,^* in rising to move the following Resolutions:—

"1. That, in the opinion of this House, the system of Private Legislation calls for the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and requires reform.

"2. That it is expedient to substitute, as far as possible, an extended and improved system of Provisional Orders for Local and Personal Bills.

"3. That Provisional Orders should be obtainable in England, Scotland, and Ireland on application to a permanent tribunal of a judicial character, before which Promoters and Opponents should be heard in open Court, and the decisions of which should be subject to confirmation by Parliament.

"4. That, in case of cither House of Parliament admitting an Appeal against a decision of the tribunal in the matter of any Provisional Order, such Provisional Order should be referred to a Parliamentary tribunal, composed, in the manner recommended in 1869 by the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on the Despatch of Business in Parliament, of Members of both Houses,"

said, the defects of the system of private legislation were so well known, and the dissatisfaction which was felt with it was so wide spread, that he need not enlarge upon them. These evils and inconveniences were partly inherent in the subject-matter. Private Business often necessitated a judicial investigation into intricate facts, and the Committees had sometimes to decide questions involving a nice adjustment of private interests and a balance of public advantages and disadvantages. Frequently the question was one of discretion, and not to be decided by any uniform law. All these evils and inconveniences, however, were aggravated by the fluctuating nature of our Committees. The Members of them showed great industry, sometimes great ability, and always high honour; and they rendered a service for which they received very inadequate credit from this House or the public. They were men, too, accustomed to watch and allow for public opinion. The number of Members, however, having the leisure to devote themselves to the work, who from legal antecedents or special knowledge were peculiarly fitted for a judicial investigation, and for presiding, in fact, over a lawsuit, was limited. Members in general had not the habits and training which fitted them to control an active and energetic Bar, and to decide what evidence should be excluded or admitted. The result was that there was a Bench much weaker than the Bar before it. Moreover, all these inquiries were crowded into a few weeks; the comparatively few qualified Members were wanted in half-a-dozen or a dozen Committee-rooms at once; Members were pressed into the service regardless of their qualifications, and the Committees sat all at once, with no knowledge of each other's proceedings, and consequently with conflicting decisions. Members, too, had public duties in that House, and, their physical powers being limited, Committees could only sit for a few hours in the day. Hence there were frequent adjournments, and long detention of witnesses and legal practitioners—every element, indeed, insuring a lengthy, costly, uncertain, and unsatisfactory inquiry. All this ordeal might have to be undergone a second time in the other House, for there was no appeal in a judicial sense on special grounds, such as an allegation that the first tribunal had fallen into some error, or that new facts had come to light; but an opponent with enough money in his pocket could insist as a matter of right on taking his chance with a second jury. Nor was it an appeal from an inferior to a superior tribunal, for the Committees of the two Houses were of co-ordinate authority, and it was a matter of chance or official arrangement whether a Bill first came before this or the other House. If both juries were to hear the same counsel and the same witnesses, why, it had been asked, should they not sit on the same day and in the same room? This was the recommendation of the Joint Committee of both Houses in 1869. The Members of the Commons all concurred in recommending its adoption as conducing to greater simplicity, rapidity, and economy; while of the Members of the Lords, only one, Lord Redesdale, opposed it. The Members of the Commons were Sir George Grey, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Walpole, Colonel Wilson-Patten, and the Chairman of Ways and Means; the Members of the Lords were Lord Granville, Lord Halifax, Lord Eversley, Lord Salisbury, Lord Redesdale, and the late Lord Derby. It had been objected that this would allow no opportunity of appeal, but that Committee contemplated some provision of this kind; on this subject, however, he would comment presently. It had also been objected that the plan would not lighten the labours of Members. This, however, was not the first consideration, but that which was best for the public interest. If the Joint Committees, as had been suggested, were composed of three Members of each House, the labours of the Commons would be slightly diminished, and if of two Members of each House they would be materially diminished. The question arose—Could not the reform be carried further? The House had, with great advantage to the parties concerned and great credit to itself, remitted to the Judges of the land the trial of divorces, Election Petitions, and various questions relating to settled estates formerly decided by Parliamentary Committees; and in many other matters it had confided to an external body original jurisdiction, the decision being subject to confirmation by Parliament. For the conduct of a judicial investigation a permanent tribunal of experienced men was better qualified than a jury of Gentlemen inexperienced in such business, such as composed the ordinary Private Bill Committees. It was, of course, objected that though the investigation might be judicial, the result was legislative, the Committee's functions being, not to ascertain or declare, but to make the law. In the majority of cases, however, and in an increasing number, their functions were not so much those of legislators as of arbitrators. Public feeling with regard to public works and joint stock companies had greatly changed within the last quarter of a century. At one time railways coming into a district were regarded as enemies to be resisted, and Parliament had to decide whether private interests should be overridden for the sake of the public advantage; whereas, now, in 9 cases out of 10, he might almost say in 99 cases out of 100, they were looked upon as allies to be negotiated with, landowners and other opponents being generally anxious that they should be made, but on more favourable terms. So, too, with gas and water works. Of 170 Railway Bills introduced this Session, 150 probably were for the construction of "spurs," or branch lines, six or eight miles long, and for the settlement of the terms on which they should be worked by the main-line company. These were obviously matters of arbitration. There were, of course, cases involving serious questions of policy, and whether the public benefit justified an exception to the general law. In view of these, such as the amalgamation Bills of this Session, Parliament could not and ought not to part with its jurisdiction. His suggestion was, that it should simply part with provisional jurisdiction, reserving, as in many other cases, the ultimate control. Assuming that this was a rational basis, what external tribunal would command such general confidence that appeals from it would be the exception, not the rule? Provisional Orders were at present made by Government Departments, and were confined to matters in which the capital at stake was small, the parties generally consented, or the opinion of the locality affected could be ascertained; but if extended to matters where great interests were at stake, and where feeling ran high, people would not be satisfied with an Order made upon the decision of an official sitting in a Government office, and on grounds or evidence which nobody knew, nor with an Order made on the decision of a Government Inspector, sent down to hold a public meeting, or make some general inquiry, and liable to hear only ex parte statements. Provisional Orders, to be generally acquiesced in, must be made by a tribunal possessing public confidence, after a public hearing, where all concerned had an opportunity of appearing by witnesses and counsel. An hon. and learned Member had introduced a Bill for one part of the United Kingdom remitting the investigation to the Judges of the land; but he doubted whether they would be disposed to undertake the work, and their habits and training would lead them to adhere to precedents, whereas this tribunal ought to allow amply for the variations of public, opinion. It should be composed of men, not inferior in weight and calibre to the Judges, appointed for this special purpose. We looked for Judges among the most eminent practitioners at the Bar, and in the same quarter might be found men qualified for this duty. He saw no danger of men thus specially appointed adhering too strictly to precedents, and obstructing public improvements, and the necessity of consulting public feeling would be kept alive in them by the power of appeal to Parliament. This tribunal ought to sit in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and it might, perhaps, go on circuit, and sit in other places; for in important local cases, say at Glasgow or Liverpool, it might be cheaper and more convenient for the tribunal to go thither than for the parties to go to the tribunal. In matters of minor importance, such as the settlement of disputes between companies, the internal or financial arrangements of a company, or the extension of time for the completion of works, one Judge or Commissioner might make the Order. Where taking the property of unwilling persons to a great extent was at issue, the invasion of a town by a railway necessitating much demolition of dwellings, or amalgamations of public importance, two or more Judges might decide. There was a third class of exceptional cases, involving a new principle or matters of magnitude, such as to constitute a great question of public policy, in which it would be apparent that neither the parties nor the public would rest satisfied without a decision of the Legislature. He thought it worthy of consideration whether, with a view to such cases, a discretion should not be given to the Court to remit them at once to Parliament. All the Provisional Orders that came before the tribunal, whether they were granted or refused, should be laid before Parliament, lest it should be possible that this tribunal, whether through error or some unfortunate bias of some of its members, should have it in its power altogether to suppress some new invention, or to prevent a scheme of a novel character being submitted to the Legislature. The tribunal would, of course, decide on all questions as to compliance with the Standing Orders, and on those which were now decided by the Referees as to the rights of locus standi of parties. Then came the question how many Judges would be required to transact this business. According to the best calculation he had been able to make, three Judges sitting for nine months in the year would be sufficient to discharge all the work now discharged by the Committees of the two Houses, by the Referees, and by the Examiners on Private Bills. What he proposed was, that there should be one set of Commissioners, whose commission would run over the whole of the United Kingdom, and who should visit different parts as required. There was not business enough in Scotland or in Ireland to justify the creation of a separate tribunal, and, moreover, the establishment of one Commission for the United Kingdom would tend to secure harmony and consistency of proceeding. He thought the men who composed this tribunal should be not a whit inferior in calibre or in authority to the Judges of the land, and therefore that provision should be made for their salaries on a proper scale. The parties to Private Bills now paid in fees a sum varying from a minimum of £45,000 or £50,000 to a maximum of between £130,000 and £140,000 a-year. That fund was mainly, if not entirely, under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here, then, was a fund amply sufficient to provide for the expenses of an efficient tribunal, and he thought the parties who were called upon to pay such heavy fees were, at least, entitled to claim from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country that in return for those heavy fees they should be provided with the most efficient tribunal the country could furnish. As a general rule, it would be admitted, that the nearer home a trial took place the less expensive it would be to the litigants. In exceptional cases, where many eminent counsel would be engaged, and many eminent scientific witnesses would be called, of course the expenses of a trial would in those particular respects be greater if it were held in the provinces than if it were held in London. We must, however, legislate for general, not for exceptional cases. Still, to meet exceptional cases, he proposed that the parties should have the option of claiming that their eases should be tried in the metropolis instead of any other place. He had approved of the adoption of Joint Committees for the trial of Private Bills as in itself an improvement. If we were to establish an external tribunal of First Instance, he thought there could be no question that a consolidated Committee of the two Houses would be the best tribunal for dealing with such appeal. How many cases of appeal there might be in a year it was, of course, impossible to determine. Some idea might be derived from the number of Private Bills that were now contested in both Houses. At present the number was, perhaps, from 40 to 50 or 60, and if the number of appeals were similar, that would furnish Work for 8 or 10 Joint Committees. At this rate about 20 Members of each House, selected for their especial qualifications, would suffice to discharge all the duties of this kind. He hoped, however, the number of appeals would prove less than of doubly contested cases. The House was now disposed to place great confidence in its Private Bill Committees and in its Referees. It seldom re-committed a Bill or reversed their decision, and he thought the decision of such a tribunal as he contemplated would carry still greater weight and command still greater respect. Then came the question whether the appeal to Parliament should be a matter of right or be subject to certain conditions. Considering the liability of a frivolous appellant to costs, he thought there would be no undue number of such appeals without a definite cause; but he was aware there was a very strong feeling against leaving it simply to the discretion of one party whether, without any cause shown, the expenses of a second trial should be incurred. He therefore suggested that if notice of an appeal against the decision of the tribunal were given, the tribunal should furnish a short summary of the reasons for which that decision was given. It would, in this respect, do what the Board of Trade was now required to do in certain cases, as in granting a warrant for the abandonment of a railway. The appellant would then present a Petition to Parliament setting forth his reasons, and asking for liberty to appeal. The statement of the tribunal, with the Petition of the appellant, would go as a matter of course before the Standing Orders Committee, who would report to the House whether in their opinion a primâ facie case for an appeal was made out. It had always appeared to him that the passing of Provisional Orders was very cumbrous and inconvenient, and he suggested that each Provisional Order, whether made by a Department or by the tribunal, should be laid before Parliament, and if within a certain number of days it were not objected to, then it should become law. He did not propose to interfere with the duties or jurisdiction of the Inclosure Commissioners. He thought it expedient that, for the present at all events, Government Departments should retain the power they now possessed of making Provisional Orders in minor matters. With regard to Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant in Council or the Chief Secretary was the Department which granted Provisional Orders for Irish tramways or for the local government of the towns. It would, in his opinion, be convenient to persons interested in Irish undertakings if the powers of the Board of Trade for granting Provisional Orders with regard to railways, gas and waterworks were also carried over St. George's Channel, and intrusted either to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Chief Secretary. He could not make a similar suggestion for the benefit of Scotland, because there was in that country, so far as he was aware, no Government Department to which the power of granting Provisional Orders could be transferred. For the present, therefore, Scotland would have to rest satisfied with the opportunity of applying for Provisional Orders either to the Government Department, as at present, or to the new tribunal sitting in Edinburgh or elsewhere. There were other Private Bills which might be called Private Bills proper, such as Estate, Divorce, and Naturalization Bills; they were few in number, perhaps only from 10 to 20 in the course of a Session, and were very seldom opposed. With these Private Bills proper he did not propose under this scheme to interfere. If they were to be dealt with, it might be done by extending the powers of the Judges in reference to settled estates, of the Divorce Court, and so on. If this scheme were adopted, every undertaking would be carried on by means of Provisional Orders, to be obtained in minor cases on application to a Government Department; in great cases, and also in minor cases if the promoters chose, on application to a strong external tribunal, constituted of men of the same calibre as the Judges of the land, before whom the promoters and the witnesses would be heard in open court. Following upon that, if the case required it, would be an appeal to the strongest Parliamentary tribunal which could be furnished—namely, a tribunal drawn from a limited number of men selected by the two Houses for their special qualifications for the work. He ventured to hope that under such a system the public would be more cheaply, more efficiently, and more satisfactorily served than it was at present; and, further, there would be this secondary advantage, that Parliament would relieve itself from a great amount of work, much of which was too minute to be worthy to occupy the time and attention of Members of the Legislature, and much of which, with all due respect for the Members of the two Houses, they were but ill-qualified to perform. This relief to the labours of this House was a matter of great and growing importance. The Public Business of the House of Commons was growing, and was likely to continue to grow. There was, moreover, a growing disposition to appoint Select Committees to consider Public Bills and public subjects, and that also took up the time of Members. An idea had been mooted that, with a view to the despatch of Business, a system of Grand Committees should be adopted, to which important Public Business should be referred. If such a scheme was to be carried into effect, it would become doubly and trebly important to release from their labours some 180 to 250 Members who were now engaged in considering Private Bills. He had trespassed so long on the time of the House that he would not attempt to anticipate the objections which might be raised to the scheme he had suggested. He was perfectly aware that a great number of objections might be urged; but every scheme that might be proposed would be open to some objections, and the question was, whether the objections which applied to the existing state of things were not greater. In what he had said he could lay no claim to originality. Almost every idea which he had thrown out had been suggested by others, such as Lord Grey, Lord Salisbury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir T. Erskine May, Mr. Rickards, the Speaker's Counsel, and other gentlemen of great experience and well qualified to give an opinion. He laid no claim, as he had said, to originality in the suggestions he had put before the House, with one single exception. But, though these schemes had at different times been submitted to Select Committees, and had met with a large share of approval, the transfer of any portion of the jurisdiction of Parliament to an external tribunal had not been discussed in this House for a great number of years. Every year that passed over our heads brought further testimony to the unsatisfactory character of our private legislation, to the possibility of remitting more and more of these matters, in the first instance at all events, to an external tribunal, and to the desirability of relieving Parliament from unnecessary labour. He had not the presumption to suppose that he could submit to the House a scheme which it would be fair to accept on his own recommendation. This matter, if dealt with, must receive the grave consideration of many minds. But he would ask the House not to fall into the error of appointing another Select Committee to consider this question. Of Select Committees we had had an infinity, and any hon. Gentleman who was curious on the subject might find the shelves of the Library groaning under their Reports of Private Bill legislation, and very little had come of it. If another Select Committee were appointed it would take the evidence of a limited number of the officials of this House; but these had been examined over and over again, and of gentlemen of great learning, ability, and high honour who were well versed in the practice of Private Bill legislation. Well, all men very naturally had an affection for the labyrinth of which they held the clue, and from them it could not be expected that much evidence against the present system would be received. But if this matter was to be dealt with effectively, it must be submitted to the consideration of several independent minds. He would suggest to the House that they should appoint a Committee, not to take evidence, but a Committee which, if it had the will, would also have the power, to give effect to its will. He proposed that the House should call upon the Government to act as a Committee, and to take up this subject. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.

