asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Northern Ensign" newspaper of the 31st day of July, that Her Majesty's ship "Jackal," being sent to Wick for the protection of the fisheries, her services were refused, on Friday the 30th of July, when they were earnestly asked on behalf of fishing boats and fishermen exposed to imminent peril on that coast, on the ground that a vessel of Her Majesty is not to be employed for such a purpose, and that, instead of complying to the written request of a number of fishcurers and fishermen, the "Jackal" was kept lying in the fairway to the harbour, obstructing the fishing boats from entering?

, in reply, said, that when he saw the purport of the Question of the hon. Member, he directed a communication to be sent to the commander of the Jackal, but he had not as yet received an answer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Act of the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hop, for the abolition of grants of public money to religious bodies in the Colony (Act No. 5, of 1875) has been received at the Colonial Office; and, if he will lay a Copy of the same before Parliament?

, in reply, said, that the Act alluded to by the hon. Member had not yet been received at the Colonial Office, and when it had he should lay it on the Table of the House.

said, he wished to express the feeling which he knew to be shared by those who had taken most interest in this matter, of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the unwearied attention which he had given to the maritime interests of the country, for his anxious desire to ascertain the right course and to take it, without any desire to obtain a temporary popularity. He firmly believed, had the right hon. Gentleman been allowed to bring his measure into Committee at the time the importance of the subject required, and to keep it before the House in the way usual when a measure of difficulty was really intended to be carried, that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to bring to a successful issue a Bill which would have done the Government more credit and the country more good than any number of "Play Bills," as one of their own supporters called several of their measures. As to what had been said of the want of public support, the country was quiet because it had confidence that the Government meant to do what was right, and he frankly admitted that this was its intention; but the country thought further that the Government had the power to do what it thought was right, and so undoubtedly it had. He strongly deprecated the effect on the character of the House of Commons of the importance—he might almost say the value—attached by the Prime Minister to the wild scene to which he attributed his power to pass the present measure through the House. If the Government had gone on steadily with their larger measure, they might have carried a much better and more complete Bill than the present could pretend to be.

said, he desired once more to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to Clause 3. He thoroughly approved the principle that the stowage of grain cargoes should be regulated, but he feared the clause as it stood would tend to drive British vessels out of the business. If Her Majesty's Government had accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) he believed that their object would be secured, and the British shipowner would not be placed at such a disadvantage. Where additional safety was secured, though expense was involved, there was a corresponding advantage in insurance. For instance, the winter premium on grain from New York to Liverpool in bags was only about half that on grain in bulk. But as between a cargo of which the whole was in bags and one in which one-third was in bags, the difference in security was very small, while the difference in expense was very great. He still, therefore, hoped that in "another place" Her Majesty's Government would consider these points. He might add that he was not a shipowner and had no pecuniary interest in the matter; but as Chairman of a Marine Insurance Company he felt it his duty on this point to support the arguments which had been used by the shipowners. Before he sat down he would also urge Her Majesty's Government to put themselves at once into communication with foreign Governments—especially those of Russia, Turkey, and Egypt—with the view of inducing them to apply to all vessels loading grain in their ports the provisions adopted with reference to British vessels by the Bill now before the House. The object of the Bill was to save life; but if the provisions of the clause did not extend to foreign vessels it might change the flag of many vessels, and yet do little to save life. In the interests of the sailor, therefore, quite as much as in those of the shipowner, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to induce foreign Governments to apply the provisions of the clause to all vessels loading in their ports.

