asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, if the Treaty of Commerce with France, signed on the 5th November 1872, is not to be ratified, Her Ma- jesty's Government will urge a permanent most favoured nation article, which shall effectually prevent the state of uncertainty which at present exists, as to the future of our commercial relations with France; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will urge the introduction of such improvements in the management of the French Customs, with reference to expertise and classification of goods, as were agreed upon in Paris between the Commissioners appointed by their respective Governments?

Sir, the Treaty of the 5th November last was referred, on the recent change of Government in France, to the Conseil Supérieur du Commerce de I'Agriculture et de I'Industrie, and until the Conseil makes its Report, which is shortly expected, no formal negotiations on the subject of the Treaty can be entered into; but the two Governments are exchanging unofficial communications, which it is to be hoped may facilitate the attainment of an arrangement satisfactory to both countries. It would be premature to state the nature of those communications; but the House may rest assured that the interests of British commerce, both as regards commerce generally and as regards the details of such matters as expertise and classification of goods, will be carefully watched over by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, who has full instructions for his guidance, and by whom the negotiation will be conducted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his remarks in answer to a question on June 6th, upon the conduct of the two justices of Chipping Norton for sending certain women to prison for an offence which he admitted was fully proved, with no evidence for the defence, under the provisions of an Act quoted, upon what authority he then stated

"That those justices, instead of sending the women to prison, ought either to have bound them over in their own recognizances to appear and submit to the sentence, when called on, or that it would have been quite competent for the magistrates, on the evidence before them, to convict those who had taken the most active part in the disturbance for an assault, and to fine them, enforcing the fine, if necessary, by imprisonment;"

and, as he further added,

"that neither of those courses appeared to have occurred to the magistrates, and the case did seem to show a very grave want of discretion,"

whether he is prepared to state that either of those courses suggested by him would have been in conformity with the Law?

asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be well to order that the depositions taken before the magistrates and the summonses should be laid before the House, in order that it might form an opinion for itself on the whole merits of the case?

I believe, Sir, that either of the courses referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet, as also a third course—namely, the absolute dismissal of the case against some of the women charged—would have been within the competency of the magistrates. I did not make my statement on this subject without consulting one of the most eminent and experienced of the London Police Magistrates as to the Law, and as to the practice of the Magistrates in similar cases. Nothing is more common than to dismiss with a warning from the Bench persons charged with slight offences, or even less prominent participators in graver offences, although legally subject to punishment; and the practice of binding prisoners to appear on their own recognizances to receive sentence when called upon to do so is one frequently resorted to in the higher Courts of Justice, and occasionally by justices of the peace. The substitution of the charge of assault for a graver charge would be also within the competency of a magistrate to recommend. But when that is done the prisoner must, of course, be allowed the opportunity of rebutting by evidence the substituted charge. A large power is given to magistrates in the exercise of their functions, and I am bound to say they use it with great discretion and humanity. If they availed themselves of every opportunity they had to punish offenders, the country would require double the number of prisons it now possesses. It is a very serious thing to send a person to prison, and the magis- trates, I am happy to know, exercise a wise and sound discretion in these matters. In reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), I may say that in the Correspondence which has been moved for, the evidence that was taken will be found. Magistrates do not take the evidence in summary cases with the same accuracy with which they take the evidence in cases to be sent for trial, but the Correspondence that took place between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire contains the most correct version of it, and will be very shortly laid on the Table of the House.

wished to know, If the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to two cases, in which it had been held that the magistrates had no such power of convicting for one offence a person summoned for another, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested?

said, he had no doubt those cases perfectly represented the law; but he was informed, on good authority, that it was perfectly legal for the magistrates to dismiss a summons, and then to proceed upon another charge.

gave Notice that he would bring the subject forward again, for the purpose of having it debated. In reply to Mr. BOWRING,

said, he should prefer not to say what was the Lord Chancellor's decision upon the case until the Papers were before the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What information has been received by Her Majesty's Government as to outbreaks of Moslem fanaticism in Bosnia; and, whether they contemplate any representations on the subject to the Sublime Porte, in concert with other Christian Powers?

No information has been received at the Foreign Office, either officially or otherwise, as to outbreaks of Moslem fanaticism in Bosnia, and the latest despatches of Her Majesty's Consul at Bosna Serai make no mention of any such circumstance.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of giving some explanation with respect to a remark of his which had been the subject of some misunderstanding. In moving the second reading of the Bill, a statement of his as to the Judges occasionally reversing each other's decisions in the Court of Exchequer Chamber had given annoyance to some of those learned persons. Though he did not withdraw his statement, he begged to say that when he made it, he did not carry in his mind any living Judge.

in moving as an Amendment, in page 9, line 36, to leave out from "Council," to "thereto," in line 37, said, he wished to bring before the Committee a subject which was of supreme importance, and which well deserved the consideration of the House. It was one upon which a large number of hon. Members on his side of the House took a deep interest, for they were convinced the reform would be one that would be appreciated. By the section now before the Committee it was provided that Her Majesty might direct that all appeals whatever to Her Majesty in Council "except appeals from any Ecclesiastical Court and Petitions relating thereto," should be referred to the tribunal of Final Appeal, which this Bill proposed to constitute. He wished that the words he had quoted should be omitted, and that the great Court of Final Appeal should decide on all the appeals of the country, so that there should be one tribunal for all. At first Ireland and Scotland were excepted, because it was thought desirable not to overweight the Bill, and it was considered doubtful whether this House would accept the proposal to include them. But the House had shown itself willing to include Ireland and Scotland, and he now asked the Committee to include ecclesiastical cases also, and not to leave them to a separate tribunal, which would be weakened by the Bill, and would grow weaker and weaker as business was withdrawn from it. It could not be denied that the questions on which ecclesiastical appeals were raised were questions, not of altering the law of the Church or its doctrines, but of the construction of documents and contracts, and other matters which legal minds were peculiarly calculated to decide upon, and it gave an impression at present that it was rather a Court of Heresy than a Court of Law when there were ecclesiastical persons sitting upon the tribunal, and that cases were decided rather by a theological bias than by a strict interpretation of the documents before it. He had received letters from the clergy urging that the Amendment of which he had given Notice should be carried, and the Lower House of Convocation, which some might not give weight to as such, yet as a body of clergymen of great importance, had signified their desire that the final appeal in ecclesiastical cases should be given to the Final Court of Appeal for all other causes. That showed that those who were most likely to be interested or implicated in the tribunal for dealing with ecclesiastical appeals wished that it should be a purely legal tribunal. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the hon. and learned Attorney General that he did not make this proposal in order to hamper or impede the measure. He had accepted the proposal that there should be one Court of Final Appeal, and it was on that ground that he wished ecclesiastical cases also should be referred to it. The questions to be brought before these tribunals were of a strictly legal character, and ought to be dealt with solely by legal persons. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to accept the suggestion he had made, for while he knew he could not hope to carry it against them, he knew also that there was a vast number of people both in that House and out-of-doors who would be glad to see the Court of Appeal one and final. He therefore hoped they would give it their most serious consideration, and moved to omit from the clause the words which excepted ecclesiastical cases from the jurisdiction of the new Court of Appeal.

supported the Amendment. There was great difference of opinion on both sides of the House as to the point of view in which these ecclesiastical questions were to be regarded, but the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) was one upon which persons of different opinions might come to the same conclusion. The questions to be raised wore legal points of status and property established by statutory and legal authority, and they ought to be discussed by a strictly legal tribunal. In the present Appellate Court, the functions of Convocation were mixed up with those of a Court of Common Law, and apart from that, there frequently arose difficulty in constituting a Court under existing circumstances, and these difficulties would be removed and diminished if the whole of the appeals were appointed to be determined by the same tribunal. The existing state of things was extremely inconvenient, for he remembered that in the Voysey case, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was ill, the Archbishop of York unable to sit, and some objection was taken to the Bishop of London being upon the tribunal, that tribunal could not have been constituted at all if the Archbishop of Canterbury had not got better.

also supported the Amendment, the operation of which was not analogous to the transfer of the Equity and Common Law Appeals to the Courts proposed to be constituted by the Bill. It was intended that in those cases which had been heretofore heard in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Judges should still continue to report to Her Majesty, and all Orders would be made by Her Majesty in Council. If the Order was made in ecclesiastical cases by the Judges, and not by the Queen, a serious question might be raised as to the supremacy of the law in Church questions, and as to the connection of Church and State; but as the circumstances were so different, and the Judges in such cases merely acted as the advisers of Her Majesty, there was no reason why they should not sit in the New Court of Appeal instead of in a room at the Privy Council Office. The fact of transferring the jurisdiction was entirely separate from the question of the conditions on which the transfer should be made, and the provisions which should be introduced with regard to the jurisdiction of the new tribunal. That was a question with regard to which not merely individual opinion but general opinion was to be considered. But the transfer of jurisdiction would by no means decide the question as to whether any of the Bishops should sit upon the hearing of ecclesiastical appeals. He did not think the jurisdiction of the Privy Council could be kept up; because when all but ecclesiastical cases were taken from it, there would be no object in introducing into the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council men who were eminent for their general knowledge of the law, and for their capacity to deal with legal questions. Seeing that the proposition made met with the approval of the clergy, and that the Lower House of Convocation desired such a tribunal, he should give the Amendment of his right hon. Friend his cordial support.