, though favourable generally to the scheme of his hon. Friend, thought that one or two points in it suggested doubt. Thus, he believed that Parliament would desire to retain its jurisdiction over railways, not only in cases of proposed amalgamation and working arrangements, but in a variety of other cases affecting railways, which, though not apparently great in themselves, really involved points of public policy, affected large interests, and could not be referred with advantage to any other tribunal. If the House were to retain its jurisdiction in these matters, he did not approve of a Joint Committee of the two Houses. It was often of public advantage that two Committees should sit at different times on the same Bill. Public attention was thus directed to the inquiry, and on a second investigation in the other House points were brought forward which had previously been overlooked. For example, a Bill was promoted for the virtual amalgamation of three railways—the South-Eastern, the Brighton, and the Chatham and Dover. That Bill passed the House of Commons without much discussion; but in the other House strong representations were made that it would cripple the trade of the district and was contrary to public interest, the result being the withdrawal of the Bill, which had never been renewed. What would have been the effect upon the south-eastern counties of England if there had only been one investigation in this case? As to the constitution of the proposed tribunal, he would suggest that his hon. Friend and Colleague should not look to the Bar alone, but should appoint men who were now habitually called in as arbitrators—engineers, railway managers, men who were accustomed to deal with these questions, who formed judicial habits and whose minds acquired a judicial tone. A tribunal so constituted would be very valuable, and it should not merely take evidence, but have a view of the site of the works and scheme submitted to it. Committees now suffered greatly through the want of such a view, for which maps and photographs offered a poor substitute. Subject to these observations, he concurred in the scheme, and hoped his hon. Friend would have the assistance of the Government in carrying it out.

said, he thought that the House ought to feel greatly indebted to his hon. Friend for the care and labour he had bestowed in elaborating a scheme for the conduct of Private Business so as to render it easier to hon. Members. It was impossible, however, to enter now into the details of the scheme, which was an elaborate one and required great consideration. At present, he should be unwilling to commit himself absolutely either in favour of or against it. He approved of its general features; but should be sorry, by agreeing to those Resolutions, to destroy the existing system without seeing the details which were to be substituted for it. He thought, however, the proper conclusion of the Resolutions would have been the introduction of a Bill to carry out the scheme. He must repeat that it would not be proper now to discuss details; but there was one strong objection to a permanent tribunal such as that shadowed forth by his hon. Friend—that it must necessarily want the flexibility possessed by a Committee of either House, that it was almost certain to be guided by precedent, and that when it had once decided in one way it would be bound by that decision, and would so decide again, no matter what might have been the change of circumstances meanwhile. Now, Committees were guided by no such considerations; but it often happened that a Committee one Session would decide a particular point one way, and next Session a new Committee would decide the same point in a directly contrary way. That was not without its advantages, because some of the greatest improvements in the country, fraught with the greatest public benefits, had in the first instance been rejected by Committees, and subsequently been passed with universal assent. He should be sorry, therefore, to see any tribunal which should be of such an inelastic and inflexible character as to refuse to review its own decisions and pass projects which it might previously have rejected. This was one great difficulty which his hon. Friend would have to meet. However, for the present he suggested, in no spirit of hostility to the plan, that the debate should be adjourned, so that the House might have time to consider these proposals, and might, if possible, see them elaborated in the shape of a Bill.

said, he must also thank the hon. Gentleman for the pains he had evidently taken in the preparation of these proposals, and for the admirable way in which he had submitted them to the House. He believed he spoke the sentiments of most Members of the House when he said that the time had arrived when some re-organization must take place in the mode of conducting private legislation. Having to take an active part in the formation of Committees, he could say that during the last few Sessions the difficulty of forming these Committees had greatly increased, owing to the length to which debates were carried in this House; so that hon. Members who were occupied during the whole night were indisposed to come down early in the morning to act upon Private Bill Committees. He was, therefore, prepared to listen to any proposal for bringing about a change. It was, at the same time, impossible to discuss at once the details of so elaborate a scheme as had been submitted to the House. He, at all events, would be very sorry to commit himself without further consideration to an acceptance of the Resolutions. One of them he was prepared to vote for, for he had been long of opinion that Committees of that House were not the best tribunal to decide on a new mode of conducting business. The matter should, he thought, be taken up by the Government; but for the present he was in favour of the adjournment of the debate as moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bouverie), and which he should second, for he thought the House required time to consider the proposals.

also wished to thank his hon. Friend for the boldness with which he had brought forward his scheme; and although he was not prepared to criticize it at present, he should be willing to support at least two or three out of the four Resolutions. In some respects he thought his hon. Friend went too far, and in others that he did not go far enough. It would have been better, he thought, if the Private Business had been divided into railway legislation, and all other local Acts. Such local matters as came within their jurisdiction might, for instance, be relegated to Courts of quarter sessions; but railway legislation would, in his opinion, be difficult to remove from the cognizance of the House itself, and for that reason he hoped the Government would take the matter into their consideration.

concurred in the general expression of thanks with which the scheme of his hon. Friend had been received. The definite proposals which had been made would, he thought, be of great use in bringing the House face to face with the difficulties, and in preventing it from losing itself in generalities. If the House had been asked on that occasion to come to a decision on the Resolutions, he should, from the point of view of the office which he had the honour to fill, have deemed it his duty to state his views with respect to them. He was not, however, surprised that hon. Members did not feel themselves competent at once to deal with the details of the scheme, and he hoped, therefore, the Motion for adjournment would be agreed to.

, having thanked the House for the manner in which the scheme had been so far discussed, said, he should not object to the adjournment of the debate to that day week.

said, that he had received from the Lord Mayor a communication to the effect that at the Mansion House Court an alteration had been made with respect to Statutory Declarations in that Court, and he would now ask the Attorney General, Whether his attention has been directed to the subject of statutory declarations; and, whether he is willing to introduce such amendment of the Law as will render statutory declarations less liable to abuse?

said, that it might, perhaps, be convenient to the House if he were allowed to answer the two Questions on the Paper relative to this subject together. He was asked by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick, whether his attention had been called to the subject of statutory declarations, and to the late proceedings, which had more or less given great personal pain to the persons connected with them, and had been the cause of general regret. He was also asked by the noble Lord whether he was willing to introduce such amendment of the law as would render statutory declarations less liable to abuse. That statutory declarations were liable, like all institutions, to abuse, he was not about to dispute, but the question assumed that which was not warranted by the fact, that all statutory declarations were liable to abuse. The Act of Parliament which governed the law to which the noble Lord had referred—the 5 & 6 Will. IV, c. 62—substituted statutory declarations for a variety of affidavits, which had been permitted to be made for various purposes. It dealt in a great many sections with a variety of distinct cases in respect to which affidavits had been required, and the 18th section was the one under which the statutory declaration in the case now referred to was made. After a variety of special provisions, the Act in that section proceeded to enact that in cases where confirmation of written documents, of allegations, of the execution of deeds, or of other matters, might be required, it should and might be lawful for any justice of the peace, public notary, and officer legally authorized to administer oaths, to take and receive declarations in a form specified in a schedule from any persons who voluntarily came and made them before them, and, if any such declarations proved to be untrue, the persons making them and knowing them to be untrue should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had put a Question on the Paper asking, Whether, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, any magistrate has statutable authority to receive and attest a voluntary declaration like that permitted to be made by Alexander Chaffers before Mr. Vaughan at Bow Street on the 4th of April, 1871; and, if so, whether it is not desirable to terminate or limit such an authority? The words of the Act were—"It may and shall be lawful for a Judge," &c., and they imposed a statutory duty on the Judge, and left him no more discretion to refuse to receive a statutory declaration than to neglect to discharge any other duty imposed on him by law. He was, therefore, of opinion that Mr. Vaughan was bound to receive the statutory declaration made in this case, and a moment's consideration would satisfy anyone that it must be so. These declarations were made by scores, in the metropolis at least, before persons occupying very responsible positions, and they were made from 10 o'clock in the morning till 6 o'clock at night, and if they were to inquire into the circumstances under which they were made, they would be trying under most unsatisfactory conditions a number of cases, and the general business which they were appointed to conduct would materially suffer. In the instance referred to in the Questions on the Paper, the declaration was brought to the magistrate by an attorney, and he believed that a magistrate always gave to a professional person a reasonable credit that the document he brought was a proper document, in a proper form, and brought on a proper occasion. It would be a very great evil if the business of honest, upright attorneys were to be interfered with and impeded, because since the passing of the Act he had mentioned there had been found one scoundrel to abuse the legal process which in hundreds and thousands of other cases had been employed in the transaction of justifiable business. If was the duty of the magistrate to take the declaration, and no magistrate had a right to assume a jurisdiction which did not belong to him, and refuse to receive a declaration which might be material and important. The noble Lord the Member for Berwick asked whether he was prepared to alter the law. Now, the only alteration of the law which he could conceive practicable was, not to prevent the making of statutory declarations, but to append to the making of false and slanderous declarations the same or more severe penalties than at present the law provided. In the case of perjury the punishment rested on the assumption that the perjury was committed in the course of judicial proceedings, and he did not think it would he wise to depart from the principle of the statute relating to perjury, or alter the clauses declaring the penalties for perjury. Where a statutory declaration was made in the way in which the one alluded to had been made, containing a libel, and a libel uttered for the extortion of money, there already existed by law the punishment, on conviction, of three years' imprisonment with hard labour; and no one who knew what prison discipline was would deny that, even in the present case, a conviction followed by that punishment would not have been sufficient, he would not say for the moral turpitude of the offender, but for the purpose of deterring others from following his example. Therefore, he did not see that any alteration of the law was required, because he was not aware that statutory declarations had been abused, except in this instance. Before he sat down he would give an illustration, which had occurred in his practice, of his meaning. A man under circumstances of the greatest possible aggravation seduced his ward, of the age of 15 years. He was compelled to make a settlement on her, to be paid quarterly, and four times every year the ward was obliged to bring an action to get her money. Four times in every year the man put in an iniquitous defence, which on every occasion he was obliged to withdraw. Being engaged in the case, he at last applied for a summons before a Judge, in order to have this iniquitous plea struck out of the proceedings, on the ground that it constituted an abuse of the process of the Court; but he was told that because one or two scoundrels abused the process, that was no reason for altering it, or otherwise great injustice might be done in other cases.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the arrangement proposed in the Memorandum of the Commander in Chief, by which the Anglesey Militia (256 strong) is to be one of the Militia Battalions for North Wales, while the five Regiments (about 1,700 strong) belonging to the other counties are combined to form the other, is the consequence of the first-named Regiment being one of Light Infantry while the others are Rifles, or if this is not the cause of this proceeding, whether any other reason is to be alleged for it; and, whether he will state to the House any decision that has been arrived at as to transforming the other Militia Regiments of North Wales into Light Infantry as the Regiments of the Line to be localized in North Wales, are of that description?

