum equal to the amount of the salaries payable in respect of the judgeships abolished by this Act shall be carried by the Treasury to a separate credit, and be applied to such Irish purposes as Parliament may from time to time direct.
MR. GERALD BALFOURmoved the following new clause in the place of Clause 13:—
(1.) An annual sum equal to the salary attached to any judgeship which by or in pursuance of this Act is abolished or left vacant shall, in the case of a salary payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, continue to be charged on and paid out of that fund or the growing produce thereof, and, in the case of a salary payable out of money provided by Parliament, continue to be paid out of money so provided, and shall in either case be carried by the Treasury to a separate account and be applied to such Irish purposes as Parliament may from time to time direct.
(2.) The Treasury shall also at the end of each financial year out of money provided by Parliament carry to the same account a sum equal to the net savings which in the opinion of the Treasury have been effected during that year by the abolition or consolidation of offices in pursuance of this Act, and the sum so carried shall be applied to such purposes as aforesaid.
He said the clause was intended to secure to Ireland not merely the direct payments that would result from the Bill, but also the indirect payments expected to result from the consolidation of offices. He explained on the Second Reading that he did not see his way to make this concession, because it was impossible to say what indirect savings would be effected. He had, however, been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought this clause would meet the case. It would leave it to the Treasury to decide every year what the amount was. It was a very large concession, and it was to be clearly understood that it was not to be made a precedent.
Clause Read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. FLYNNmoved the following new clause:—

REPEAL OF S. 18, C. 57, 40 AND 41 VICT. SALARIES OF FUTURE JUDGES.
(1.) Section eighteen of The Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, is hereby repealed (save as to the salaries of the existing Judges which still remain as if this Act had not passed).
(2.) There shall be paid to Judges appointed after the commencement of this Act the following salaries, which shall in each case include any pension to which the Judge may be entitled in respect of any public office previously filled by him.
(a) To the Vice Chancellor;
To the Lord Chief Justice;
To the Lords Justices of Appeal;
To the Master of the Rolls
the sum of three thousand five hundred pounds a-year each;
46
(b) To each of the other judges of the High Court of Justice the sum of two thousand four hundred pounds a-year.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would advise hon. Members to compare the Irish Bench in respect of number and salaries with the Scotch Bench. It had been suggested that the number of Judges, should be settled in proportion to population, but that was impossible. Under this Bill there would be 17 Judges in Ireland, including the Land Commission Judge and the Judge of the Land Court. In Scotland, with a smaller population, the number of Judges was 13, and if the two Judges of the Courts in Ireland he had mentioned, which did not exist in Scotland, were subtracted from the 17 Irish Judges, there remained 15 Judges in Ireland, against 13 in Scotland. As regarded salaries, all the Judges in Scotland were in receipt of salaries of not less than £3,600, and in Scotland no superior Judge was in receipt of a salary so low as that of a Puisne Judge in Ireland.
MR. DILLONpointed out that there was a Lord Chancellor of Ireland who drew £8,000 a year, and who, if he retired from office, after even only three or four months' service, still received £4,000 a year. The Irish Members held that this was a very insufficient Measure. It merely touched the fringe of the question. He hoped that some more pure-minded Government than the present—[ironical laughter]—would take in hand the important question of the corruption of the Irish Bar and the over-paying of the Irish Bench.
MR. DAVITTsaid that, while Ireland had 17 Judges, Scotland had only 13. Ireland paid in Judges' salaries and law costs £49,000 a year, and he questioned whether Scotland had to pay as much. Besides, Scotland had its own judicial system. The Judges were not political hacks, but were men in sympathy with the feelings of the Scotch people.
DR. CLARK: That is not so. [Laughter.]
MR. DAVITTsaid that of course he should bow to the opinion of a Scotch Member on the point. He doubted that the Scotch Judges were as bad in those respects as the Irish Judges, but if they were the people of Scotland had his sincere sympathy.
MR. FLYNNpointed out that in Belgium, a self-governing country, there were only 15 Judges, the combined salaries of whom amounted to only £6,000, while in Ireland they had to pay £8,000 for the Lord Chancellor alone.
DR. CLARKsaid that ten years ago the Scotch Bench was, in the matter of salaries, levelled up to the Irish Bench; and very properly so, for the salaries of the Scotch Judges were so low that men at the Bar were doing better than the Judges.
Motion made and Question put, "That the clause be Read a Second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 101.—(Division List, No. 358.)
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
As amended, considered; Read the Third time, and passed.
BURIALS JOINT COMMITTEES BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment. Read the Third time, and passed.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. J. CALDWELLsaid he foresaw that complications might arise in regard to this Bill. He quite agreed that there was a difference in defining "criminal," but he was sorry the Lord Advocate had not accepted the Amendment he had previously moved, dealing with this point. There was another point as to the jurisdiction conferred on the sheriffs in regard to the warrants. He did not propose, however, to oppose the Third Reading.
Read the Third time, and passed.

BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
As amended, considered; Read the Third time, and passed.
YORKSHIRE CORONERS' BILL.
As amended, considered.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE TO BE SEPARATE COUNTIES IN RESPECT OF THE CORONERS ACTS.
1. For all the purposes of the Coroners Acts 1844, 1860, 1887, and 1892, the ridings of Yorkshire shall respectively be separate counties, and the County Council of each riding shall, to the exclusion of any other authority, be the County Authority for all the purposes of those Acts:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the alteration in manner provided by law of the district of any coroner which is immediately before the commencement of this Act situate partly in one and partly in another of the ridings.
Amendments made: Leave out "law," and insert "section five, subsection three, of the Local Government Act 1887"; leave out "immediately before," and insert "at."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; Read the Third time, and passed.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Read the Third time, and passed.
WICKLOW HARBOUR (ADVANCES) BILL.
As amended, considered; Read the Third time, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (EXEMPTIONS FROM PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
Read a Second time, and Committed for Monday next.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House Adjourned at Ten minutes after Six o'clock till Monday next.

BILLS FROM THE COMMONS.
The following Bills were brought from the Commons and read the First time:—
Stipendiary Magistrates Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill—(Lord Balfour).—(No. 201.)
Military Manœuvres Bill—(The Marquess of Lansdowne).—(No. 202.)
Licensing (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill—(Lord Balfour).—(No. 203.)
District Councils (Water Supply Facilities) Bill—(Lord Harris).—No. 204.)
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—(The Prime Minister).—(No. 205.)
Archdeaconry of London (Additional Endowments) Bill—(Lord Aldenham).—(No. 206.)
Public Works Loans Bill—(The Prime Minister).—(No. 207.)
Wicklow Harbour (Advances) Bill—(The Earl of Denbigh).—(No. 208.)
Education (Scotland) Bill—(Lord Balfour).—(No. 209.)
Burials Joint Committee Bill—(Lord Belper).—No. 210.)
Dangerous Performances Bill—(Lord. Belper).—(No. 211.)
Yorkshire Coroners Bill—(Lord Belper).—(No. 212.)

WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to, with Amendments; and several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement; and with a consequential Amendment to the Bill: The said Amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.—(No. 200.)

COLONIES (GENERAL).
Proceedings of a Conference between the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies, at the Colonial Office, London, June and July 1897: Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Eight o'Clock, to Monday next, a Quarter past Four o'Clock.