supported the Amendment. He was very glad to find that on an ecclesiastical question he was in perfect accordance with the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) a luxury which he could not often allow himself. Nothing could be more imperfect than the present appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs. The only argument he had heard against the Amendment was that lawyers were not theologians; but neither were lawyers merchants or bankers. As well might it be urged that a Judge should not try a case of petty larceny unless he were himself a thief. The yoking together of Bishops and Judges on a judicial tribunal reminded him somewhat of the yoking together of those two useful animals whose acting in concert in that way was forbidden by the Levitical law. Without going so far as the late Mr. Justice Maule who had laid it down that to be a good Judge a man ought to have neither politics nor religion, he thought that many of the qualities which would go to make a good Bishop would make a bad Judge; and, certainly, the last cases that Bishops should be empowered to try were those which affected the clergy. The constitution of the Court would also be even more unsatisfactory for the future, because the four Judges who had recently been appointed to the Privy Council would now be transferred to the Supreme Court.

observed that it was the birthright of every layman in this country, that the doctrines of the Church were laid down in certain documents which were binding upon the clergy, and the clergy were entitled to have these documents construed according to strict rules of law. He should, therefore, support the Amendment, and he wished to call attention to this—that in making the change it was absolutely necessary that it should be done in such a way that it should be properly done, and that at the same time the clergy should be satisfied. To satisfy the clergy, it should be provided that whilst the interpretation of the documents to which he had referred rested with the Appellate Court, that Court should not have power to pronounce judgment upon what had passed, but that this proceeding should be left to the Ecclesiastical Court below, in order that the latter might pass sentence. He believed that such a mode of proceeding would tend much to smooth the matter over.

trusted that the Government would look with favour upon the Amendment; because, from a considerable knowledge of the clergy, he believed that there was a growing feeling in favour of some such an alteration in reference to the Court of Appeal in Church cases. The free way in which the Press and society criticized its judgments, so different from the respectful treatment with which the decisions of other Courts were received, proved that its constitution was defective. The combination of two very different classes of minds in the Judicial Committee was really very injurious both to theology and to law. The qualities that made a good Bishop would not tend to make a good Judge; for the very earnestness of character that formed the good Prelate was alien to the cold, impassive, judicial mind. The present Judicial Committee had many of the vices that characterized the old Court of Delegates which it replaced. Like that it was not a fixed Court, with a fixed number of Judges known beforehand. He hoped that the Government would attempt to define the procedure of the Supreme Court in ecclesiastical matters. When judgment was given, we did not get the whole mind of the members of the Ecclesiastical Court. However divergent their private opinions might be, the report of the Crown assumed that they were unanimous, so that the system might be called a gigantic specimen of "knock out." The Report selected merely the points on which the members of the Court might, by hook or by crook, agree. It was, in fact, a mere residuum left after boiling down the various opinions of the members of the Court, and did not command the immediate and spontaneous respect which other judgments did.

joined in the wish that the Amendment might have the assent of the Government, for the question was one which could not be allowed much longer to continue in the condition in which it now was.

said, that for the reasons which had been given by his two right hon. Friends, it seemed to him that it would be absolutely necessary that they should include among the subjects of appeal to the Supreme Court those which were referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If they continued to refer such questions to an inferior tribunal to that which decided other appeals, the same weight would not be given to decisions in one case as in the other. No doubt, it would be necessary to consider in Church appeals what Court should ultimately be required to act on the sentence or decree, and it might be necessary to refer any such cause back to the Court which was originally constituted to deal with it. He would not argue the matter now, though he believed it to be a matter of very great importance, in reference to the welfare of the country and of the Church itself—first, that the tribunal to decide on appeal should be simply a judicial tribunal; and secondly, that the people of this country should know and feel that it was so. He believed that the decisions of such a tribunal would not lead to that confusion and disappointment in the minds of men which some decisions had lately given rise to, because it was imagined, very erroneously that they had been determining questions of doctrine. He hoped that the Government would take this matter into their careful consideration.

hoped the Amendment would be adopted. If an Appellate Court of the highest character had to deal with these questions, it would go a great way, leading to that reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts of an inferior kind which he was so anxious to see carried out.

said, it was impossible not to be struck by the very remarkable unanimity of opinion which this Amendment had elicited from hon. Gentlemen whom on ordinary occasions he should expect to see down the two columns of a list of pairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) was so kind as to inform him last night that he intended to raise the question, and he then told him that he had every disposition to bring it under the consideration of his Colleagues; but he should be reluctant to introduce any change immediately into the clauses of this Bill, unless there should appear to be very strong grounds for making such a change. He also desired to have an opportunity of making the matter known to those Prelates who were immediately concerned in the decision of the question, and of obtaining their opinions. He attached great weight to the very remarkable concurrence of opinion on both sides of the House—he might almost assume, after what he had heard that day, that there was absolutely no difference of opinion on the subject. He had already taken the opportunity of consulting his own Colleagues, and this was not the first time that the question had come before them. Indeed, his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had stated "in another place," that his reason for being disinclined to assent to the proposal then made was the apprehension of charging the Bill with an excess of materials. He was sorry it was not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to give a longer Notice of his intention; at the same time, he would not give the expression of his regret the form of animadversion. No doubt the acceptance of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had induced the question, and it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University to consider the ground well before he committed himself to any declaration on the subject. He did not think that it would be possible upon the merits to maintain the present Court. It was so framed that there was great difficulty in constituting the tribunal, and it was incessantly shifting its component parts. The same Judges did not always sit to try questions of this kind, and there was the suspicion that theological bias would creep into purely legal questions. And, lastly, the fact that it delivered its judgments collectively, so that we had no knowledge of the opinions of its separate Members, whatever were the merits or demerits of the system, was one which was entirely out of analogy with the rest of our judicial tribunals. The sentences, too, were usually pronounced by the Members of the Court respectively, and not by one member of the Court as an integral body. These were general considerations applicable to the constitution and working of the a Court before this Bill; but as had been observed, the introduction of the present measure virtually altered the position of that Court, and the question was whether they should retain that single rag of an isolated jurisdiction which the Court might not be called upon to exercise once in seven years. Although there had been a considerable crop of ecclesiastical suits and judgments lately, yet the result had not been of such a character as to give great encouragement to the multiplication of such suits hereafter. Therefore, taking a practical view of the matter, it would appear rather hard upon the public, when they had long ago come to the conclusion not to vote one shilling for purposes purely denominational, unless there was something very important beyond that mere consideration, that the paraphernalia of a Court and the charges for its officers should be kept up by funds from the Exchequer, simply on the chance that from time to time some ecclesiastical suit might crop up, with which this semi-animate Court might be called upon to deal. If they could refer the decision of these questions to the Appellate Court they would carry them to a Court which was wholly discharged from all consideration of the religious persuasion of its Judges. To some persons it might be an objection to the transfer of the business of the Ecclesiastical Court to the Court of Final Appeal, that only Judges who had received a peculiar training could deal with religious questions; but his opinion was, that men of honesty and integrity and legal competency, who had not received any peculiar training with reference to re- ligious questions, would be well fitted to deal with ecclesiastical suits. If the Judges were men of perfect, upright minds and legal capacity, they would themselves best know how to define the limits of their own action, and how to mark the point at which they should regard the technical knowledge that was required, and then call in extraneous aid to their relief. He, for one, was ready cheerfully to commit to those Judges of the Appeal Court the decision of those questions, wholly irrespective of any question that might hereafter arise connected with the religious persuasion of this or that particular member of the Court. He thought that they should commit a great error if they were to attempt to secure even a shadow of religious conformity on the part of the Members of the Court, or to attempt anything in the nature of a test which would throw upon those Judges a character other than that of Judges. The question really was, whether it was the desire of the House that they should proceed in the matter by at once accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was before them, and considering the extraordinary concurrence of opinion with which it had been received from so many considerable authorities—from persons of diversified views; and considering also that the Government could not see any serious difficulties in the matter—considering, too, the convenience of business, and that the other House would retain its independent action on the subject—he (Mr. Gladstone) did not feel himself justified in pressing for the withdrawal of the Amendment. He should, therefore, allow himself the satisfaction of concurring in what was so generally thought to be an improvement in the Bill.