Sir, the battalions are exhibited in the Appendix, in the form in which they appear in that document for the reason suggested by the Question. It is intended to re-distribute these corps so as to furnish two battalions of nearly equal strength.

asked the honourable and gallant Member for Stamford, If he will state the authority on which he founded a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday last, and, in the event of his not being prepared to state such authority, whether he will either substantiate or withdraw the implied reflection on a Department of the State and an honourable Member of this House?

In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member for Windsor, I have to state that the Question which I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday last was founded on the knowledge which I personally possessed as a Member of the late Board of Admiralty, that such a penalty had been imposed. It was imposed under circumstances which I need hardly say in no way reflected on the character of the Messrs. Baxter. But such penalties, if imposed, ought to be paid; and I have been informed, on the authority of gentlemen whose information I believe to be accurate, that this penalty and others have been remitted. In the three years, 1866–7–8, £12,889 was paid into the Exchequer for penalties and fines on naval contracts. In the two years, 1869–70, the last Returns on the Table, no penalties or fines have been received, but instead, £454 has been repaid to contractors. I have given Notice that I will move for a Return on Monday to explain this information, which is contained in the Navy Estimates. As my inquiry related to a question of fact, I have no accusation to substantiate, nor any reflection to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, after the answer which has just been given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford to the Question addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, I feel it incumbent on me, however disagreeable it may be to me, to make an appeal to you, Sir, and to this House; and if I should not have the absolute right to address you on this occasion, I trust I may have that indulgence extended to me which is never refused to one in my position, when a personal explanation is given in matters of this kind. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford asked on Monday last the following Question;—

"Whether a penalty of £635 for non-fulfilment of a contract for Navy Duck was inflicted on the firm of Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, by the Board of Admiralty, in November, 1868; and also whether it is true, as reported, that the fine has been remitted or paid, and at what date such remission occurred?"

Now, Sir, the House will notice the date in that Question. The hon. Baronet says that a fine was imposed on Messrs. Baxter of Dundee, in November, 1868. In November, 1868, the late Board of Admiralty was within a few days of their resignation; and they were succeeded a few days afterwards by the Board of Admiralty of which I had the honour to be a Member, and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) was the Financial Secretary. It was the duty of my hon. Friend to deal with all the business connected with fines upon contracts, and my hon. Friend is the near relative of the members of the firm of Messrs. Baxter of Dundee. The purport of the Question, therefore, which the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty was this—that within his knowledge, as he now tells us, a fine was imposed upon the Messrs. Baxter by the Board of which the hon. Baronet was a Member, and was that fine remitted by the succeeding Government under the influence of the relative of the firm on which it had been imposed?

That, Sir, being the nature of the imputation thrown upon my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty answered the Question clearly. He told the hon. Baronet that his date was wrong. He told him that the fine of £630 was inflicted on the Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, in November, 1867, a year before the date mentioned by the hon. Baronet in his Question. He went on to say that he never heard of such a report as that to which the hon. Baronet's Question alluded, nor had he ever seen such a report, nor had he been able to find any person who had, but he said—

"If the hon. and gallant Baronet wishes the matter to be more thoroughly investigated, I would ask him to furnish me with that report which he has seen, or with the names of the persons who have authenticated it, because, unless formally authenticated, I am sure," said my right hon. Friend, "that the hon. Baronet would not have put this Question on the Paper."

And he concluded by saying that—

"No orders have been received in the Accountant General's department as to the remission of the fine."

Now, nothing could be more precise than that. There was no such fine imposed on Messrs. Baxter in November, 1868. There had been a fine imposed in November, 1867, the year before the late Government went out of office, and no order had been given as to the remission of this fine. A more complete contradiction of the hon. Baronet's statement I cannot conceive. Well, Sir, what is the position of matters now? The hon. Baronet has been distinctly challenged to give his authority. He has been told that his imputation on my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is unfounded, and he says, forsooth, that he is going to move for a Return! I say after that contradiction, no Return would be of any value whatever. I have enjoyed the personal friendship of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose for 12 years, and for two years I have been engaged with him in most intimate official relations. He is a man of the highest honour, and I appeal to those who know him on both sides of the House, whether they agree with him in opinion or no, whether they have ever known anything that could impeach his character. Under these circumstances, and because not only the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, but also the honour of the whole Department of the Admiralty, and of the Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee, is involved, I think I am justified in asking the hon. Baronet to do what I am about to suggest. I will, however, first read a telegram received from Messrs. Baxter, of Dundee. They say this—

"We think the facts should be brought out. We never even asked the present Administration for remission—feeling a delicacy in approaching them on a matter for which their predecessors were solely responsible."

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) the other evening gave the most absolute contradiction to all the statements involved in the Question of the hon. Baronet; and I now, Sir, appeal to you whether, under these circumstances, that Question ought ever to have been put; and whether, now that it has been put, the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford ought not to withdraw altogether the imputation he has made on my hon. Friend, on the Admiralty, and on Messrs. Baxter?

I rise, Sir, to put one Question, the answer to which might save a good deal of trouble. It is quite clear a fine was imposed; I wish to know whether that fine has ever been paid?

I am, Sir, in a position to state distinctly that the fine was paid, and I will give the date. On the 12th of November, 1867, the penalty of £630 9s. 4d. was abated from a sum of £708 due to Messrs. Baxter, for Navy duck delivered under contract. The difference between the £630 and what was due to Messrs. Baxter, was paid by a bill at that date, nearly a twelvemonth before the hon. Baronet ceased to be a Member of the Board of Admiralty. In January, 1868, Messrs. Baxter applied, on completion of the whole contract, for the remission of the penalty, on the ground that the difficulty experienced was occasioned by the inferior quality of the previous year's crop of flax. This was submitted to the Board by the Controller of Victualling, who was informed by letter, signed by Lord Henry Lennox, on the 28th February, 1868, that the penalty could not be remitted. The Accountant General reports that since that time no order has been received in that department for the remission of the penalty; and, as I have read from Messrs. Baxter's telegram—

"They never even asked the present Administration for remission, feeling a delicacy in approaching them in a matter for which their predecessors were solely responsible."

If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had given as full and distinct a reply to my Question as I have now received from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I should have done then what I am now about to do—namely, to withdraw any imputation on the character of the Secretary of the Treasury, on whose character I had no intention whatever of throwing any imputation. But, at the same time, I shall ask for the Return of which I have given Notice, that the House may know what remissions have been allowed, and repayments made.

I have one more Question to ask the hon. Baronet. He has stated distinctly that there was a report that this payment was remitted. He was challenged by my right hon. Friend to say who made it, when it was made, and where it was made. My right hon. Friend stated distinctly that he was unable in any way to trace the existence of such a report. I call upon the hon. Baronet to say when and where, and by whom, this report was made?

Sir, I do not know whether I may again address the House. I have already in the answer which I have given, and in reply to the hon. Member for Windsor, stated that I had the report from persons of character, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), if he is here, to say whether that statement is not accurate. I have said that I made that statement from my own information, and upon the information contained in the Navy Estimates.

Sir, the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford has called upon me to speak to a certain fact, and I shall merely speak to that fact, which is this—my hon. and gallant Friend did, to my knowledge, obtain the information to which he referred from a person on whose veracity and knowledge he had every reason to rely.

I wish to point out that this repayment does not appear in the Estimates, and it is impossible to trace it in any way. My right hon. Friend tells us it was repaid from succeeding contracts.

It appears to me that, after the declaration of the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford, this discussion has gone far enough, and that further observations will be out of Order. I am bound to say, for my part, that when I saw the Question of the hon. Member on the Notice Paper for Monday last, it did not occur to me that it would affect the character or the conduct of any hon. Member of this House. If I had foreseen such a result, I should have advised the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in a friendly spirit, that the proper course to adopt when the conduct of an hon. Member is challenged, would be to propose a direct Motion, in order that full opportunity might be given both for the statement of the case on the one hand, and of the defence on the other.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the County Court Judges who have been appointed since the Judicature Commission has been inquiring into the County Court system have accepted their offices subject to any alteration that may be made in their position by a revision of that system; and, whether in future appointments the above-mentioned condition will be required?

Sir, all the more recent appointments made by the Lord Chancellor have been made subject to such alterations as may be hereafter determined by Parliament in the extent and nature of their duties, but not in their salaries; as barristers could not fairly be asked to give up their professional practice for an uncertain income in the future. All future appointments will be made specifically on the condition which I first mentioned. It has already been found practicable, by a re-distribution of duties, to reduce by one the number of County Court Judges in Lancashire.

asked the Secretary of State for War, How many first Captains of the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery respectively are to be made Majors, and, bearing in mind that this promotion does not affect the general promotion of the Corps, what steps he proposes to take to remove the state of stagnation at present existing?

Sir, it is intended to make all the first captains of the Royal Artillery majors, and to revise the establishment of the Royal Engineers, so as to place them upon as good a footing in respect of promotion as the Royal Artillery. I do not agree with the argument suggested in the Question, for by the proposed arrangements promotion in both corps will be brought up to about the standard periods.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report which has appeared in the newspapers, that—

"No steps have yet been taken to form a new advanced class of officers of the Royal Artillery at Woolwich, although the class now under instruction has nearly completed its studies?"

It has been represented to me by the Deputy Adjutant General of the Royal Artillery that the advanced class for officers had so few candidates that it was difficult to justify its maintenance, the expense being out of proportion to the utility. I have therefore appointed a Committee, of which the Director General of Military Education is the head, to consider what steps it is desirable to take upon the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to state the arrangements contemplated as to the duration of the Easter Holidays?

Sir, the Government have, of course, no other wish than to ascertain, necessarily in an informal manner, the general feeling of the House. In 1869, when, as this year, Easter was very early, the House encouraged the Government to propose, and adopted when proposed, an arrangement taking the form of a shorter holiday at Easter and a longer one at Whitsuntide, as a more equal and convenient division of the labours of the Session. Of one thing I am aware the House is very anxious—the reports of public opinion being quite unequivocal—that it would be eminently unsatisfactory if, after having been induced to take a short holiday at Easter, any doubt should be raised as to a more liberal holiday at Whitsuntide. Judging from what appears to be the prevailing opinion, we think it would be more agreeable, at least to the greater part of the House, to take the longer holiday at Whitsuntide. I have looked back to the length of holidays, and I see that last year, owing to great pressure of Business, the two holidays together were reduced to the very moderate period of 17 clear days, not reckoning the day of adjournment, and of meeting again. We think it will be practicable to go back to the more liberal, or, at least, less illiberal, arrangement which prevailed in former years, of 21 days in all. In case of the shorter holiday being taken at Easter, we should propose an adjournment from the Tuesday in Passion Week till the Thursday in the following week, leaving it open to take 13 days at Whitsuntide.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Government intends the Betting Bill of last Session, or any other Bill that will check Betting Houses in Scotland, to be among their measures this Session?

Sir, I must repeat to my hon. Friend the answer I have already given to several other hon. Members, that until the Government have made more progress with the measures already introduced, or that were mentioned in the Royal Speech, I cannot undertake to introduce any fresh measure of a contentious nature. As to the extension of the present law on the subject of betting—imperfect as it is—to Scotland, I think I can undertake that before the end of the Session—if nothing more can be accomplished—a Bill extending the present law to Scotland will be introduced.

Sir, I regret again to obtrude myself upon the House; but considering the interest—I may say the intense interest and anxiety—felt by the people of this country with regard to our relations with the Government of the United States, I think it necessary to press her Majesty's Government with an inquiry into a matter upon which we might have expected the right hon. Gentleman an the head of the Government would have made some communication to the House. I beg, now, that I am speaking on the subject, to explain the urgency of the inquiry, that it may not be misapprehended. By the Treaty of Washington the term of four months is allowed within which the Answer of our Government to the Case of the Government of the United States must be presented. Of that term fully three months have expired. The House will therefore see that, as the Easter holidays are impending, and for other reasons, I am fully justified in pressing the Government for some answer. The right hon. Gentleman will probably n-form us, now that he has received an answer to the friendly communication of our Government to that of the United States, how the two Houses of Parliament may become aware of the nature of that Answer?

Sir, I had risen from my seat to make a statement on this subject, when the right hon. Gentleman got up, but he did not seem disposed to give way to me. I, of course, intended, after the anxiety he has very properly shown, and only expressing the feeling universally entertained, to give the earliest intimation of the arrival of the despatch. Yesterday, at the time of the Questions, I mentioned that we had no intimation of it, except of its arrival, and that it was in the hands of the American Minister. In the course of the evening, however, it was put into my hands, and my Colleagues were made acquainted with it, before the adjournment of the House. That despatch will be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government when they meet in Cabinet to-morrow afternoon. Until they have done so, the House will not expect any further communication from me. I wish to offer a suggestion to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), who is not in the House, but I believe he is represented by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) whom I see present. It is with reference to the Notice of Motion which the hon. Gentleman has given on the subject of the powers of the Crown to deal with foreign treaties before they are made known to Parliament. I would represent to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be possible for that important and difficult question to be so fully discussed as it deserves in the present state of these important negotiations with America, out of which the desire for the discussion has proceeded. It would be expedient, therefore, for the public convenience that that question should not come on to-night, and, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to postpone it.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) is correct in assuming that I have the authority of the hon. Member for Warrington to act for him in this matter; and in doing so, I have no hesitation in saying that, under the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend is content to postpone the Motion which stands in his name, but on the understanding that he shall be at liberty to bring it forward on a future day.

was understood to say that having heard the statement of the First Minister of the Crown that the American despatch would be taken into consideration by the Government tomorrow, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister on an early day, Whether he was of opinion that in the event of some fresh proposals being entertained by the two Governments, such proposals would not be deemed final until they had been submitted to Parliament, and Parliament had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them?