hoped that, before the clause was passed, the hon. and learned Attorney General would tell the Committee something on a point which had not yet been raised, but which was extremely important with reference to Appellate Jurisdiction. It had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). It had been the habit of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical cases, and, he believed, in all other cases, to give a unanimous judgment—that was to say, the judgment of the majority of the Judicial Committee was given. But the hon. Gentleman suggested that in the ease of a conflict of opinion each of the Judges in the proposed Court of Appeal should give the reasons of his judgment. In that suggestion he (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) did not concur. He thought that in this Court of Final Appeal, the judgments should appear to be the unanimous judgment of the Court, and that it would not be advantageous in the ease of a conflict of opinion between the Judges to have conflicting opinions of the Judges laid before the public. He did not wish to have this question settled now; but before the Bill left that House the question should be settled one way or the other.

said, that although it was too late to oppose the passing of the clause he could not omit taking that opportunity of entering his protest against the transfer of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council to the New Court of Appeal. It would be a transfer not only to the New Court of Appeal, but a transfer to a Division of that Court; and he believed that the Colonies and India were quite satisfied with the way in which the Judicial Committee dealt with their appeals, and the proposition to transfer their Appeals to the New Court of Final Appeal would cause great dissatisfaction there. The Division of the Court of Appeal would not have the same authority that the Privy Council had, and he warned the Committee that the change would be disadvantageous to the litigants.

said, he did not think there was any ground for the apprehensions which the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) appeared to entertain with regard to the effect of this part of the Bill on our fellow-subjects in the colonies. The clause was not compulsory or mandatory, but merely permissive; and he felt sure it would never be put in force when either colonial or Indian appellants objected to the transfer of the jurisdiction.

observed that our system of law was essentially a system based, not on technical rules, but on common sense, and considered that it would be a fatal step to subvert the jurisdiction of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, by which that system was so well represented.

joined with the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) in protesting against the transfer of Privy Council cases to the High Court of Appeal.

proposed an Amendment whereby the proposed alterations of the law would not be confined to the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal respectively, but would be extended to all England, stating that if it was thought necessary words could be introduced, on the recommitment of the Bill, applying it to Ireland.

in opposing the Amendment, called the attention of the Committee to the state of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in pointing out how differently it operated, said it was a strange thing that in two countries, separated only by a sail of four hours, viâ Holyhead, the lines of administration of the law relating to Admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of collisions between foreign vessels, were not governed by the same rules. In illustration of that, he mentioned a case of collision in the Pacific Ocean between a Swedish and an American vessel. One of those vessels arrived in Cork, which gave jurisdiction to the Irish Court of Admiralty. The Court pronounced its decision, after having heard the arguments of counsel, awarding damages; but had the ship arrived in an English port instead of an Irish one, the English Court of Admiralty would have divided the damages, in its decision, between the litigating parties. Should the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General be adopted, he hoped steps would be taken on the next stage of the Bill to extend its operation to Ireland, so that the administration of the law should be the same in the two countries.

moved, in page 14, line 34, to leave out sub-section 2, providing that no claim of a cestui que trust against his trustee for any property held on an express trust shall be held to be barred by any Statute of Limitations. The sub-section imperfectly stated the doctrine of the Court of Equity, and it spoiled it in stating it.

said, the sub-section made no alteration in the law. The words, which were not his, had been very carefully considered, and were designed merely to express the law as it stood.

said, he accepted the view of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the clause did not make any change, and, therefore, he had not put down an Amendment; but the law worked great injustice in some cases of express trusts on mere incumbrances, which ought to be excepted from the rule that interest might be recovered on demand.

accepted the clause as declaring the law, but thought the specific mention of special trusts weakened the general clause at the end of the Bill. If his hon. and learned Friend who moved that the clause he struck out went to a division he would give his vote in support of the Motion. He doubted, however, the advantage of doing so, for on a division the opinions of hon. Members who understood the subject were swamped by the votes of Gentlemen who had not heard a word of the discussion, and knew no more of the merits of the Amendment than the most ordinary persons who might be called in out of the streets.

thought it useful to have a distinct point of law specifically laid down, notwithstanding the general clause at the end; but he thought the interpretation clause ought to define an express trust. The position of trustees was by no means an enviable one. If the clause was intended to make trustees more indefinitely liable than at present, he would propose its omission; but its object appeared to be to leave the law much where it was at present.

said, the clause would be prejudicial in its operation.

thought that the wording of the sub-section was open to misconstruction, and that the sub-section was unnecessary.

said, the Bill now before the Committee was a measure brought forward by the Government professedly to establish a Supreme Court of Judicature; yet it was a Bill that would not only alter the law, but would alter it in the most absurd and unsatisfactory manner. No more dangerous course than Her Majesty's Government were now trying to establish could possibly be. Where, he asked, did their authority for introducing such a Bill come from? They had abolished the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal; and with regard to the clause under discussion, no lawyer could understand it, and he was sure he could not understand a word of it. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said truly that large bodies of hon. Members voted on Amendments about which they knew no more than the most ordinary persons in the streets, and in that he (Mr. Whalley) entirely agreed. Those hon. Members, when divisions were called for in the evening, rushed in from the dining-room and voted with their party. Not since the 14th century had so bold an attempt been made to supersede the Common Law of England. They abolished the House of Lords, and now they were aiming to supersede the Common Law—the greatest protection of the rights and liberties of the people; and in all matters of difference between it and equity to rule that equity should prevail. He felt in a state of trepidation, alarm, and anxiety on the objects of the proposal.

opposed the sub-section as wholly unnecessary. It reminded him of the old story of making a large hole for the cat and a small one for the kitten. If there was no alteration of the law intended to be made by the sub-section, it was embraced in the general proposition that equity should prevail.

held that the sub-section was necessary not to change, but to preserve the law. The question had been carefully considered by the highest authorities, and it was thought desirable to put in a special clause to declare that the abolition of Courts of Equity should not have the effect of depriving the administration of Equity of the valuable rule with reference to the Statute of Limitations not applying to express trusts.

suggested that the sub-section should be omitted, and reliance placed on the general provisions of the 10th subsection, as the former would probably give rise to doubts.

hoped the Government would not give them the trouble of dividing against the sub-section.

thought the omission of the sub-section might be mischievous. It was sanctioned by a Committee which included men of the highest authority in the profession, and amongst them he would mention the names of Lord Hatherley and Lord Cairns, both of whom filled with distinction the high judicial office of Lord Chancellor.

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 22, to leave out "Courts of Common Law," and insert "Court of Admiralty;" and in line 23, to leave out "High Court of Admiralty," and insert "Courts of Common Law." He thought the rule of the Admiralty should prevail especially as the same was the rule in all foreign Courts.

supported the Amendment, as they ought, he thought, to guard against a conflict of law in respect to international matters.

thought neither rule ought to be retained, but that the Judge ought to be vested with a discretionary power to apportion the damage between them. He, however, preferred the Admiralty to the Common Law rule, and as it had been adopted by other countries, a power should be given to the Court to enforce it.

said, he would vote for the Amendment, on the ground that it was desirable to maintain a rule of law which was well known to other countries.

opposed the Amendment, as he preferred the Common Law rule to the proposed alteration.

explained that the Scotch Courts acted on the Admiralty rule.

said, he had been all along in favour of the Admiralty rule, but had yielded to the Lord Chancellor on the point. His own private opinion had always been in favour of the Admiralty rule; and as every member of the legal professsion who had spoken, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), had also expressed themselves in favour of it, he could not but assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex.