, in rising to call attention to the system of late years adopted by the Treasury with respect to Disallowances for Criminal Prosecutions in Counties, Cities, and Boroughs; and to move—

"That it is desirable that the Home Office should draw up such an uniform scale of fees and allowances for general use as shall ensure the efficient administration of justice; and that all such expenses hereinafter incurred shall be wholly defrayed by funds appropriated for this purpose by Parliament,"

said, that the conduct of the Treasury in this matter had given rise to discontent and dissatisfaction, which a recent decision of the highest judicial authority had tended not to allay, but to stimulate. His justification for bringing this subject before the notice of the House was to be found in the fact, that on a late occasion the Court of Queen's Bench, while fully admitting the illegality and irregularity of the practice, pronounced an opinion that they were incompetent to remedy the evil, but recommended an appeal to the highest tribunal—namely, the House of Commons. This was a question which concerned town and country, county and borough alike; it was neither a party nor a political question, and Leaders on both sides were implicated in the practice of which he complained. In 1826, by the Act 7 Geo. IV., it was made incumbent on the Courts of quarter sessions to pay all the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and when these costs were taxed by the proper officers, the treasurers of the respective counties had nothing to do but to pay the amount. The law remained much the same as far as the mode of payment was concerned, but the source from which the funds were derived had since been altered. An Act was passed in 1835 by Mr. Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Lord Melbourne's Government, on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the previous year, providing that half the expenses of criminal prosecutions should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and a Vote of £110,000 was taken in that year for the purpose. In 1846 Sir Robert Peel, when he abolished the Corn Laws and all our commercial relations were altered, proposed as a very slight compensation to the agricultural body that the other half of the costs also should be transferred to the Treasury. Speaking on the 27th of January, 1846, Sir Robert Peel said—

"And now, in respect to the expense of prosecutions in England, one half of that charge is already paid by the public Treasury. In Scotland the charge is borne altogether by the Treasury; whilst in Ireland there still remains a portion of the charge which is borne by the land. We propose in the case of England, and in the case of Ireland, that that portion of the charge of the expense of prosecutions which is now borne by local rates shall be borne altogether by the public Treasury.…. Now, for the purpose of relief, and for the purpose of combining with relief the means of introducing an improvement of our criminal law, I propose that the whole of the remainder of that charge shall be taken from the land and be borne by the Treasury."—[3 Hansard, lxxxiii. 273.]

That was a clear and unmistakable compact, and his complaint was, that it had been infringed, and in a very great degree repudiated. In 1851, by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., the Secretary of State took powers to make fresh rules and regulations with respect to the fees and costs of these criminal prosecutions, and in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) made those rules and regulations. In the previous year, 1857, the Treasury appointed Criminal Examiners. These gentlemen, who resided in Spring Gardens, had taken upon themselves to review and tax the orders of the Courts, though they had no knowledge whatever of the circumstances of the case. It was quite true that after the right hon. Member for Morpeth made the rules and regulations, the costs of those criminal prosecutions were much reduced. Previously the Courts of quarter sessions made their own rules and regulations; but when the Government took the payment upon themselves, it was right that they should make their own rules. The effect was that the costs, which on an average amounted in the counties to £250,000 a-year, were cut down to £150,000. He was not going to say that the Examiners had not done some good. At first, they probably cut off a few abuses; but that did not entitle them to exercise their powers in an arbitrary or capricious way. They had gone on from time to time making rules and regulations, without giving the counties any previous intimation; and on the most frivolous pretexts they had made disallowances, when they had no knowledge of the case whatever. Last y-ear he moved for Returns of the amount of disallowances in every county and borough in England and Wales, and of the total sum paid for criminal prosecutions for seven years—namely, from 1864 to 1870. The Returns were given for six years instead of seven, and the note attached to each page was to this effect—that though ordered by this House in July, 1871, the accounts for 1870 had not yet been paid or examined. Now, he maintained that it was a great hardship that, whereas the counties and boroughs were obliged to pay these costs upon the nail, the Treasury should not for a space of between one and two years have reimbursed them. From these Returns it appeared that the disallowances for the six years were, for the counties of England, at the rate of 6 per cent, and of Wales at the rate of 11 per cent, and for the boroughs of England, 11 per cent. Though the whole cost of the criminal prosecutions for the six years had been £1,000,000, the disallowances amounted to only £78,000, or at the rate of £13,000 a-year. Now, he asked, was it worth the while of the Government, for the sake of so paltry a sum as £13,000 a-year, to create so much irritation and dissatisfaction? It was an act of petty larceny on the part of the Executive, and he insisted that the amount saved hardly paid the expenses of the Examiners, their staff and office. But the worst of it was those gentlemen were obliged to be vexatious and disagreeable—to be active and fussy, in order to make the Government think that they were of some use. The sum at stake was small, but the principle was large; and here a weighty and more serious consideration came in, for these petty disallowances tended very much to impede the due and efficient administration of justice. There were many hon. Gentlemen present who, as magistrates, could confirm him when he said that there was a great difficulty in inducing people to prosecute. They were most anxious to escape every possible expense attaching to it. The other night, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. S. Walpole) introduced his Public Prosecutors Bill, he stated that there was a vast deal of collusion among prosecutors—that out of 50,000 or 60,000 committals there were only about 13,000 or 14,000 convictions; that individuals were deterred from prosecuting, and did everything in their power to escape the expense; that they failed to institute proceedings when they ought, and stopped them when they could. An additional hardship arose from the fact that the Examiners had endeavoured to cut down and reduce the expenditure simply to the cost of the prosecutors, whereas they were intended to comprise the whole cost of the prosecutions. He had presented a Petition from his own county, and would mention, out of the many hardships the Petitioners detailed, this one. Some years ago an arrangement was made with the clerk of the peace to pay him a salary, instead of the fees attached to his office. That salary was, of course, calculated on the fees which he had been in the habit of receiving. He had received a fee of 16s. for the cost of prosecutions, witnesses, and recognizances. In 1859 the clerk of the peace went to the Examiners and they confirmed that fee. On being appealed to, one of the Examiners said he could not tell why they had repudiated that arrangement. The fee of 16s. had been cut down to 4s., and the ratepayers were obliged to pay the difference. That was a great hardship, but it was not the only one. The ratepayers had to pay between £600,000 and £700,000 for the cost of the administration of justice. They were paying that as one class of the community only; whilst the only boon that had been given to the agricultural interest—to the ratepayers, since 1847 was that given by Sir Robert Peel amounting to £75,000, and he thought it very hard that the Government should attempt to minimize that sum in the way they were now doing. Last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had stated that he (Sir Massey Lopes) had not compared the very large concessions made by Sir Robert Peel with the small additional burdens which had been placed on the rates. Now, in 1847 the whole amount raised by local taxation was £7,000,000, whilst in 1870 it was £12,000,000. In 1847 the whole amount of the county rates raised by the Poor Rate assessment was £1,300,000, whilst in 1870 it was £2,600,000. There was scarcely a county or borough in which the magistrates at quarter sessions had not taken the matter into their serious consideration, and presented Petitions on the subject. He now came to what he had referred in the early part of his speech, and which was, that on a recent occasion, a case came before the magistrates of Lancaster, who tried to obtain a mandamus the Court of Queen's Bench to enforce the payment of these disallowances by the Treasury. The Court of Queen's Bench was unanimous in declaring that the conduct of the Treasury was unjust and indefensible; that it was at variance with the words and terms of the Appropriation Act; that they did not give their decision on the merits, but must treat the matter as one of privilege. Now, he was as loyal a man as any hon. Member of the House; but he confessed that when he heard the words "prerogative" and "privilege" they grated on his ear; and anyone who used the words to shelter and shield himself from the consequences of neglecting some duty which ought to fall upon him, was not doing his best to uphold the most excellent Monarchical institutions which we at present enjoyed. The question was treated by the Judges as one of privilege. The Lord Chief Justice said—

"It seems a most anomalous and monstrous thing that when a Court before which a criminal prosecution is tried thinks it necessary in the due administration of justice to order certain expenses to be incurred, to have two gentlemen sitting somewhere in Spring Gardens to override the authority of the Court itself, and disallow expenses which have been directed to be incurred."

Mr. Justice Blackburn said that the Treasury were bound to pay the warrants taxed by the officers in the various counties, and that they were, in fact, to indemnify the counties, and reimburse to them all the sums they paid. Mr. Justice Mellor thought the Treasury had no right to review the taxation when made by the proper officer. Mr. Justice Lush was of opinion that the Appropriation Act required them to pay all the costs taxed and allowed by the proper officer. Now, he (Sir Massey Lopes) thought there would be no difficulty in having a uniform scale of fees for general observance, and that they ought not to be cut too fine, if they wanted not to impede the course of justice. There was one thing that ought to be done immediately, and that was to do away with the Act of 7 Geo. IV., which made it incumbent on the treasurer of the magistrates to pay these fees first. He thought there should be no intervention—that the Treasury should send down their officers, who would be at liberty to apply to the Judge on the spot. He was as great an advocate of genuine economy as anyone, but he was opposed to pettifogging and pernicious parsimony. The one was salutary, but the other defeated its own object. He now submitted his Motion to the House, confident that although the Court of Queen's Bench felt incompetent to deal with the matter, and had therefore recommended that it should be brought before a higher tribunal, the House of Commons would tell the Government that they ought to discontinue a practice which was unsound, impolitic, and unjust.

, in seconding the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon, said, he considered it the duty of the Government to provide sufficient means for the due administration of justice. If ever there was a case in which the country ought to provide such means, it was in the case of the unpaid magistrates—a body of men who performed their duties without fear or favour, although in many instances without appreciation. He wished to clear the ground of misapprehension which existed, by saying at once that he did not question the right of the country to tax the costs in question; but he contended that they ought to be supervised by proper authorities. When he put a Question the other night to the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject, the reply of the hon. Gentleman seemed to amount to an ad captandum appeal to the economic principles of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and stated that he would attend to the matter with a due regard to the interests of the ratepayers. That answer was a proof that the hon. Gentleman was little acquainted with the subject—that he thought it his duty to protect somebody, and therefore mentioned the ratepayers. The answer was certainly more sharp and argumentative than the case required. The case was simply this—in conducting prosecutions certain expenses were of necessity incurred, and those expenses were taxed by the "proper officers of the Court," to quote the words of the Act of Parliament under which the offices were created and the officials appointed. This officer, having taxed the costs, granted his certificate, which was then presented to the county treasurer, who had no option but to pay it. The ratepayers had, therefore, no earthly control in the matter. Notwithstanding the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman to protect the interests of the ratepayers, no amount of protection he could afford would affect them in the slightest degree, because the ratepayers' own officer had no option in the matter. After the county treasurer had dealt with the certificate of the taxing officer, he sent it on to the Treasury in London, where occurred the extraordinary proceeding which the hon. Baronet had described. Two official gentlemen, very pleasantly housed in New Street, Spring Gardens, where they occupied an establishment costing something like £4,000 a-year, exclusive of some £200 a-year for rent, occupied themselves, ostensibly, in supervising bills of costs amounting to £148,000 a-year. The Secretary to the Treasury said the part of the matter to which these officials had particularly to direct their attention was the correcting mistakes made by the local officials. They must be extraordinary clever gentlemen, if in London they could detect mistakes made on the spot where the trial occurred by officials who had all the facts immediately under their notice. If they could do what the Secretary to the Treasury claimed from them, the officials in Spring Gardens would be very cheap at the price they cost; but it must be clear that the task was impossible of accomplishment. The proper officers, appointed as he had before observed by Parliament, taxed the bills of costs, which were then handed over to improper officers for supervision—a state of things he hoped soon to see put an end to, notwithstanding that England was, or was said to be, an eminently Conservative country. The author of the system was the late Mr. Wilson, whom all would admit to have been a most able and zealous economist; but in reference to this matter, his instinct carried him too far, and he inaugurated a system which had proved to be impracticable. He had no objection to the principle of taxing bills of costs; but he insisted, as he had a right to, that the taxation should be an efficient and proper one. He was not alone in that opinion. The Lord Chief Justice said nothing could be more anomalous and unsatisfactory than the present system, which disallowed as costs, expenses that ought to be borne by the public; Mr. Justice Blackburn said the remedy was only to be obtained by an application to Parliament; and Mr. Justice Lush held it to be clear that in 1865, the Resolution of the House of Commons ordered that the costs of prosecutions formerly borne by counties should thenceforward be paid out of the sum granted annually by Parliament, It had been stated that the supervision to which he referred saved the country £28,000 a-year; but he was not prepared to admit that all the deductions made from the bills were such as ought to have been made. A Friend of his who occupied a seat on the Treasury bench told him on the previous day, of a case in which the expenses of a prosecutor, who happened to be a railway porter, were disallowed, because the gentlemen in New Street thought he ought to have had a free pass by the railway. The gentlemen who effected this striking piece of economy did not trouble themselves to inquire whether the man travelled over the line of the company in whose service he was; whether the company in question were in the habit of granting free passes at all; or, whether they granted passes to their own servants, when they were travelling on business other than that of the company. Another point to which the hon. Baronet did not refer, but which still possessed some importance, was the inconvenience resulting from the delay in settling these accounts. Occupations of property in the country changed frequently, and it was an injustice upon an occupier to enter upon his holding, and find himself suddenly saddled with a liability to pay part of the costs of a proceeding in which he had neither part nor interest. That was an injustice which ought to be remedied by the adoption of a more prompt mode of payment. With regard to the position of hon. Members of that House, most of them were members of Courts of quarter sessions, and in reference to this question, he thought they had a double duty to perform. As Members of Parliament, they were bound to protect the Imperial funds; as magistrates sitting in quarter sessions, they ought to look after the interests of the ratepayers in the particular counties to which they belonged. In reference to the question of the most satisfactory mode of settling the matter, he thought it would be well to hand over the whole business from the Treasury to the Home Office. There were principles at work in the Treasury which in a matter of this kind might conduce to, he would not say injustice, but to a somewhat illiberal dealing with the people who had to provide the money, which might result in injustice; while at the Home Office the object would be to prevent the waste of money, but at the same time to secure the proper administration of justice. He hoped and expected the right hon. Gentleman would give such an answer as would enable hon. Members to inform their constituents that the irritation caused by this anomaly would not last any longer. As regarded a uniform table of fees, he advocated the principle most earnestly, believing it would greatly conduce to the proper administration of justice. In conclusion, he would appeal with confidence to the House and to the Treasury Bench to put an end to the arbitrary reign of the gentlemen in New Street.