in moving, as an Amendment, in line 10, to leave out, "upon any," to "hereinafter mentioned," in line 15, said, he had to bring before the Committee an unpopular subject, upon which he should probably have arrayed against him every member of his own profession in that House. But if the Bill were only to be framed in the interest and for the benefit of the lawyers, it would do extremely little for the cause of law re. form. Up to the present moment, the Bill had done very little for the public, and everything that had been done had been accomplished for the lawyers. It had done very little to remove the long delays and the great expense of getting business transacted, which was the great object of having any Bill at all. One of the greatest difficulties of getting the law administered in that country, was the block of business, and the loss of judicial power consequent upon the fact that with reference to a great proportion of the business, it was altogether suspended for a third or fourth of the whole year. The judicial and administrative staff of the country was more expensive than all the public Departments of the State put together; and yet they kept all that plant and capital doing nothing for the period he had mentioned. When last he called attention to this subject his table was covered with letters from solicitors stating the hardships produced to individuals by the suspension of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery during the long vacation. These were some of the evils of the law which the Bill, in its present form, did nothing whatever to remedy, and he could not reconcile his mind to allowing it to pass without asking the House of Commons not to spend £1,500,000 on one of the most costly judicial systems in the world, and yet, practically speaking, to close the Courts against the public for so large a portion of the year. Therefore his Amendment was to leave out those words which made the alteration of the vacation dependent on the will of the Judges. He could see no fair excuse for the present system; and he thought it would be for the advantage of the public if it were put an end to. If there was to be no alteration in the vacation, except upon the report or recommendation of the Judges, it would never be shortened by a single day or hour. The clause authorized the alteration of the vacation, and that in itself amounted to an admission that the present system was not satisfactory. Of course, the Judges must have holidays; but surely, they might be worked in "shifts," like miners, so as to obviate the necessity of suspending the whole administration of the law for a considerable portion of the year. Perhaps it might be asked how the barristers could take their holidays if the Courts were constantly sitting. Well, barristers could easily take their holidays; but the truth was, that those who had control of the business were afraid lest in their absence other men should slip into their places. He had always noticed that somewhat inferior men who attended to business, did it almost as well as very superior men who did attend to it; and, considering that there were as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it, he thought the public would gain by the change. The clause permitted the vacation to be modified, but it contained a Proviso, that that should only be done on the report or recommendation of the Judges, by whose advice Her Majesty was authorized to make the rule. Now, to pass the clause in that form would be tantamount to doing nothing at all; for, if the Judges themselves were willing to make the change, the influence of the Bar would prevent them from doing so. Parliament, in his opinion, ought to take the matter into its own hands, and, therefore, the first Amendment of which he had given Notice was to omit those words which would make the alteration of the vacation dependent on the recommendation of the Judges. It would not be unreasonable to ask that our system of judicature should be made constantly available to the country; but his request was only that there should always be sitting at least one Judge to administer Equity and another to administer Law in one Divisional Court. He believed a single Judge might constitute a Divisional Court. ["No, no!"] There was a distinction between what were called Divisions and Divisional Courts. A Divisional Court, as he understood, was a section of a Division. All he asked was, that there be always sitting in London a Court competent to administer the remedies which belonged to Equity, and another those which belonged to the Common Law, as the two were effectually severed by subsequent clauses of the Bill. He was not satisfied with a Vice Chancellor administering justice perfunctorily, by coming into town occasionally during the vacation, or disposing of litigious business in Wales, or in the Lake district. In entering his protest against the existing system, he appealed to the lay Members against the legal Members, and with the view of moving afterwards a provision to the effect that there should be two Courts permanently accessible, he would now move the omission of the words requiring a report from the Judges to guide the Queen in Council in fixing terms and vacations.

said, that the subject should be treated not only as a lawyer's, but as a suitor's question. The real point was, would the work be better done under the system proposed? He thought not. As to the chief clerks of Chancery, there were no more able, overworked, or unpaid public servants, and he believed the only inducement to men of high standing and great professional emoluments to accept the position of Chief Clerk was that they would have a considerable part of the year to refresh their jaded intellects and weakened bodies. It was also questionable whether more work would be got out of the Judges and the Bar if they sat continuously, than was done by them in nine months.

explained that he never intended to work them continuously; but only to introduce such arrangements that, while all the Judges had as long holidays as now in the course of the year, the metropolis should never be left without two accessible Courts.

contended that it was not an unmixed evil for suitors, society, or the country that the Courts should be now and then shut, and that it really encouraged unnecessary litigation by making the Courts too readily accessible at all times. He did not deny that the vacation might be shortened, but that there were others besides lawyers who were interested in the cessation of litigious business for a time.

said, he should support the first Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), not because he thought the vacation should be altogether destroyed, but because the Government of the day and not the Judges were the proper persons to suggest what alterations in it should be made. In his opinion, the vacation was too long. He could not support the hon. and learned Member's second Amendment.

doubted very much whether the public interest would be served if the Judicial Bench were made intolerable. It was all very well for men whose professional life was one continued long vacation to grudge Judges their hardly-earned vacation. The effect of the Amendment would be that two out of four Chancellor Judges must be sitting the whole year. We must treat Judges as human beings, and not attempt to get out of them more work than they were capable of.

in supporting the Amendment, said, he should do so not with the idea of depriving any Judge or barrister of a single holiday he now enjoyed, but in order that there might be continually sitting throughout the year, a certain portion of the High Court to dispose of urgent business or getting through arrears. The present total suspension of legal business was a great inconvenience.

opposed the Amendment, being unwilling to leave Judges at the mercy of Governments who might dislike them, and try to treat them unfairly. He did not know why the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) wished to take this power from the Judges—they had not done him much harm, if they had not done him much good—or why he should think that every member of the Bar would oppose him. He thought that the proposal merely involved a waste of time, and should have been submitted to the Committee in a more clear and definite shape.

hoped the Committee would not come to a decision on the Amendment until it had been further discussed. The hon. Member was proceeding, but was stopped, in accordance with the rules of the House.

in rising to call attention to the case of the Irish Civil servants; and to move—

"That the 'Civil Service (in Ireland) Commissioners' having reported that the dissatisfaction on the ground of the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase which has taken place in latter years in the cost of living,' is well founded; and that there is no reason, based on local considerations, for giving salaries to Civil Servants stationed in Dublin less in amount than those assigned to persons in London performing analogous duties,' this House is of opinion that such general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries of the Civil Servants serving in Ireland should as soon as possible he redressed, and that they should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those performing duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility."

said, the question was one which did not involve the expenditure of a large amount of money, but was nevertheless of great interest to those whose position he wished to lay before the House. Last year he stated in dealing with the subject, that the salaries of the Irish Civil servants had been fixed a long time ago, when the cost of living was very low; but that since then the cost had risen with extraordinary rapidity, while the salaries of those officers had not correspondingly increased. That was felt by them to be a great hardship, especially as Civil servants performing corresponding duties in England were paid on a much higher scale. The proposal which he had made received very general support from the Irish Members, and it was met on the part of the Government by a suggestion that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the matter. A Commission had been appointed to which nobody could have any objection, presided over by Lord Monck, and they proposed to inquire—first, into the complaints of the Irish metropolitan police; next, into the complaints of the Irish constabulary; and of the Irish stipendiary magistrates. Having finished those inquiries, they proceeded to consider the cases of the Local Government Board, and of the office of the Registrar General, and finally the general grievances of the Irish Civil servants. The investigation had been a complete and exhaustive one, and he had now to submit to the House the result of that inquiry. The Commissioners reported that the causes of the dissatisfaction existing among members of the Civil Service in Ireland were mainly divisible under two heads—firstly, the general inadequacy of the present scale of salaries, having regard to the great increase in latter years in the cost of living, and, secondly, the disparity between the rates of pay assigned to officers performing analogous duties in London and in Dublin. With regard to the first point, the Commissioners said that abundant evidence had been given to prove, that the rise in the price of all articles of primary necessity had been very great within the last 20 years, that the salaries of the present day represented a lower amount of remuneration than in former times, and that the dissatisfaction felt on that ground was well founded. Under those circumstances, they recommended an increase in the present salaries. On the second point, the Commissioners were of opinion that in former times there existed good grounds for fixing the salaries in Dublin at the amount at which they then stood; but that, there was now sufficient evidence to show that even in the matter of house accommodation, the rents paid by persons in the same rank of life as the Civil servants were not higher in London than in Dublin. The Commissioners therefore came to the conclusion that there was no reason based on local considerations for giving to Civil servants in Dublin lower salaries than were paid to officers performing analogous duties in London. That was the Report of the majority of the Commissioners. Mr. Blackwood, one of the three Commissioners, an officer of the Treasury, did not feel himself justified in agreeing to the Report. He had made a separate statement on the subject, but in doing so, he said that his reason for not agreeing to the Report was not so much that he differed from the other Commissioners as to the conclusions at which they had arrived, as that, having regard to the orders from the Treasury, he did not feel himself entitled to report such general conclusions. Therefore, he (Mr. Plunket) submitted that, so far as the proceedings of that Commission were concerned, his case was proved. The statement he made last year had been entirely borne out by the facts. The Commissioners had found distinctly in favour of the two propositions for which he contended—that there had been an extraordinarily rapid increase in the cost of living in Dublin, and that the effect had been an absolute deterioration of the position of the Civil servants there, as well as relatively when compared with the position of those serving in England. Another objection raised last year to the case he had sought to establish was that, although the cost of provisions might be as dear in Dublin as in London, the household expenses otherwise were less; but that too had been entirely disposed of. The Commissioners had also inquired into some other matters. They attempted to draw a comparison between the posi- tion of commercial employés and that of the Civil servants; but they failed to find any close analogy between the two on which they could confidently rely, with the single exception of the Bank of Ireland—a quasi-national institution. The Commissioners were informed that within the last few years, the salaries paid by the Bank of Ireland to its servants had increased £7,000 per annum; that within the last few weeks there bad been a dearth of well-qualified candidates for vacant clerkships, and that a further increase in the scale of salaries was impending. But it was argued that, after all, if they could get the work well done by the Civil servants in Dublin for the present rate of remuneration the Treasury ought not to pay more. The Commission found that there was now no lack of candidates for the Civil Service; that there was some tendency—though not to any great extent—among some of the Civil servants to leave Government employ in order to better their position elsewhere; but that, notwithstanding the existing complaint as to the inadequacy of the salaries, the work in the public offices at Dublin was well done for the present scale of pay. He would not now discuss the question as to whether there ought or ought not to be an increase of the salaries of the Civil servants throughout the three kingdoms; nor would he enter into the question of the general increase of the prices of all the necessaries of life further than to express his own belief that, unless some concession was made in consequence of the greater cost of living, and the greater hardships of the position of the Civil servants, even in England, the standard of these men's qualities, their abilities, and usefulness to the State could not long be maintained at the high point it had hitherto reached, and the necessary effect must be that the prestige of the service would suffer. He was now dealing especially with the ease of the Civil servants in Ireland, and he prayed the House to consider the position in which they were placed —a position which was felt to be an anomaly, and, to a certain extent, an ignominy. The Commissioners said in their Report that the Irish Civil servants were appointed by the Crown in former times, and that Irishmen were generally appointed to Irish offices; but the competitive examination changed all that, and now if a candidate went up for examination and succeeded, he might, no doubt, go to any part of the United Kingdom to perform his duties. But how would this be found to work? Owing to the peculiar disadvantages of the service in Ireland it was only the worst of the candidates—those, in fact, who had no choice in the matter—who would go there. Now, that in his opinion, was a very anomalous position for men to be placed in, and he added that it affected the interest of the Irish public generally. They had no right to call on a young Irishman to leave his country and go elsewhere, and it was felt to be an indignity that there should be thus a kind of Pariah class in the service of Ireland. Such was the case since the application of the system of competitive examinations for entering into the service, and such would be the case for the future. But it was for the interests of the old Civil servants that he wished especially to plead. Theirs was no sentimental grievance, it had the misfortune of being a real one. They were exposed to the greatest hardship. They had accepted a certain office with certain expectations, but owing to circumstances over which they had no control, their position had become greatly altered. What had been worth £300 a-year a short time ago was now practically only worth about £200; so that, instead of advancing in respect of income, they had been receding, and were daily less able to carry on the struggle of life. These Civil servants were obliged to keep up a certain position. He did not know whether it was the ease in England or Scotland; but in Ireland they had been generally men of great respectability, some of them gentlemen moving in good society, and it was a hard thing that they should find themselves continually on the verge, he would not say of insolvency, but of getting into debt. Their position was becoming every day more intolerable; and many of them, he knew, were only waiting the result of the efforts that had been carried on now for several years in their behalf, to see whether it would not be better for them to throw up that line of life altogether, to forego the superannuation to which they had looked forward as the fruit of their long service, and try to begin life anew in some other occupation. With regard to the method of redress, the Commissioners suggested a classification of various offices of the service all over the Empire. As to whether that proposal was good or bad, he would not offer an opinion, and the Civil servants in Ireland did not pretend to suggest—much less insist—as to the means by which their grievances might be redressed. If the recommendations of the Commissioners to remedy the inadequacy of the present salaries, and to remove the inequalities which existed, were honestly carried out, the Civil servants would be perfectly satisfied. They submitted that they had a pressing and a painful grievance, which, indeed, had been fully established by the Commission issued by the Government, and they prayed that it might be redressed. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

wished to point out, in the first instance, that the words "general inadequacy," as used in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), did not mean what they would appear to imply when taken by themselves, but referred to the Report of the Commissioners, in which they said there was a general inadequacy, having regard to the great increase that had taken place in the cost of living. There was no finding in the Report of a general inadequacy of salaries, except in reference to that particular matter. He did not say that there was any ambiguity in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but still it was as well that the fact should be borne in mind. Strictly speaking, that was not an Irish grievance at all, as things were now managed, although Irish Members had been specially appealed to in reference to it. The Commissioners stated that in former days the offices in question were uniformly given to Irishmen, implying that it was reasonable they should therefore have been content to receive lower salaries. In that view he could not acquiesce, as he could see no reason why an Irishman should receive a lower salary than an Englishman or a Scotchman of the same attainments and ability. But it was not an Irish grievance, for the simple reason that those offices were no longer necessarily filled up either from Ireland or by Irishmen. It did not follow that because a man took a place in Ireland he should be an Irishman, and therefore Irishmen did not suffer any greater hardship in the case under the notice of the House than Englishmen or Scotch-men who were employed in the Civil Service in Dublin. He would observe, further, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted from his speech and Motion one matter which was of some consequence—namely, that the salaries which were enjoyed by the Civil servants of the Crown were matters of contract. There was a contract between them and the Government, as representing the people, by which the Government was bound to the very letter to pay the Civil servant so much salary, increasing at a certain rate, and at the end of his service to pay him a certain pension for the remainder of his life. No circumstances whatever would justify a Government in attempting to deviate from that contract; they were absolutely and completely bound by it. Supposing the prices of provisions and necessaries of life had fallen ever so low, nobody would dream for a moment of taking advantage of that in order to lower the salaries of the Civil servants; and yet it was assumed that it was not only justifiable, but absolutely essential, that if this contract turned out in respect of the prices of provisions at all against the Civil servants they should set aside all that portion of the contract which seemed to press hardly upon them, and should ob- tain all the benefits of that portion which was in their favour. He maintained, however, that the people of this country, who paid the Civil servants, were as much entitled to consideration in that House as were the Civil servants themselves; and that, as a genera rule, they ought to adhere to contracts solemnly and deliberately entered into rather than assume that they might be set aside at any moment when the interested persons complained that they pressed hardly upon them. The hon. and learned Gentleman relied upon two grounds—first, the prices of provisions; and secondly, that the Irish Civil servants did not consider themselves paid at a rate equivalent to that paid to their brother Civil servants in England. With regard to the first, there was no doubt that there had been a considerable rise in the prices of provisions and the necessaries of life, and that that pressed the harder upon a man in proportion to his poverty. That was assumed to be a sufficient reason for altering these contracts and re-adjusting the salaries; but, as he had said, there was no such agreement or arrangement ever entered into, and what was now asked was a matter of pure grace, and it ought to be carefully considered whether it could be entertained at all. They could not wholly put the principles of economic science out of the question in such a matter. It was tacitly assumed that the price of work of any kind was regulated by the price of provisions; but there was no greater fallacy than that. The price of labour was regulated by the number of persons seeking employment of a particular description, and the amount of employment available for them. At the present moment the price of physical labour was very much on the increase, whilst the price of intellectual labour—at least of that species—was very much on the decline, and these two things were happening coincidentally with a very large rise in the prices of provisions. How, then, could it be said that the price of labour should depend upon the price of provisions? There was a tendency not to a rise, but to a fall in the labour of clerks and persons of that kind, and for the simple reason that the country had by a large expenditure of public money forced the education of the people, and had consequently raised up a large number of competitors for that species of intellectual work. What the hon. and learned Gentleman asked was, that on account of the rise in the prices of provisions and necessaries of life, they should offer higher prices for labour when the labour market was actually falling. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that, upon whatever grounds the House might accede to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition, it would not be on the ground of the rise in the prices of provisions. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a sort of symmetry that he seemed to require; he wished to have the payments made in England and in Ireland adjusted with reference to each other. The hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Motion, that the Irish Civil servants ought to be placed on an equality as regarded remuneration with those performing corresponding duties in England; but there were two ways of obtaining that equality. They might either raise the salaries of the Irish Civil servants to those of the English servants, or lower those of the English servants down to the level of the former. The latter course would satisfy not the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps, but certainly the words of his Motion, and the portion of his argument that related to symmetry. If it were once attempted to regulate the salaries in Ireland, not in reference to the wants and the position of Ireland, but in reference to what was done in England, and to symmetry and equality of that kind, where did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that they should stop? If the Government once began that process, they could not stop; they must go through the whole Civil Service, and must consider everybody's salary with reference to that of everybody else, and strike a mean. That would be perfectly symmetrical, but that it would be fair he did not believe. The question really was, however, what was to be done upon this subject. He had shown that they could not lay down the ludicrously false principle of basing salaries upon the price of provisions and necessaries of life, nor yet could they rely upon the speculative principle of equalizing or comparing all salaries, and striking an equality between them, which would prevent any Civil servant receiving a shilling until the whole service was put in the same position. But what they could do, and what he was sure would satisfy the hon and learned Gentleman was this—they could not go into the question of a general rise of salaries, calculated on the price of provisions, for that would involve a perpetual fluctuation and change, because if a rise in the price of provisions must be followed by a rise in salaries, a fall in provisions would entitle the Government to claim a reduction of salaries; nor could they go into the question of comparing salaries, for there was a great diversity in the salaries of different offices. England was an old country, and it was a long time since she began to pay salaries. In earlier days people were not so particular about public money, and consequently the salaries of the older offices were high. Things had improved a little of late, and the salaries of new offices had been lowered. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked that they should be all put on a level, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said no; let them leave matters as they stood, and not attempt to make any sweeping change, which would only saddle the country with an enormous burden which was unnecessary and unjustifiable, for if they attempted to equalize, they must take the highest salaries and level up to them. He would say take the Departments as they stood; take the Irish Departments, for instance, and look carefully into them, not in reference to what there was in England, but to see what duties particular persons had to perform; and, above all, never attempt to raise salaries or to deal with Departments without carefully looking into all the circumstances, and the organization of each Department. They would look to the number of persons employed, and to the character and manner in which their labours were discharged, and when they had done those things they would consider the merits of each Department by itself, and deal with it in as liberal a spirit as they could. Into such a scheme the Government were ready to enter in regard to the Civil servants in Ireland, as they had already entered into with regard to England, and make use of the valuable information which they had received from the Commission. The Government were ready, either by the reduction of the numbers employed, or by better organization, to benefit the position of those Civil servants. There was one Department in Ireland—namely, the Registration Department—in which he admitted that the salaries were too low. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Resolution would assent to that case, the Government would be willing to meet him, but they strongly objected to entering into such a speculative inquiry as he had pointed out, an inquiry which would rather retard than promote the objects which they had in view. He thought that in that manner the hon. and learned Gentleman would gain all he could expect to gain by his Motion, and he hoped, therefore, that he would see that this was the best course to be pursued, and not press the matter to a division.