said, this was a very old grievance. It was not chargeable to the present or to any other Administration in particular; for he could remember that 20 years ago, when he took an active part in public business in his own county, he had to represent their grievances to the Home Office. He sympathized with much that had been said on the subject, and having looked into the matter with the desire of finding a solution of the difficulty, he was bound to say the inquiry had revealed a great deal that was unsatisfactory. A solution of the difficulty must be found, but he was bound to say that he was not fully prepared to indicate what the ultimate solution would be. The expenses of these prosecutions were, as every one knew, formerly charged on the rates, but in the year 1836 the Treasury undertook the payment of half of them, and Sir Robert Peel in 1846 undertook to relieve the local rates of the whole cost. One result of the change was a rapid increase in the cost of the prosecutions; and, consequently, a Board of Examiners was appointed to check the accounts. There had been a great deal of talk about economy, in rather a contemptuous tone, which he thought could hardly be justified by the results of the original appointment of the Examiners. At the present day, when the charges were better understood by the country and by the Treasury, the reductions were not very considerable in amount; but such was not the case at first, and it was impossible to say what the result would be if nothing replaced the superintendence of these gentlemen. In 1852, the cost of these prosecutions was £249,753, which amount was reduced, in consequence of a rigid examination, to £128,000 in 1858, being a reduction of £121,000. From that time to the present, the annual cost had been under £150,000. This reduction had been effected by two gentlemen sitting in London, upon many occasions, he dared say, under circumstances of hardship. But it would be seen that there were inherent difficulties in this question; and if the Home Office were to settle a scale of fees and allowances, as proposed by the hon. Baronet, it would not settle the whole question, because the complaint of the Treasury was not always that the allowances were improper, but often that a witness ought not to have been bound over to give evidence, and that no expenses at all should have been incurred. There was, further, the impossibility of framing a scale of allowances to be paid to counsel. It was absolutely impossible for any Department to frame regulations which would meet the case of all prosecutions; would determine, for instance, either the number of witnesses necessary to prove a case, or the time that would be required for examining them. He had been in communication with the Treasury on this subject, and they had been very anxious to arrive at a solution of the difficulty—but the following anomaly stood in the way. At the quarter sessions the taxing officer did not in any way represent the Government, but was appointed by the justices. If he made an order, it must be immediately obeyed, payment must be made at once by the county; and the grievance was, that the Treasury might afterwards refuse to sanction such payment. In like manner, at the assizes, the taxing officer was appointed by the Judge. It appeared to him, a far better plan would be for the Treasury to have its own officer on the spot, and to be brought at once into communication with the parties, so that the question would be between those who represented the Government on the one side, and those who represented the prosecution on the other. This plan, however, involved many difficulties; one of the principal of which was, that any increase in the number of officers attending the assizes might be an onerous burden on the taxpayers. One of the measures introduced this Session, however, might be a stepping-stone to a satisfactory adjustment of the difficulty. He referred to the Public Prosecutors Bill. The Government would give their support to that Bill; and if it came to a happy issue, there would be on the spot an officer representing the Government who might fairly undertake the duty of fixing the allowances and fees in each case. It had been suggested that the Home Office might undertake the duty of mediating between the counties and boroughs and the Treasury; and, no doubt, if there were some intermediate party who represented the interests of justice as well as the interests of the taxpayers that would, at any rate, be an improvement on the present system. But, on the whole, he thought that the grievance which he admitted to exist, and which he, on the part of the Government, would express an earnest desire to remove, might be best remedied in connection with the system of public prosecutors. The matter was being considered by the Treasury and the Home Office; and, in conclusion, he hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with the assurance he had just given, and would not deem it necessary to press his Motion to a division.

said, it was clear there was no question as to who was eventually to pay the costs, which would be ultimately defrayed by the country at large; and he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there was to be no attempt to impose on the counties and boroughs a charge which ought to be borne by the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, sufficiently considered the fact, that the county or borough had to pay in the first instance the full amount ordered by the taxing master. At present there existed this anomaly—when a prosecution had taken place, and the bill had been taxed by the authorized taxing officer, it came up to London and was looked over by the gentlemen acting in New Street for the Treasury, who disallowed all items they thought fit to object to; but those disallowances were not made in time to prevent the county being mulcted, for it had already paid them, and the loss therefore fell upon the ratepayers, who practically had no voice in the matter. The county paid the items, because the taxing officers allowed them; and yet it could not get the money back from the Treasury, which undoubtedly had already stepped in to a certain extent to regulate the fees and the charges. He did not complain of that, because the purse and the persons that had to pay ought to have the control of the expenditure, provided always two principles were carried out—first, that there was no payment which was not absolutely necessary, and, secondly, that the payments were sufficient to prevent the frustation of justice. Of course, the Treasury could not tell what witnesses were necessary in any case, nor what fees ought to be paid to counsel; and therefore the taxing of the costs must be local and immediate. In cases of dispute, the taxing master was subject to the direction of the Judge, and the Treasury could have no better protection. He would mention two out of a great number of cases which had been submitted to him. At the Lancashire January Sessions, 1871, there was a peculiar charge under an old Act of Parliament, and the Judge directed that the indictment should be drawn by counsel, whose fee of £1 3s. 6d. the Treasury refused to pay. On inquiring into the matter at the office in New Street, he found there was an endorsement at the bottom of the bill, in the handwriting of the clerk of the peace, stating that this was a peculiar indictment under an old statute, and that by order of the Court it was drawn by counsel. That was a case in which there ought to have been immediate and final taxation. In the second case there were two bills against one person, who was convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; they were taxed by the proper officer, there was an order of the Court in relation to both, and the costs of one were refused, with this endorsement—"The case does not appear from the calendar to be necessary." Because the second case did not happen to appear in the calendar, which is drawn up by the gaoler, under the Gaol Act, the gentlemen in New Street disallowed to the county a sum of £6 or £7. This case also showed how absolutely necessary it was that taxing should be local. If an appeal had been made to the Judge in this case, the matter would have been set right in a moment. The taxing officers ought to be held responsible for the proper discharge of their duties on the spot. If they did not, in the opinion of the Treasury, perform their duties properly, persons could be sent round to see how matters were carried out; and, surely, when it was known on what principles the officers were to act, the Judges could be trusted to see that those principles were acted on.

, who supported the Motion, said, he did not see that the matter had any connection with the Bill relating to the appointment of public prosecutors, and denied that the clerks of Assize had any local interests. If economy were to be the first consideration, that might be attained in perfection by prosecuting nobody; but efficiency and not economy ought to be the first object. The cost of prosecutions ought to be looked at in relation to the wealth of the country and the immense amount of property to be protected, and looking at it in that light, he did not see that these expenses were by any means out of proportion.

said, the remedy for the grievance complained of would seem to be the abolition of the gentlemen at the office in New Street, who could have no special knowledge on which to act, and who could cut the charges down only to please their superiors. An instance had come to his knowledge where these gentlemen had by their official act insulted two eminent Judges. At the Durham Assizes, a man was prosecuted by an indictment containing several counts, for night poaching, with violence, and found guilty and sentenced. Then arose a question of costs. Whereupon Mr. Baron Martin, who tried the case, said he would consult Mr. Justice Willes upon the point. He did so; and it being the opinion of both the learned Judges that the costs ought to be paid by the Treasury, an order was made accordingly; but when the account was sent to New Street, the Examiners there struck out the costs, in direct opposition to the opinion of two very eminent Judges. They had heard a great deal about economy, in connection with this subject; but he doubted whether it was good economy, that convictions should break down for want of witnesses, fearing the Treasury would not allow the expenses. On several occasions he had heard Judges complain of the parsimony of the Treasury, and say that justice was defeated by it; and the only remedy that could be effectual might, he thought, be found in a scale of fees prepared with considerable latitude, and in the appointment by the Treasury of a taxing master, who should be on the spot, whose charges should be certified by the Judge of Assize or the chairman of quarter sessions, and whose costs should not then be interfered with by the Treasury. Whether he was a public prosecutor, or a gentleman who could accompany the Judge on circuit, it did not matter. Under the present system, it was an uncommon hardship upon barristers, when the costs of witnesses whose evidence was requisite to complete a case were disallowed by the Treasury. He had heard that the course adopted by the Government in this matter was defended in the interests of ratepayers. Well, all he could say on the point was that, instead of being contented, the ratepayers were greatly irritated by the operation of the system now in practice, in throwing these costs back upon them; and, on their be half, he demanded the reason why they should be called upon so frequently to pay them.

, as a clerk of the peace for 30 years, said, he could endorse every word that had fallen from the hon. Baronet with regard to the taxation of costs under the present system being an abuse against and prejudicial to the administration of justice. He did not propose to trouble the House with the details; but he had in his hand particulars of the disallowances which had been made to costs paid in the division of the county where he acted as clerk of the peace, and if he were allowed to read that statement he was sure it must result in the dismissal of the gentlemen in Spring Gardens. What was the present practice? It often happened that cases came before a court of quarter sessions which required the services of counsel in drawing the indictment. The chairman was acquainted with the circumstances, and, under his direction, fees were paid to counsel for those services; but, on the cost being submitted to the Treasury the gentlemen in Spring Gardens struck out the very fees which the chairman of quarter sessions had allowed. The greater part of the expenses incurred at quarter sessions was for bringing witnesses from a distance. How was it possible for the officials at New Street to know all the circumstances connected with cases of that character? Whatever they did know of them, they were constantly disallowing payments to distant but necessary witnesses subpoenaed by the attorney for the prosecution. There was a variety of other instances to the details of which he could readily refer. Although the clerks of the peace were guided by a scale of charges fixed, if not by the present Home Secretary at least by his predecessors, for the remuneration of counsel as well as witnesses, yet in almost every case within his own experience the officers at the Treasury disallowed charges so fixed. [Mr. BRUCE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman might dissent; but he was prepared to prove the statement by the papers he had in his hand. Unless the Treasury officers, therefore, were prepared to cast an imputation upon the clerks of the peace in taxing these charges, he most strenuously maintained that these disallowances ought not to be made. With regard to one uniform scale of fees, he did not think that one could be fixed for counties, because their circumstances differed so widely—as in mining, manufacturing, and agricultural districts, and he thought the hon. Baronet would do well to omit the word "uniform" from the Resolution. With the exception of that modification he concurred in the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and hoped it would have the entire approval of the House.

said, he wished to make an explanation in behalf of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce), who appeared to have been misunderstood by one or two hon. Members in the remarks he had offered to the House on this subject. The House and the Treasury had one object—namely, they desired that costs should be rightly ascertained, and, if correct, paid by the Treasury. With respect to the first of these questions, the Government agreed that the present system of ascertaining the correctness of costs was unsatisfactory. If the Treasury were to bear these costs, it was at least a rude way of taxing to filter them through the county, especially if the county had no power of checking or controlling the costs. In fact, the reason was traceable to an historical fact—that the county was under a statutory obligation to pay them, and it was only relieved by the repayment which was allowed from year to year by the annual Vote of that House. He would admit that the friction which had arisen in the working of the system afforded a sufficient reason for its re-consideration, and, if possible, its re-adjustment; but he did not think the scale indicated by the Motion of the hon. Baronet met the difficulty. His own belief was, that a scale for the professional remuneration of attorneys and counsel was not possible, and his conviction was based on the experience of civil Courts, where no attempt that he was aware of had ever been made to determine beforehand what should be the remuneration in any particular instance. The same difficulty would be found in criminal proceedings. Instead of avoiding discontent, he believed a uniform scale of fees would produce hardship greater than that now complained of. With regard to fees payable to justices' clerks, he hoped the Bill on that subject now before the House would make satisfactory provision. As to the clerk of assize, the present taxing officer on circuit, the Government had no control over him, as he was appointed by the senior Judge of the circuit to the office for life. While expressing the hope that the Public Prosecutors Bill might meet the difficulty, because he would be a Government officer and all the costs would pass through his hands, he wished the House to understand that the Government did not rely upon the passing of that measure for a remedy. The Government had more than one course before them. They had at least three strings to their bow. While the subject was under consideration it would be premature to say which of these should be adopted; but he was satisfied the adoption of any one of them would be a satisfactory remedy for the present state of things. He hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with this assurance without pledging the House to his Resolution.

said, he must remind the House that the Public Prosecutors Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Winterbotham) had referred, was promoted, not by the Government, but by a private Member, and that it would be liable to the exigencies which so frequently attended independent legislation. One grievance of which he had to complain was this—when costs were first examined the Treasury officials acted with singular astuteness by disarming their adversaries. They said—"Now that the expenses of prosecution are to be paid by us, we have a right to retain the vouchers for them." Accordingly, they locked them up, and never returned them to the clerk of the peace. The result was, that the items objected to were known to the objectors, but never to anybody else; and the taxation of costs was thus conducted solely on behalf of the Treasury, irrespective of the ratepayers. The sole object of this minute taxation, he believed, was to put a stop to irregularities in expenditure; but the actual course adopted was to detain the vouchers, so that county magistrates could not supervise their own officers, and inquire into the reason why these particular charges were made. It was said that certain fees were only allowed by the Treasury in extraordinary cases; but the question whether a case were or were not extraordinary should be decided by the Judge who tried it, and not by irresponsible gentlemen at Westminster, who took upon them to set his decision aside, as had been done in some instances which came under his personal notice. He was glad that the Treasury at length saw the necessity of making some concession in reference to this matter; but he could not help recollecting that last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in a very different sense, contending that there was no ground for the Government acceding to the application that had been made to them. He thought that to remedy the matter which was complained of, the position in which counties and boroughs stood in reference to being reimbursed, the liability of the Government to defray the costs of prosecutions should be clearly defined by statute. Another thing required was, that the costs should be taxed upon the spot, where any necessary explanations could be given. When the present subject was taken into consideration by the Government, he hoped that the scale of fees established in 1858 would also be considered. In applying the scale to counties the Government acted upon this singular principle. They said that any county fee which was above the Government scale should be reduced; but they declined to raise any item that was lower than their own scale. It was this that had given rise to the difference of scale in different counties which had been complained of. The essential point, however, was, that in the administration of criminal justice the expenses of prosecution should not be thrown upon those who proceeded against offenders, As the grievance complained of had now been recognized by the Government, perhaps it would not be necessary for the hon. Baronet to press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that the hon. Baronet, in withdrawing it, would reserve to himself the right to bring it forward again in case it should not be satisfactorily dealt with by the Government.

observed, that the disallowance of cost in counties by the Treasury was 6 per cent, whilst in the boroughs it was no less than 11 per cent; and therefore the question was one which had even more interest for borough than for county Members. He not only objected to these deductions, but to the system which prevailed in making them. The counties sent up all their details of expenses and the vouchers; and then they received an intimation that there would be certain deductions, which they could not trace, so that no assistance was afforded them if they desired in future to conform to any new scale of the Home Office. Last year, in Norfolk, £42 was claimed as expenses for prosecuting a very dangerous burglar, and from that large sum the Treasury deducted 6d. in respect of mileage charged for a witness. There were several, and it was impossible to say to which the deduction applied. How could a gentleman in London know the exact distance which a witness had travelled? In another case a deduction of 1s. 6d. had been made with regard to a witness who had been detained, and it was impossible for the gentlemen who made that deduction to know as well as the Judge who tried the case what necessity there was for detaining the witness, neither could they know whether there had been a necessity to employ extra counsel in another case. Further, the Government was extremely tardy in this and in all other cases of paying money that was due from them, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer required the taxes long before they were due. In the case of these allowances sometimes more than 12 months passed before the counties received them. The Home Secretary had said he thought there ought to be some intermediate taxing officer; but what better taxing officer could they have than the clerk of assize, who was neither the servant of the ratepayers nor of the Government, but a totally independent man? The Home Secretary told them a remedy for that evil would probably be supplied by the Public Prosecutors Bill; but what they wanted was a speedy remedy, and this they were not likely to obtain through that Bill, which, as it stood for Committee about the end of June, would probably not be passed this Session. As to the observation of a Minister of the Crown—that it would be a serious thing for the Judges to have the expenditure of the public money, he could only say that he would rather trust the Judges of England with his life than the Treasury with sixpence.

said, he was glad to have it admitted that this was an old grievance, and thought that, unlike old wine, it did not improve with age. That reason, therefore, he was of opinion, took it from the sphere of party, and strengthened the claim for a speedy and effectual remedy which men of all shades of politics wished to see effected. The country wanted to see payment follow immediately the allowance of the taxing master. Very often, however, 12 months elapsed before the money was paid. The present system operated most unjustly in the county with which he was connected—Leicestershire; and as one example of the glaring anomalies it involved, he mentioned that in Leicestershire the fee allowed from time immemorial to prosecuting attorneys was £2 2s. The Examiners having disallowed half of the sum, a correspondence ensued, in which the antiquity of the allowance was urged by the county, as well as its reasonableness. The Treasury, however, would not yield. Further inquiry brought to light the fact that in Shropshire the allowance to attorneys for conducting a criminal prosecution was and is £3 3s.; upon which a letter was addressed to the Treasury, asking how it came about that the larger sum was allowed in Shropshire, while a smaller one was disallowed in Leicestershire. The Treasury replied that the fee in Shropshire having been of old standing, the Examiners had no power to disallow it. But in the county of Leicester it appeared that the antiquity of the fee did not bar the disallowance one-half. The anomaly ought to be remedied.

thought, after what had occurred in the Court of Queen's Bench, it was necessary the Government should know that a strong feeling prevailed among the ratepayers both in the counties and the boroughs that they had been robbed for 25 years with a strong hand by successive Governments. The Court of Queen's Bench had expressed a very decided and distinct opinion that the Government had no right to dock those expenses in the way they had been docking them; and it was very natural that the people out of whose pockets that money was taken should be disposed to speak very plainly about the matter, and should come to the conclusion that they had been robbed. The question, however, now was, how they could best remedy that state of things. He believed there was but one way of doing it, and that was to settle the amount to be paid at what sum they pleased, but to pay it themselves, and keep wholly clear of borough and county finance. The inconvenience to the controllers of county finance was extreme. They could never calculate what they would get or when they would get it; but being unable to delay payment, they were obliged to raise the money by increasing the rates. He had known the Treasury repayments to be 12 months in arrear; the dissatisfaction caused by the system to the ratepayers was out of all proportion to the amount of money in dispute, for although not large it sometimes necessitated an additional farthing rate; and nothing would set it at rest but a complete change. The question of public prosecutor had nothing to do with the question, and ought not to be imported into it. The thing objected to was that when a Judge ordered a county to pay £10, the Treasury came after and said that only £8 17s. 6d. should be paid. The officer employed just nibbled a little at the order to show he was doing something for his pay. He had called it robbery, but it really seemed more like swindling, and should be put a stop to at once.

observed, that the whole of the debate had been in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), and there had not been one voice raised to controvert the opinions he had laid down. If he gathered aright the opinion of the Treasury Bench, it was that they meant to deal effectually with the proposition of his hon. Friend. The House expected that the Government would deal effectually with it, and at once. If the Government failed, he hoped the House would hold them responsible for the failure, and that his hon. Friend would bring the matter forward again at the very earliest possible opportunity.

said, he took a deep interest in this question, representing a county contiguous to that with respect to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had addressed them. He wished, on the part of his constituents, to express what they wished and desired. He thought their wishes were reasonable, and their requirements ought to be granted. What they required was fixed charges and prompt payment. These were the two points on which they hoped Government would satisfy them, and he trusted that the discussion would secure this result. He very much regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been present on this occasion, and that the subject, which was peculiarly the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been left to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present the whole evening, and only left a few minutes ago. [Mr. DISRAELI: Why did he not speak?] Because the Home Secretary had stated so fully and exhaustively the views of the Government on the subject. As to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex, I may say the Government accept, in the fullest sense, the responsibility to which he refers.

, in rising to call attention to the necessity of increased Postal Communication with the Australian Colonies, said, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, in a letter addressed to him (Mr. B. Cochrane) during last year, had admitted that cheap, expeditious, and frequent postal communication between the mother country and the colonies was one of the best means of binding them together. That was so indeed, and considering how widely the feeling prevailed—more especially in the Australian Colonies, the subject of his Motion—that the mother country was anxious to disconnect herself from her colonies, every effort should he made to increase this means of keeping up the connection. As far back as 1848, the question of postal communication with Australia by the Cape of Good Hope was brought forward; but it was subsequently put out of view, in consequence of the inauguration of the Overland Route by Lieutenant Waghorn. He believed that the population of Victoria was 30 times greater now than it was 30 years ago, and that the populations of the other colonies had increased in the same proportion; and that within the last six years there had been an increase of 58 per cent in the letters sent out to the Australian colonies; not only that, but from some statistics he had gathered on the subject, he found that although we, with our vast colonial interests, sacrificed only £331,000 in the shape of subsidies for a cheap colonial postal tariff, France, with her comparatively slight colonial connection, sacrificed £700,000 for that purpose. To show with what justice the demand for increased postal subsidies by England was made, he would tell the House what were the respective amounts of tonnage which last year passed through the Suez Canal. For the year 1871 the British tonnage passing through the Canal amounted to 547,000 tons; the French, 92,000; the Austrian, 43,000; and the Italian, 29,000—that was to say, eight-tenths of the tonnage passing through the Canal was British, while the postal subsidies paid by the British Government was one-half that of the French and one-half that of the Italian. With respect to the respective commercial position of France and England, he found that in 1870 the imports of France reached 150,000,000, and the exports 130,000,000, while the commercial marine amounted to 1,540,000 tons. The English imports for the same year amounted to 296,000,000, the exports 189,000,000, and the commercial marine reached a total of 5,559,000 tons. Notwithstanding this, while we were not giving subsidies to one-half the extent France gave, our Government refused to make any payment towards developing postal communication with the East, by the Cape; in fact, the Government were unwilling to give any subsidy whenever it was possible to refuse it. He had received letters from several influential gentlemen in the Australian Colonies stating that the colonies were prepared to put upon the line at once a fleet of steamers that would make the journey between England and Australia in 40 days, charging first-class passengers at the rate of £50, second-class at the rate of £30, and third-class passengers at the rate of £11. The establishment of such a line of steamers would have the effect of bringing the Australian Colonies into a communication with the mother country as cheap as that which now existed in relation to Canada, and that, he contended, was a most desirable thing to do. To show the feasibility of the proposed shortening of the communication, a friend had recently communicated to him, on the authority of Mr. Elder, late of the firm of Messrs. Elder, shipbuilders, Glasgow, that ships could be put on which would run the distance in 30 days. There were two classes of emigrants who wanted to get to Australia, but were debarred by considerations of expense. One was the younger sons of gentlemen, and the other third-class passengers. These classes it was highly desirable to assist in their endeavour to better their condition by emigration to the colonies. Another consideration worthy of the attention of the Government, who had withdrawn its troops from the colonies, was that in such a line of steamers as his Australian correspondent suggested they would have ready at hand, in case of necessity, a splendid fleet of transport ships. That being so, he (Mr. B. Cochrane) trusted the right hon. Gentleman would have no hesitation in acting up to the spirit of the letter which he (Mr. B. Cochrane) had referred to at the commencement of his speech, and in which the right hon. Gentleman had said—

"Cheap, expeditious, and frequent postal communication is the strongest and surest means to bind together the colonies and the mother country."