said, that on entering the House, he was under the impression that the Government would at once accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) because it was only carrying out the recommendations of their own Commission. He was, however, much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make such a speech in opposition to the Resolution. Anyone would imagine from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the question had never been debated before. The simple question was, whether the Irish Civil servants ought to be paid in the same proportion as in England for the same work. When the subject had been brought forward in April of last year, it had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same singular way, and in almost the same language, as he had just used. The right hon. Gentleman then expressed a hope that the matter would not be pressed in its then shape, and he had said the same that evening. He (Mr. Downing) at least expected that the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what would be done; instead of which, he had left them in exactly the same position as that they were in last April twelvemonths. Well, then, the House might naturally ask him why was the Commission issued at all? If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was to be considered as a mere matter of contract between the Government and the Irish Civil servants, why did the right hon. Gentleman assent to the appointment of this Commission? The Chancellor of the Exchequer now laid stress upon the stability of a contract; but the right hon. Gentleman did not always stand by his own contract, as, for example, the Zanzibar contract, under which the right hon. Gentleman consented to giving £16,000, although an offer had been made to the Government to execute their requirements for about £11,000. The right hon. Gentleman, with that generosity which always distinguished him, consented to give the larger sum, because he said the parties to it had already suffered a considerable pecuniary loss in anticipation of receiving the contract. He, now, however, took his stand on political economy, and, notwithstanding the fact that he was himself a party to the Irish Civil Service Commission, he now told the House it was not worth the paper it was written on, because the subject was simply one of contract. What the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin asked was, that Civil servants in Ireland should be paid at the same rate as Civil servants in England when they performed similar duties. It was no doubt true that under the competitive system young men might select either England, Ireland, or Scotland; but that was not the case with the older men who had grown grey in the Civil Service in Ireland, and whose claims he was now advocating. The Commissioners were called upon to examine into the differences between the rates of pay of English and Irish merchants' and solicitors' clerks, and, to their surprise, they found the rates of pay in Ireland were higher than those in England. The truth was, that the same amount of money would not purchase in Ireland what it would purchase in England. He had not expected that the Motion, founded as it was on the Reports of the Commissioners appointed by themselves, would have been met in this way by Her Majesty's Government. Why had a Commission been issued at all respecting the subject, if its recommendations were to be disregarded? The matter had been before the House since 1869, when a deputation waited upon Mr. Fortescue, then the Chief Secretary. Then an inquiry was promised, but faith had not been kept with the Civil servants of Ireland. The Gentlemen who reported on the subject were entitled to the fullest consideration of the Government, and he trusted their recommendations would have some weight in that House, and that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would be carried.

said, that in these matters the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his own evidence given yesterday before the Select Committee on the Civil Service Expenditure, was a dictator. When asked by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) whether the Treasury, as holding the purse-strings of the nation, had a controlling power over all the Departments of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied—"No; but the Treasury has control in this way—if they come to me for an increase of expenditure, I can refuse it." He objected to the matter being treated on the "hard-and-fast line" of a simple contract, into which the Civil servants entered at the commencement of their employment, and considered that those in Ireland were placed in a position of degradation by being placed on a footing of inferiority. All that the Irish Civil servants asked was, that they should be placed on a footing of equality with those holding similar offices in England. The right hon. Gentleman's argument that the salaries of the Civil servants in Ireland must be regulated by the labour market, must lead to this result, that qualification would be no longer a test of efficiency, but that all offices must be put up to a sort of Dutch auction, and the man must be selected who was willing to supply a vacancy for the least amount of remuneration.

in supporting the Motion, said, the Report of the Commissioners showed that a lower rate of remuneration was paid to the Irish than to the English Civil servants, and nothing which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer went in the slightest degree to show that such an exceptional scale of payment could with any degree of reason be maintained. What might have been fair enough 30 years ago, when the cost of living was less in Ireland than in England was not fair now, and a very good case for the increase of payment had been fully made out. The Directors of the Bank of Ireland had had to increase the salaries of the clerks, and would have to go much further in that direction. He considered the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very unsatisfactory.

in supporting the Motion, said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had, in his opinion, completely proved his case, and he should certainly vote in favour of his Motion. He wished however, before he sat clown, to advert to one or two fallacies which were to be found in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were fallacies which were calculated to have a most mischievous tendency, and greatly to deteriorate, if not, in time, to destroy, the character of the Civil Service. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that the price of provisions ought to have no effect on the salaries of those who were thus employed. A more pedantic theory when dealing with a practical grievance he had never heard propounded. He might quote in reply to the right lion. Gentleman the action of an authority which he would be likely to respect. The present Government itself had given in that very Session, the increased cost of living as a reason for increasing the pay of those engaged in our Dockyards. He might add that the Prussian Government, which was one of the most frugal in Europe, had increased the salaries of its Civil servants for the same reason 25 per cent; while the Government of Belgium had raised the salaries of the same class from 25 to 35 per cent. If the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adopted, they would have a discontented Civil Service, with all the mischievous consequences thence arising. The right hon. Gentleman further contended, that as long as they found men ready to accept the service at the present rates of remuneration they ought not to give any better pay. The result, however, of that would be, that they would have an inferior class of persons in those employments who were not bound by those principles of honour which guided the men now engaged in that Service. Then they would see what had been seen during the last few months—namely, men who had been long employed in the Civil Service of the country called upon to perform exceptional and responsible duties, and applying for adequate remuneration, and on being refused justice, disregarding honour and honesty, and disclosing to the public matters which they had learnt confidentially in their office. The theories of political economy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward on those occasions were, he maintained, utterly inapplicable to a practical grievance like that, and if persisted in must produce most serious mischief.

as a Member of the Committee which sat upon the subject, denied that that Committee had reported that because the offices in Ireland were filled exclusively by Irishmen, that might be considered a fitting reason for giving them a lower remuneration. He agreed that the State ought not to pay more than it could get good adequate and fitting service for, but the increased cost of living had necessitated higher salaries; and it should be remembered that though at one time the cost of living in Ireland was lower than the cost of living in London, and that, therefore, a lower salary meant an equal remuneration, that was no longer the case. In answer to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that was not an Irish grievance, because Irishmen did not fill those particular offices in Ireland, but held appointments throughout the Empire, he maintained that it was, nevertheless, an Irish grievance, and a serious one too, because if the present state of things continued unchanged, it would lead to those offices in Ireland being filled by the very worst class of men admitted under the system of competitive examination. The result of the inquiry he had made was, that the salaries were extremely unequal, and some of the best men were the worst paid.