All the Australian Colonies asked was, he believed, something like £70,000 a-year as a postal subsidy, and he thought that was not too much for them to expect from the Government. Under all the circumstances, he thought the improvement of our postal communication with the Australian Colonies a most desirable object, and one well worthy the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend, and he believed he had expressed the opinion last year, that quick and cheap communication with the colonies was the very best way to bind them to the mother country. The object and desire he had, therefore, in connection with that opinion, was to discover what would be the cheapest and best means; but he was afraid he could not agree with his hon. Friend in the view he took of that portion of the question. Before he went further into the discussion, he must-protest against the comparison drawn between the subsidies given by this country and the subsidies given by Prance, for the French Government considered such means the best end attainable for developing their navy and instructing their seamen. But dismissing that consideration, it was for his hon. Friend to carry out the comparison, and to show that the manner in which the French conducted their postal business was better, and that it afforded cheaper and more rapid means of communication than the English service did; but he (Mr. Monsell) denied it, and most strenuously maintained that, notwithstanding the high and protective subsidies given by the French Government, our mail packets were much superior to those employed in the French service. With respect to the amount of subsidy paid by the Post Office, he must remind his hon. Friend that very recently a Committee of that House had protested against the enormous postal subsidies paid, and suggested that the Post Office should, as far as possible, take advantage of the existing commercial mediums of communication. With regard to the question of emigration, his hon. Friend would possibly not expect him to go into that question now; but he would just say with reference to it that if the colonies themselves would more diligently assist in carrying on the system of Government emigration, they would find it one of the most paying concerns they could engage in. But they did not appear to think so. The colony of Victoria, which had been carrying on a system of emigration for some years, had determined to withdraw from it. The colony had spent considerable sums in the enterprize, and of the money last voted a small portion remained; but when that was expended it did not intend to spend any more. His hon. Friend was wrong in supposing that the number of letters to and from Australia was increasing, the truth being that the number was not greater now than it was five or six years ago, although the population was much more numerous now than then. He should be very glad indeed if he could get the Treasury to agree to a fortnightly instead of a monthly service; but if that should be resolved upon, the question would still remain—which would be the best route to be adopted? A Colonial Conference was held last year, at which representatives from Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland attended, and they adopted a resolution in favour of an alternative fortnightly communication—the route to be one fortnight by Suez, and the other fortnight by San Francisco. A difference of opinion arose, and ultimately the whole thing fell through, and before it was further proceeded with it would be necessary for the colonies to agree upon naming what would be the best route for all. For some weeks in the year the railway communication between San Francisco and New York was impeded by heavy falls of snow, a fact which was decisive against that being considered the best route. The question then lay between the Suez and Cape routes, and with regard to them he would call the attention of the House to the relative distances. From Melbourne to London, viâ Suez and Brindisi, was 10,655 miles; by the Cape it was 11,542. But that was not the whole question. It must be remembered that from London to Brindisi, a distance of 1,494 miles, with the exception of the short passage from England to France, the journey was made by rail in two and a-half days, instead of five or six days, which would be occupied in reaching the same point by sea. Therefore, it was perfectly obvious—adopting his hon. Friend's principle that the point to be aimed at was rapid communication—that the Brindisi and Suez route was the best. That being so, another point had to be considered. His hon. Friend was probably aware that the Government of Queensland had entered into a contract in conjunction with the Dutch Government for a line of steamers between Queensland and Moreton Bay, proceeding by Batavia to Singapore. The question, therefore, arose whether the route should not alternate between Singapore and Suez; but the distance was very much against the Torres Straits' route, the distance by that route being 12,351 miles, or there about. Therefore, taking the only view which it was possible from his official position for him to take—namely, rapidity of postal communication—he thought the most satisfactory mode would be to have a direct fortnightly communication with Melbourne and Sydney by way of the Suez Canal. The matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and when a formal decision had been arrived at he would communicate the result to his hon. Friend.

said, that the loyalty of the Australian Colonies was very great, and it ought to be encouraged in every way. Seeing the great interest taken by the colonies in home affairs, and the corresponding interest felt by the mother country in their prosperity and progress, he was sure that the means necessary for proper postal communication would not be grudged.

, in rising to move—

"That no fresh Opposed Business be proceeded with after half past Twelve of the clock, ante meridiem,"

said, he had great satisfaction in doing so as it partook in no shape or form of a party character, and he hoped it would be passed unanimously. The Resolution which proposed that after half-past 12 o'clock no Opposed Business should be taken was the only one which met with the unanimous approbation of the Committee of last year. The only matter for surprise, therefore, would be that this Resolution was not moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Chairman of that Committee, but that it had devolved upon himself to bring it forward. He also regretted that it had not fallen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to make this Motion, but it was in the absence of that right hon. Gentleman in Scotland that he (Mr. Collins) had given Notice of it. When he said that the Committee had passed the Resolution unanimously, he meant that there was no division in the Committee on the question, whether or no there ought to be some limit to the time of bringing forward fresh Opposed Business; but there was a division on the question whether that time should be half-past 12 or 1 o'clock. Upon that question 4 voted for 1 o'clock, and 15 for half-past 12; and when, afterwards, the main question was put, the whole Committee were unanimous, so that 19 out of 23 Members—the other 4 being absent—voted for the proposal. Sir Erskine May, in his evidence, said that the intention of the Rules of Parliament was to secure as much certainty and regularity in the despatch of Business as was possible in a deliberative Assembly. The late Speaker, who was the only other witness examined, also said it was of great importance to secure some certainty as to the Business which was to occur on any particular night. But later in the Session there was no such certainty. Perhaps 40 Notices were on the Paper, and it was impossible to know which of these would come on. Sir Erskine May, alluding to a debate on this subject in a previous Session, said that forbearance was recommended, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said, as far as Government was concerned, he was prepared to suggest that Opposed Business should not be proceeded with after half-past 12; but, as a matter of fact, there never were so many late nights, or so much Opposed Business brought on after half-past 12 o'clock as after this debate. No doubt the Government would again tell the House that they were substantially agreed upon this proposal; but there was the same understanding the year before last, with the result mentioned by Sir Erskine May. Again, it was desirable that the country, as well as hon. Members themselves, should know what was going on within the walls of Parliament. In theory, Strangers were not supposed to be present; but in practice everybody knew that, through an efficient staff of reporters, debates in the two Houses were sown broadcast through the country. The newspapers, however, were published at an hour which made it impossible that they should report late proceedings in this House, and the country, therefore, had no information as to important Business transacted here between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. There was a system of sitting up till 3 or 4 in the morning perambulating the lobbies; but for himself he preferred to go home quietly to bed. Such a system had a bad effect upon the tone and temper of the House, and was inconsistent with the proper conduct of Public Business. Division followed division till both sides were heartily ashamed of themselves, and these questions invariably arose upon Motions for Adjournment, because Opposed Business was brought forward at a time when it ought not to be proposed. No doubt he should be told that if that Resolution was carried, it would be utterly impossible for them to transact the Business of the country. But the same rule prevailed on a Wednesday, even in an exaggerated form, and yet a large amount of Business was transacted on that day. He was not asking that no Business should go on after half-past 12, but only that no new Opposed Business should be brought forward; the question pending might go on until it was the pleasure of the House to dispose of it. The Government had Monday and Thursday, and their chance of Friday, and they would be able to bring on any Opposed Business before half-past 12, so as not to come under the operation of the Rule he proposed. It would hardly be treating the Committee with respect to shirk a Resolution at which they had unanimously arrived, and therefore, in consequence of that Resolution, which, as he before observed, they had passed unanimously, giving, as he believed, some slight chance that in future the Business of the House might be conducted in a more regular manner, he should move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he was unable to support the Resolution, for he believed it would prevent much useful legislation. He would ask, what was meant by "Opposed Business?" No doubt questions on which the two great parties differed were in this category; but there were many useful measures, on which there was no substantial difference of opinion, which would be defeated by this proposal. Some previous question would be protracted until half-past 12 o'clock, and then it would be impossible to bring on Business which might be most important. No doubt the great measures of the Session would always be carried through; but measures relating to sanitary reform and similar subjects would be much hampered. It might be better that the House should not sit so late; but no remedy would be found in a hard-and-fast line to be observed throughout the Session. He would therefore suggest that Opposed Business should not be generally taken after 12 o'clock up to Easter, after 1 o'clock up to Whitsuntide, or after 2 o'clock up to the middle of July. After that date the arrears were so heavy that it was necessary for the House to sit to any hour to get through them. He would remind hon. Members that the Judicial Committee Bill was passed at 4 o'clock in the morning, and it was necessary for the House to sit until that hour of 4 in the morning in order to pass the measure.

said, that as a Member of the Committee which had fully discussed the question, he approved of the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Collins), for he believed that this, in common with all their other Resolutions, was based on a desire that the House should get through its Business with greater expedition and in a more satisfactory manner. Some of their Resolutions offered facilities to the Government, and others to private Members, while this particular Resolution was for the advantage of the whole House, the Committee thinking that, after the advantage given to the Government, the hours of sitting might be curtailed without any impediment to the transaction of Business. He had to complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for bringing forward only such of their Resolutions as suited the Government, for he believed that if carried out in their entirety they would prove very beneficial. The hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had selected a singular instance of the advantage of late sittings, for had he himself wished to cite an illustration of the disadvantage of discussing important measures at a late hour, he should have referred to the Judicial Committee Bill. This was the one Resolution upon which the Committee were unanimous, and if the Government would only carry it out they would give much greater facility for the transaction of Business. As a proof of that, some hon. Members would remember that Mr. Brotherton, when Member for Salford, used to move the Adjournment of the House every night when the clock struck 12. He carried his Motion almost invariably, and without in the least retarding Public Business. It might not be necessary to have an absolute rule on the subject; but there should be a general understanding that no Opposed Business should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock.

said, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins). The House would recollect what constantly occurred last year. When any hon. Member objected to going on with any new important Business after half-past 12 o'clock, and moved the Adjournment, the Main Question was then discussed on the Motion for Adjournment, and the House sat on debating till 2 or 3 in the morning, and after all the Business was adjourned. That was altogether wrong, and the practice of the House worked better 20 years ago, when Mr. Brotherton acquired a sort of despotism in that House. That hon. Gentleman was as good-natured a man as ever sat in that House, and was conciliatory in his manner and appearance. As soon as any hon. Member sat down after 12 o'clock, Mr. Brotherton moved the Adjournment, and, on the Motion being deprecated, he said he would not persist with it, if Opposed Business was put off; and the result generally was, that an agreement to that effect was come to. He was confident that they could not carry ordinary Business through the House in the face of a minority without making some concessions; and the great impediment to the progress of Business during the last two or three years had been the strong determination on the part of those who had the charge of the Business of the House not to make concessions. That was not the way in which the Business of the House of Commons used to be worked. They must make reasonable concessions to those who had some objections to the details of measures; but if they insisted on passing every tittle and iota of a Bill which might not be of a very important character, they provoked opposition and created dissatisfaction and discontent. Not only that, but if the proposed Resolution were adopted it need not be established for all time, but they might try it as an experiment, and see how it worked. Lord Ossington and their able Clerk at the Table recommended this Resolution most strongly. Lord Ossington recommended two things. One was the Resolution with regard to Committees of Supply on Mondays, which the House had already agreed to, and the other was the Resolution now before the House. The Government adopted the first, which they thought was favourable to them, and left the present Resolution for the House to deal with. He repeated that they should try the experiment, and if it failed they could fall back on the old system. He believed that what was now proposed would be an improvement on their proceedings, and that it would cause Business to be better discussed, and with more good humour; and, if the House went to a Division, he should certainly vote for the Resolution as an experiment.

trusted that the House would consider well the consequences likely to ensue from the working of the Resolution before they adopted it. Few persons would be more glad than himself in a selfish point of view to see it passed, for he was sometimes pretty well tired of work by half-past 12 o'clock; but it must be borne in mind that they had a great deal of work to go through, and it would he a serious matter to cut short their power of doing it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) spoke of this matter as if it was in the peculiar interest of the Government; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) demurred to that statement. The fact was, that they wanted to satisfy the demands of the House, and the demands made on them from both sides of the House; and a great deal of blame was cast on them if the desired legislation was not effected. For the great measures in which the country was deeply interested, every Government, for their own credit, were obliged to see that sufficient time was provided; but there were now demands made on the time of the House for matters which, though not of very great importance, were of special interest to the country, and he could not help thinking that things had changed since the good-natured despot referred to by the right hon. Gentleman ruled in that House, and they had now more of those measures than before. It would be felt as a great inconvenience if those measures were not brought forward, and the result of passing the Resolution, or any hard-and-fast Resolution of its character, would be simply to create a block, and more "Innocents" would have to be sacrificed in the course of the year. Then, again, "Opposed Business" was a vague term, because the adoption of such a Resolution would enable one hon. Member, by placing the letter (A) before any Order to prevent its progress after 12 o'clock, no matter however useful and necessary the measure might be. The result would be that the Government and the House would be blamed by the constituencies; and it would be in the power of the smallest possible minority to prevent the passing of the sort of measures which he had just referred to. The right hon. Gentleman further said that measures should not be attempted to be passed by overriding the minority. That was true; but there were some hon. Members who could not be turned from their course by any circumstances, and he did not think that it should be put in their power, by a regulation of the House, to stop the business. There was one way of meeting the difficulty, and that was that the House should continue to sit for any length of time in the year which might be necessary to get through all the Business before Parliament; but he did not think that the House would like to adopt that remedy, and, though hon. Members might wish to go to bed as soon after half-past 12 o'clock as possible, it would be better to trust to the Government not bringing forward Business at a late hour than to limit their own power, which was small enough at present for legislation.

said, that if the House adopted a Resolution that would cripple its daily working power, the result would be that the duration of the Session must be protracted. There was a great desire for holidays, short Sittings, and an early termination of the Session; but it was impossible to attain such objects and at the same time accomplish the necessary work of the Session.

said, that the last two or three years they had had to sit into the early hours of the morning without its having had any effect on the early termination of the Session. The time, therefore, had now come when they might fairly try this recommendation of the Select Committee. It was possible so to regulate their debates as to arrive at a better method of transacting legislation without increasing the length of the Session. The recommendation of the Committee did not deal with Unopposed Business, and with regard to Opposed Business they all knew what happened. If it was opposed in a manner with which they had of late become familiar, hours were spent in taking divisions on the Adjournment of the House, the Adjournment of the Debate, and so on; and could any hon. Member who had witnessed the scenes that had taken place lately in that House after 12 o'clock say that the present system of conducting Business was the proper mode to be adopted with regard to the progress of Opposed Business after 12 o'clock at night? When the Business was carried on to late hours it was slurred over in a most perfunctory manner, and in the following Session the legislation had to be amended, or the work to be done over again. On these grounds he hoped that the Government would consent to give a trial to the recommendation of the Select Committee, for he was sure they would find that the dignity, order, good humour, and business abilities of the House as a legislative machine would be greatly promoted by its adoption.

observed, that the Motion was altogether different from that which the late Mr. Brotherton used to make immediately after 12 o'clock. That hon. Gentleman, in his own quiet manner, usually moved the Adjournment; but this Motion only pledged, the House not to enter upon new and Opposed Business after half-past 12. If the Motion was adopted, they would gain, at least, all that time which was now lost in discussing and dividing whether they should go on with Opposed Business or not. No doubt it was quite right to consult the very strong opinion of the Committee which had been so unanimous in their recommendation of the proposed Resolution. They were told they ought to trust to the good opinion of the House and the Government in a matter of the kind. Well, the good feeling of the House had shown itself very much in favour of the proposition; and as to the good feeling of the Government, he must say, without any disrespect to them, he could not help recollecting that their conduct of Business last Session did not lead him to place entire reliance on them. He trusted that the Government would yield to the feeling of the House on the subject, and accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins).

believed that the hours spent after half-past 12 o'clock in that House were very often thrown away, simply resulting in contention whether they should proceed with Opposed Business. With regard to Government Business, a measure of importance was hardly ever pressed after that hour; therefore, the Motion would not, in that respect, be of any material inconvenience to the Government. Indeed, he felt assured that the Business of the House would not be conducted with less advantage to the country if the hours were shortened. Practically last Session, by the common consent of the House, no important Business was initiated after half-past 12. The discussion which took place at the early part of the evening on private legislation furnished a strong argument in favour of this Motion, when it was shown that the late hours seriously interfered with the business of Committees upstairs. The only objection to the Motion was, that it might give rise to some attempt to carry out a sort of Wednesday's performance of the work; but he thought that the good sense of the House would prevent an occurrence of that kind, and that the experiment proposed in the Motion might be safely tried.

said, he must congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) on the almost unanimous feeling he had elicited in the House in favour of his proposal; and he ventured to hope that the Government, seeing the strong feeling which prevailed, would not allow the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council to be considered final. His right hon. Friend really seemed to think that all the great legislation of the country was initiated after half-past 12 o'clock, and that it was essential to Government Business that it should be proceeded with after that hour. The Motion, however, did not prevent them from continuing their discussion of any measure as long after half-past 12 as they pleased, and only declared that new Opposed Business should not be proceeded with. There was no Legislative Assembly in the world that conducted its Business as they did in that House, sitting all through the night. The American Assembly, which was often held up as an example, commenced to sit at noon, and generally adjourned at 5 o'clock. The only exception to that rule was when they resolved themselves into Committee on the state of the Union, and when—the question being a very broad one—all sorts of Motions were in Order, and the Sitting might be prolonged for 24 or 26 hours. That, surely, was not conduct to be imitated. In that House they wished to transact Business with the utmost despatch, but they had also to look to the quality of the Business; and, in both respects, he believed the adoption of the Motion would lead to an improvement. The House was also bound to consider the convenience of the Chair; for it was well-known that after the ordinary Business had been disposed of, a good deal remained for the Speaker to do before he could leave the Chair.

, before touching the merits of the Motion, wished to refer to two points which had been incidentally alluded to in the course of the discussion. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) referred to the discussion which arose in 1870, when he said he (Mr. Gladstone) intimated that on the part of the Government, as a general rule, no opposed matter would be brought forward after half-past 12 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that pledge had not been redeemed; but if he examined in detail his (Mr. Gladstone's) statement, he would find, he thought, without exception, that the Government had deferred to the wish of any considerable number of the House, and forebore the introduction of any new subject after that hour. That was the rule on which they had acted. The other point was one on which his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was in error. He quoted very high authority at this Table, and stated that Lord Ossington and Sir Erskine May had recommended this proposal. There was no doubt as to the opinion of Lord Ossington; but if the matter had been discussed some 10 or 15 years earlier, when the pressure of the labours against which he had so gallantly struggled was not so severe, he doubted whether his noble Friend would have given the same opinion. With respect to Sir Erskine May, however, as he understood the matter, he did not recommend the proposal, the fact being that that gentleman was opposed to the Resolution. Some reference had been made to the time of Mr. Brotherton, and he must go back to that period. His rule was administered with great gentleness, particularly so far as the Government were concerned. The main thing, however, to be borne in mind in comparing that period with the present time, was that the demands of the Government had greatly increased, while the time at their disposal was greatly diminished. The usual rule formerly in the case of the Government when they had a very important Bill at the stage of Committee, was to proceed with it de die in diem; but at present the idea of giving way to those important measures was entirely a thing of the past, and the Government were obliged to rely on their two days a-week. In point of fact, had it not been for the invention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), fixing Morning Sittings at 2 o'clock, it would for the last few years have been found impossible to carry on the Business of the country. He now came to the Motion before the House, with which it was evident many hon. Members were disposed to agree, and no persons ought to have a greater bias in its favour than the Members of the Government. The remaining in the House until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning was certainly not the most fascinating of occupations, and the Members of the Government were not so dead to the ordinary feelings of humanity as to have a depraved taste for proceeding with Business during the post-midnight hours. They had, however, to consider the state of Public Business and the expectations of the country. He was, he might add, sorry to be obliged to repel the charge which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten), who found fault with the Government for having adopted the particular Resolution which suited them and rejected the others. [Colonel WILSON PATTEN: Pardon me, I said Resolutions.] Then the fact was, that it was not true that the Government had selected Resolutions which only suited themselves, for where, he should like to know, was his right hon. Friend when the Government brought forward the Resolutions for which his right hon. Friend had voted in the Committee? When the Government were struggling in the interest of private Members to induce the House to adopt the Resolution with regard to not counting-out before a quarter after 9, his right hon. Friend was not in his place to support them, and the passing of that Resolution was prevented by a portion of the House. Nothing could, therefore, be more unjust than the charge against the Government which his right hon. Friend had made. Now, he should wish for a moment to call the attention of the House to the epithets which were used by the Committee. No "new Opposed" Business was to be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock. Well, what was "Opposed" Business? So long as the House was not fettered by a particular Resolution, it was open to every hon. Member to form his own opinion as to the nature of the Opposed Business; but if the Resolution were carried, what meaning would the word "Opposed" assume? It would then mean simply the will of any single Member of the House, and an absolute veto would be placed in the hands of anyone against the will of the whole House. Let hon. Members reflect, therefore, on the power they were asked to create, and that at a moment when the country was looking to them for an increased discharge of Public Business. He would mention a case in point—the Local Government Bill of last year. That Bill it so happened was vehemently opposed, but only by a single hon. Member. Every other hon. Gentleman was anxious that it should pass, and his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire joined his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in desiring that it should become law. It was not possible, owing to pressure of other Business, to bring it forward at an early hour of the evening, and if the Resolution under discussion had been in force at the time, the Bill could not have been carried. If the Resolution were now agreed to, and a veto thus placed in the hands of one Member, the House must be prepared to see valuable Bills lost, or else a sensible addition must be made to the length of the Session. He now came to the word "new," and what he should like to know was its meaning? He, of course, understood that it included any new Order of the Day or Notice of Motion. But let him suppose the House to be in Committee of Supply, was the arrival of the hour of half-past 12 to be equivalent, under the operation of the Resolution, to a demand to report Progress if such a Motion were made at the desire of merely a single Member. ["No, no."] Well, how, was the matter to stand? Suppose a Vote of £50,000 were proposed in the Committee for any purpose, and that a Motion to reduce it by £10,000 were rejected, could it be taken at half-past 12, if another hon. Member moved its reduction by some other amount? Was the Resolution to be interpreted that no new question could be put, great or small, or no progress made with any Vote or Bill after the hour specified? It was open to doubt, also, whether new "Opposed Business" would apply to this, or only to the case of Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day. Those were points on which a distinct understanding ought to be arrived before the House gave its assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Boston. But he wished to state to the House the view which the Government took on the question. It was not, in their opinion, wise to attempt such a limitation as was proposed, while they had at the same time, in moderation, every disposition to give way as far as possible to what seemed to be a general wish. He would suggest, therefore, in order to get rid of an ambiguity, and to make the experiment within the safest limits, that the words "new Business" should be confined to new Notices of Motion and new Orders of the Day, and he also desired to place a limitation on the word opposed. He did not think the opposition ought to be merely that of the moment, but an opposition of which some hon. Member had given Notice. That, he thought, would considerably mitigate the inconvenience that would be likely to arise; but one difficulty he still saw, and that was in references to Notices which might have been given only the day before. Another exception ought to be made in the case of Money Bills, which were not usually debated at all, but were often passed through their different stages from day to day at periods of the year when the conditions of the public service and the provisions of the law absolutely required that they should be pressed forward. He therefore proposed to except Money Bills from the operation of the Resolution which he begged to submit to the consideration of the hon. Member (Mr. Collins), and which he had written down in the following terms:—

"That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given on the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when the Notice is called."

He hoped the hon. Gentleman would feel inclined to adopt this Resolution, which he admitted he did not conscientiously hold to be a very safe attempt, although it was, at any rate, clear in its meaning and limited within certain bounds, so that it would allow of an experiment being fairly made. It would be desirable not to pass the Resolution now, but to reserve it to a future day, in order that it might be carefully considered.

, while approving some portions of the proposal, objected to the particular part to which the right hon. Gentleman had lastly referred. The right hon. Gentleman had alleged that things had changed very much since Mr. Brotherton's time, and that the time at the disposal of the Government had been diminished; but he could not admit the correctness of this assertion, especially as during the present Session they had gained a great deal by carrying the Resolution by which they gained Monday nights for Supply. He could not help taking notice of what the noble Lord below the gangway had said about the pressure put upon the Speaker. The late Speaker (Lord Ossington) who was broken down by the late hours of the House, used the strongest language on this subject, stating that the practice of sitting so late turned what ought to be a most honourable service into almost intolerable slavery, and he added that he did not think this self-sacrifice on the part of the House was at all received with approbation by the country. Sir Erskine May also said these late Sittings occasioned great pressure and exhaustion to hon. Members of the House and caused the Business of the country to be transacted in undue haste. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had spoken of the case of a Bill to which opposition was offered by only one hon. Member; but if the Bill in question had been put down for an early period of the evening that one hon. Member would have had his say, the measure would have been carried, the rest of the Business would have been taken, and no fresh opposed Bill need have been taken after 12.30 a.m. Business was not conducted either well or creditably at a late hour. Bills were not then discussed in a proper manner, and eventually they were passed with Amendments in them to which sufficient attention had not been given. He admitted that the discussion of a particular Vote in Committee of Supply ought not to be stopped at half-past 12, but fresh Opposed Business ought not, in his opinion, to be commenced after that hour. In consideration for the Chairman and Mr. Speaker, the time had come when some limit should be placed upon the hour for beginning fresh Business.

thought the original proposal of the Committee ought to be carried out, and said, he must congratulate the House on being about to act on the Resolution of a Select Committee in their own interests.

said, that, as half-a-loaf was better than no bread, he would withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He must, however, have it passed to-night.

thought his hon. Friend had given up his whole case. For his own part, he strongly objected to the latter part of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He should suggest the omission of the words requiring a Notice to be put on the Paper which would destroy the whole object of the Motion.

also thought that the words requiring Notice of Opposition to be given should be omitted, as they would lead to Notice of Opposition being given on almost every occasion by some wide-awake Member who wished to obstruct the progress of any particular measure. Such a rule would, he believed, increase the difficulty of transacting Business.

trusted the House would not pass the Resolution as amended by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the hon. Member who had proposed the Resolution had now accepted, on the spur of the moment, an Amendment of a very specious kind suggested by the Prime Minister. He did not think they ought to pass a Resolution of that sort without due consideration. He dissented from the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and believed that when they saw it in print next morning it would be far from being so Lucid as they imagined. He saw no reason for excepting Money Bills, because there were occasions when Money Bills must go forward. With regard to putting Notices on the Paper, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock that the Notice Paper would be encumbered with Notices. He thought his hon. Friend, by accepting the suggested Amendment, would obtain nothing by it, and it seemed to him to be far better that they should vote for going into Committee of Supply, and let his hon. Friend bring up a Motion which would more fully carry out his intention than that which had been so ingeniously concocted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

was proceeding (amid cries of "Order!") to make a Motion, when—

reminded the noble Lord that the Question before the House was that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, on which an Amendment had been proposed by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins). The noble Lord was entitled to speak to the Amendment.

thought the latter part of the Resolution should be omitted, which rendered the giving of Notice necessary.

thought the original Resolution was preferable to the new Resolution. If they negatived this Resolution it could not be again proposed; but if they adopted the Resolution of the Prime Minister, it was competent to move for a further modification of the Rule. He therefore advised the House to accept the Prime Minister's proposal, reserving to itself, however, the right of subsequently amending it if necessary.

supported the original proposition of the hon. Member for Boston, thinking the Resolution as altered perfectly useless.

said, the Resolution drawn up by the Prime Minister was not clearly understood in his part of the House, and ought not to be adopted without more deliberation. He would suggest that the Government should draw up the Resolution and have it printed.

thought the House was in some danger of falling between two stools, and hoped they would adopt the proposal of the Government, which was a most fair one.

said, he was convinced, that if Notice of Opposition was to be given, the power would be liable to great abuse. He would therefore move, that the Motion be amended by the insertion of words which would prevent any measure except Money Bills being taken after half-past 12, to which objection might be taken at the time without Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

objected to the Amendment.

thought sufficient had been conceded to the Government by allowing Money Bills to proceed.

preferred the Government proposal to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He understood that if any Notice appeared on the Paper opposed to any Bill, that would be accepted by the Government as sufficient to prevent its being proceeded with after half-past 12. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] That being so, hon. Members might leave the House at half-past 12 perfectly assured that such measures would not be proceeded with. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), however, would enable any hon. Member to stop a Bill without Notice; and hon. Members would have to remain until 2 o'clock in a state of uncertainty as to whether unexpected opposition would be raised to a measure or not.