said, that seven or eight hon. Gentlemen had advocated the cause of a class, and only his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that of the nation, and therefore the House would not grudge him the opportunity of stating his view of the subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) was remarkable. He did not confine himself to the specialities of the Irish case; without any hesitation, with great decision, and with something like contempt, he flung over the whole argument of what he called political economy—that argument which maintained that public servants were to receive for serving the public the rate of remuneration for which they were willing to enter into the public service. That, he said, had done enormous mischief and ought to be entirely rejected, and he dealt very severely with the right hon. Gentleman, because the right hon. Gentleman expressed his adhesion to that principle. The hon. Member seemed to go upon the principle of making things pleasant all round, which was a delightful thing for Members of Parliament who sat for certain constituencies. ["Oh, Oh"] He begged pardon of those who said "Oh," but he repeated that it was a particularly pleasant method for hon. Gentlemen to recommend, when a large portion of their constituents happened to be public servants. It increased the pressure upon them. That, however, was not the principle on which the Government, as the representatives of the people, were to act. The Resolution of the House of Commons did not absolve the Government from the duty of asking the House of Commons so to regulate the public charge that the people should be served on the most moderate terms which would secure efficient servants. That was the principle on which the Government had stood, and intended to stand; and if the House disapproved it, the remedy was in their hands. Those wore the views with which they approached every question of the kind. His hon. Friend did not condescend to found himself on the specialities of the Irish case, the whole tenor of his speech leading to this result—that there must be a general rise in the pay of the Civil servants of the United Kingdom, because there was a general rise in the price of provisions. The question that was now being debated was the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. If on account of the rise in prices in Ireland, they were to vote an increase in pay, by parity of reasoning there must be a corresponding rise of salaries throughout the three kingdoms. No doubt, it was perfectly true that there had been a rise of certain prices in Ireland of late years, as there had also been a fall of other prices; but the real question that was raised was, that of the general rise of the salaries of the Civil servants of the State, based on the fact that there had been a rise in the price of certain commodities in a portion of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) appeared not to have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he said that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to do anything. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in most distinct form, and with that lucidity of statement which never failed him, sot out the two methods of proceeding which were before them. The Government did not deny that the salaries in Ireland required to be revised, but this process of revision, they thought, ought to go on from time to time all through the public service. He joined issue with the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) when they said they would not be satisfied with this examination in detail. Those hon. Members were determined on an heroic operation—upon something which should impress the minds of the Civil servants with a sense of the magnificence of the manner in which they performed their duties. It was to that wholesale operation the Government objected. For 20 years they had been beneficially pursuing the course of revision which was now going on specifically in Ireland in several important Departments; and therefore the question was, whether the Government were to be driven from that method of operation, by which they could combine augmentation of salary with redistribution of duty, and by which they could frequently reconcile an economical result with an increase of remuneration to those employed, or were they to adhere to it in Ireland as they had done and meant to in England and Scotland? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) founded himself upon two main allegations; and in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion those two allegations he had not made good. His hon. and learned Friend founded himself on the recommendation of the Commission, and came to the conclusion, that it was right the Civil servants in Ireland should be placed upon an equality as to remuneration with those who performed duties in England corresponding in difficulty and responsibility. What he (Mr. Gladstone) contended was, that there was no such proposition in the Report of the Commission. They had reported that which to his mind, implied the contrary. The Commission reported that there had been an increase of prices in Ireland; and on that account there was a well-founded feeling of discontent at the amount of remuneration. But he (Mr. Gladstone) did not agree that because the Commissioners had so reported, the salaries should be raised. He would point out what was the immediate consequence of this doctrine. It would amount to this—that when there was an augmentation of prices, the life contracts which the public had made with its servants, and which they had accepted willingly and sought after eagerly, were to be altered in their favour. If they were contracts, they must be observed on both sides; if they were not, they must be observed on neither. If salaries were to be augmented because there was an increase of prices, even although it was shown there were plenty of efficient men still seeking and desiring employment, it followed that in the case of a fall of prices the salaries of Civil servants ought to be reduced; and there were those in the House who would remember a Motion was once made that on account of the reduction in prices there should be a diminution of 10 per cent in Civil service salaries all round. The contention on the other side was, that these salaries were to move up and down, according to the rise and fall of commodities. The Government contended, on the contrary, that the contract made with the Civil servants was altogether irrespective of the prices of commodities, and that the Civil servants were not entitled to ask for any increase of salary on the ground of any increase in the price of commodities. The hon. and learned Gentleman had founded his Motion on a sentence of the Report which implied that the Commissioners had reported that persons performing duties in England and Ireland of equal responsibilty did not receive equal remuneration. The Committee, however, said nothing of the kind. They stated in the 24th paragraph of their Report, that in fixing the relative scale of salaries, the primary consideration was the comparative amount and importance of the business to be transacted, and the responsibility thereby incurred. They added, in another paragraph, that, according to that comparative importance and responsibility, the scale of salaries in Dublin would not rise as high as in London. If the exact contrary of the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were not thus directly stated, he (Mr. Gladstone) affirmed, moreover, that it was expressed in the proposition to which the evidence they had taken conducted them. But there was a second allegation which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a touching picture of the condition of the Civil service in Ireland. He said that the service was losing its prestige. Well, he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped that everybody who had got any prestige would lose it. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry to shock the sensitive feelings of hon. Gentlemen, but had they considered the meaning of the word? It meant "false and unreal reputation." ["Oh, oh" and laughter.] If they would trace the word to its root they would find it simply meant "juggling"; but that, however, was a verbal digression, and he asked upon what evidence it was alleged that the credit of the Civil service had diminished in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the pressure upon the Civil service was becoming worse and worse, and was now almost intolerable, and that the time was fast approaching when we should not have a sufficient number of qualified candidates for the various offices, while it had already arrived when the best members of the Service were quitting it to better themselves elsewhere. He (Mr. Gladstone) challenged that statement on the evidence appealed to by the hon. Member for Cork. The fact was, that the very best members of the public service were not adequately paid, and could not be, and hence many of them had quitted it to better themselves elsewhere. That had been the case, for example, with the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), who left the public service to occupy a high position in connection with one of the large railway companies. He (Mr. Gladstone) had often expressed that opinion, because if they were paid according to the scale they deserved, a crowd of average men would rush in to enjoy it. The real question was, whether that grievance, which was inherent in the Public Service, prevailed to a greater extent in Ireland than it did elsewhere, and, above all, was it increasing? Because that was the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that the pressure of circumstances in the service was becoming "intolerable." He (Mr. Gladstone) said, on the contrary, that it was a diminishing, and not an increasing evil, and he could show that from page 46 of the Report, to which he had been referred by the hon. Member for Cork, who, he thought, had not very carefully studied that portion of it. It contained the Returns from the year 1845 down to the year 1871. Calling that a period of 26 years, he (Mr. Gladstone) had divided it into two portions of 13 years each. During the whole period of 26 years there were 61 cases of Civil servants who had left the Service to take better positions elsewhere; and out of the 61 cases he found that 56 belonged to the first period of 13 years, and the remainder to the second period of 13 years. Thus, because 20 years ago, men were quitting the Service at a great rate, and because that movement had now ceased, the hon. and learned Member said it would be necessary to have, not a careful revision, but a wholesale augmentation of salaries in Ireland. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman's revolutionary proposition, as it might be called, was not borne out by the figures. The House had also been told that these gentlemen had grown gray in the public service. Was their's a very hard case? They were those who came into the public service at a time when their friends and adherents and Members of Parliament "wore the knockers" of the public offices by the assiduity of the process of solicitation in obtaining interest for situations in the public service for these gentlemen which was afterwards to be converted into an ingenious allegation of grievance. He had great respect for those gentlemen certainly, but he could not say that he thought their case was a strong one. It was not a case as between England and Ireland, or between Ireland and Scotland. The fact was that the duties of the Civil servants were more concentrated and arduous in England than in Scotland; and in Scotland, though less arduous and complicated than in England, they were, still, more so than in Ireland. Such work must be paid for in proportion as it was arduous and difficult, and if an average were struck, the pay would be highest in the country where, on the average, the work was most arduous. If it were shown, for instance, that in some poor district of England—say the South-western Counties—public servants were paid lower rates than in London and the most populous parts of the country, exactly the same remark would apply: their pay would be lower because the duties they performed were less arduous and less responsible. It was very well for hon. Members to indulge their natural feelings of kindness and bring pressure to bear upon the Government for an increase of public expenditure in this direction. But other considerations must be borne in mind. What was the state of things in the City of London at this moment? His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was doubtful whether the price of intellectual labour was not falling rather than rising. His right hon. Friend meant that as an opinion only, and was not proposing a reduction of salaries based on that opinion. There was, at any rate, much to show that if the price of clerical labour was rising at all, the movement was a very slow and insensible one. If the clerks of a merchant in the City of London struck work, would he find any difficulty in replacing them? At that moment 4,000 qualified clerks were seeking employment there and unable to obtain it. With what justice to those men were measures proposed—not for inquiry, because inquiry was disregarded and almost despised—but wholesale and sweeping measures for augmenting the rates of remuneration for public servants, when there were multitudes of respectable and competent men who would gladly, if they could, take the places of the very worst paid of such servants? He trusted the House would not be led into any such snare as that which had been laid for them. They must not be misled by the case of the Bank of Ireland. Why had that Bank raised its rates of pay? Because they were insufficient to attract a sufficient supply of qualified candidates; but in the case of the Civil Service, the Commissioners had reported that the rates now paid were sufficient for the purpose. And what was the use of a reference to Prussia, notoriously the most economical country in Europe, in which the salaries of public servants had been insufficient to keep body and soul together? [Mr. OTWAY: Not in proportion to expenses.] He joined issue with his hon. Friend on that point. The salaries of Prussian officials had been notoriously insufficient, and were connected with the want of a free organization in Prussian society, but for which such salaries never could have existed. When greater political freedom prevailed, and there arose a greater choice of employment, it was an absolute necessity to increase these salaries; and when a fair case could be shown, if the House would, by all means let the same course be taken here. By all means, even without distinct proof of that kind, let the Government be spurred and stimulated in the career of cautious and careful examination into duties and remuneration with a view to a better distribution of service—changes which resulted frequently in larger salaries, and in more efficient work done at less cost to the public. But let not the House ask the Government to do that which they could not honestly do—namely, adopt what he had called heroic measures, applicable to great masses of public servants at once—measures which, even if they conveyed momentary satisfaction to some of those whom they affected would before long lead to great financial difficulties, forfeit the title of the House to the approval of the public, and be found to constitute a great public misfortune.

who spoke amid continued interruption, said, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Pluuket) would not withdraw his Motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister had in their speeches contradicted the principles of political economy with reference to this question. He knew by experience that the more salaries were reduced the greater was the number of applicants for situations, for the lower the remuneration the greater would be the number to whom it would be an object, and he did not understand why the members of the Civil Service in Ireland should be treated in the way they were. He wished the House to recollect that if this was not an Irish question in the way of putting it in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was certainly a question affecting the Civil Service in Ireland, and he could not recognize the airy distinction of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had applied the phrase "ludicrous" to the idea of taking into account the price of provisions as an element in regulating salaries. He should be glad to know a more substantial or applicable test in regulating salaries. He added there was another mode of equalizing salaries in the Civil Service—namely, by reduction. Let him try it in England and see how he would fare. He now submitted for the attention of the House a few instances of the relative salaries for the same offices in England and Ireland in the General Register Office in each Kingdom—

supported the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in addressing the House and describing the salaries of the Civil servants in Prussia before their recent increase, spoke of them as "insufficient to keep body and soul together," and said that their increase was therefore a necessity. That accurately described the position of a large class of Civil servants in Ireland, and especially applied to the National schoolmasters. [The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER: They are not Civil servants.] If they were not Civil servants he did not know what they were. They were a large and respectable body of men, civilians who performed an important public duty, and who were paid out of the sums annually voted by Parliament. Their pay was wholly inadequate, and so was that of many other classes of Civil servants in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the price of physical labour was on the increase, while that of intellectual labour was on the decline. That was true, but the increase in the former had been brought about through strikes and combinations. In Ireland the Civil servants had not struck or used illegal means to improve their situation. It might be said that his hon. and learned Friend who moved the Resolution had been deputed by them to lay their case before the powers that were. He had done so ably, and in his opinion he had not been answered. It had been stated that the rate of pay had nothing to do with the price of provisions. When those rates were first established, they were undoubtedly based on the cost of living of that day; but anyone who knew Ireland, knew that whereas everything was cheap 18 or 20 years ago, the prices of everything had now risen to nearly the English level. His own experience enabled him to attest that fact. He was stationed in Ireland 18 years ago and could compare the difference. The Prime Minister said that because Ireland was not so prosperous as England, her Civil servants should not be so highly paid. That was no argument. If she was not prosperous, it was that her resources had not been developed, or facilities given for their development. Her Civil servants were efficient, and if, with the improvement of the country more work should be thrown upon them they would not be found wanting; but take them as they were, they ought, as expressed in the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend, to be placed on an equality as to remuneration with their brethren in England performing duties of corresponding difficulty and responsibility. The terms of the Resolution were just and right and he hoped and believed that it would be affirmed by the House.

thought the position taken on that question by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was established by all the arguments—statistical, commercial, moral, and political—on the theory which was held in that House that they were an United Kingdom. He had been curious to hear what arguments the Government could put forward in opposition to that hon. and learned Member's Motion, because the Government also held the position that that was an United Kingdom; and all he would say as to the arguments they had adduced was that he had been very much amused by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and very greatly amazed by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury.

said, he had received an assurance that as that was a Bill that involved the laws of settlement in England as well as in Scotland, it would not be proceeded with until it had been further discussed. Not only that, but he had been given to understand there was to be a morning sitting for that and the kindred English Bill upon the same subject, as the two ought to be taken together. He had received a distinct assurance to that effect, and he regretted it had not been kept.

said, he should be sorry if there was any misapprehension upon the subject. He was not conscious of having entered into any engagement reserving the Bill for a morning sitting, and all that was said was that the Bill would not be proceeded with at a very late hour, but the last discussion which engaged the House closed considerably before 12. If the Bill was kept for a morning sitting, great inconvenience would result, and they were anxious to get on not only from the fact that they were pressed by Scotch opinion, but that they were anxious to get the opinion of the House on the Bill. He must, therefore, en- courage the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to proceed.

said, the Bill involved interests of the greatest importance to the two countries, and the Government ought to let the House clearly understand what it intended doing with regard to England. It struck him that if the proposals in the Bill with regard to the law of settlement were good for Scotland, they ought to be good for England also; and his own view was that legislation on the subject for Scotland ought not to take place until inquiry by means of a Select Committee should be made into the whole subject with the view of legislating for England as well. Do not let them interfere with vested rights, unless they could do so on just and clear grounds, common to both countries. The public had a deep interest in the Bill, especially in one provision of it, and in regard to that provision he wished to ask should there not be the greatest liberty given to heirs in entail to borrow money to improve their property at the ordinary rates of interest? Then, as to the law of mort-main. By a clause of the Bill it was proposed to get up a sort of law of this kind for the whole of Scotland. He had presented numerous Petitions against the Bill on behalf of numerous educational and other institutions. Many of those institutions were charitable, and they were excellently managed. Were they not to be allowed to hold real property? Was that the principle on which they were to proceed? He strongly objected to the 11th clause, which would extinguish the law of entail—a system which was well understood and prized in Scotland. Then they had introduced the law of settlement in England. Well, they had that already, and what was the benefit the Government expected would be derived from it? He altogether denied that he expected the House would go into Committee that night, and he hoped no steps would be taken until they considered the law of settlement in England, and resolved to put both countries on an equal footing.

doubted if he quite understood the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As far as he understood the views of the Scotch Members, they considered the Bill did not go far enough, and while they approved of it as far as it went, they hoped it would yet go farther. He did not, therefore, think that the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend with reference to the measure were likely to meet with much favour in Scotland. He maintained that the laws in both countries had been placed on an equal footing in that matter a considerable time ago, although there were things which might be done in England which could not be done in Scotland. A father, for instance, was tied up during the whole of his lifetime by the entail, and he could not move even with the consent of his son. This was done in order to benefit the unborn grandchild. He should propose, if it would please Parliament to pass the Bill, to enable any father, with the consent of his son, to deal with the estate in such a way as they agreed upon. The Bill, moreover, was not intended to prevent people being charitable to public institutions, but it was intended to prevent them from conveying part of the soil of the country to trustees to hold in perpetuity for charitable purposes.

said, hon. Members had not the least opportunity of considering the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had placed on the Table that night.

said, he was not going to ask the House to proceed with those Amendments that night.

suggested that the Bill should be committed pro formâ for the purpose of inserting these Amendments, and then reprinted in its amended form.

said, he could not accede to that course.

moved that the House do now adjourn, as it was twenty minutes past 1 o'clock, and it was impossible to go on with the discussion of the Bill.

said, the Session was so far advanced that he must lose no opportunity of making progress with it. If they got into Committee, Progress should at once be reported.

expressed a hope that the Bill would not be proceeded with again for some days, in order that the people of Scotland might have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had laid on the Table that night.

said, full opportunity should be afforded, and he would accordingly not take the Bill again until Thursday in next week.