regretted that the hon. Baronet should have raised a discussion on the clause in a manner which showed that he had been very badly advised. That clause was the best considered in the Bill, inasmuch as it enabled shipowners to secure their cargoes in the best manner that could be without costing them even an additional sixpence. But even if it cost £500 to secure the cargo by proper stowing, they would be well expended in relation to the saving of life and property. He regretted that on the third reading of the Bill the hon. Baronet should have taken a technical objection on the authority of persons who had not even taken the trouble to read the clause to which they objected. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed an intention to bring in a clause regulating the stowage of grain. The clause now in the Bill had been modified in Committee, but it was not so perfect as might have been wished. It was, however, perfect enough for its purpose, and it would, he felt certain, do a great deal of good before the operation of the Bill ceased. He would join the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) in thanking the President of the Board of Trade for the zealous and devoted attention he had given to this subject. As, however, they had been told by the highest authority that the present Bill fulfilled the promise given by the Government, and would give satisfaction to the country, he wished to say that it would not have done so if it had passed in its original shape. Very soon after the introduction of the Bill, it was evident that it would not give entire satisfaction to the country; and during its progress through Committee, he might observe the Government had never appealed to its strong majority in favour of the life-saving clauses. Those had been introduced by independent Members on the Liberal side of the House; and in one case only had the Government appealed to its majority to aid in impeding the clause relating to the load line. In these remarks he had no desire to reflect on the opposite side of the House. All he complained of was that the Government had not entered into the matter with the spirit the House had the right to expect from it, and had only appealed to its supporters against the life-saving provisions. To the House, and not to the Government, would be due the credit of the most important enactments of the Bill when it had become law. He trusted the Bill, which it was understood would be brought in next Session, would be introduced in a different spirit from that in which the present Bill had been submitted to the consideration of the House. He desired to add, on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), that since the unfortunate incident which had occurred on the occasion of the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, on the 22nd of July, he had done all in his power—exercising great discretion and great prudence—to aid the Government in the carrying of their Bill through the House.

said, he would not enter into a discussion as to the details of the measure. The remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had been partly answered by those of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed); and with regard to the part unnoticed, he (Sir Charles Adderley) was sure they all hoped and believed that foreign Powers would co-operate—and, indeed, they were already co-operating—with this country in its efforts to prevent the sending of ships to sea with dangerous cargoes. He thought there was no ambiguity in the provision as to "one-third" of a cargo consisting of grain. It did not mean a third in value, but a third in bulk. He would only state in one sentence what he conceived would be the duties—the anxious duties—that would be imposed upon him by the passing of this Act. He should conceive it his duty, as soon as the Bill passed, to proceed with the greatest care to make the appointments provided by the Bill. He might say he even intended to give his own personal attention to the carrying out of this system in the commercial ports of this country, in order that the country might feel that the Government would exercise these powers with the greatest care and precaution, and with a grave sense of the responsibility incurred under the Act. On the one hand, acting under that responsibility, it would be his duty to see that in no way should a great and important interest be injuriously affected. On the other hand, that assurance should be given to our seamen that on their be-half the powers conferred by the Bill would be at once prudently and energetically exercised. He had to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) for the kind remarks he had made respecting him (Sir Charles Adderley) personally, and he might be allowed to say of all those interested in the question, that the more they looked into what had passed this Session, the more he might hope to receive the same acknowledgment from others also. Those who had accused the Government of insincerity in this matter had been most unjust in their accusations. He defied any one to point out where he had failed in charge of it. Some had sneered at the Government as at last confessing that there were unseaworthy ships. They must be blind to the fact that all this legislation was based on that assumption. It was not the fact that had been in dispute, but the right and most effectual mode of treating it. On the postponement of the first Bill, when its protracted course had inevitably led to its being smothered with Amendments, Her Majesty's Government obtained these ad interim powers, and now had, besides, incorporated three or four of the most material provisions from the first Bill into the present measure. This Bill had become no inconsiderable measure on the subject. He pledged himself, not, indeed, that no unseaworthy ships should get out this winter, nor that there should be no casualties at sea; but to this, that every effort should be made to catch offenders and arrest them before they could get out to sea, and to make warnings and examples of them so as to deter all others from the crime of sending a crew to sea in an unseaworthy ship.

said, he was pleased to hear what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and entreated the Government to exercise the extraordinary powers vested in them with the utmost possible caution. He hoped the persons to be appointed as surveyors would be selected with judgment, and that they would hear from the Board of Trade that their duty was not to earn their remuneration by constant interference, but to reserve the use of their authority for cases that decidedly required it. Especially he pleaded for forbearance with regard to vessels engaged in the coasting trade, which performed most valuable services to the public and were the best nursery for our seamen.

said, he had great pleasure in joining in the sentiments just expressed towards the President of the Board of Trade. He trusted the provisions would be carried out, not in a spirit of opposition to the shipowners, but in a true commercial spirit. He would be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in accordance with the promise or understanding of the previous evening, state what the Government intended to do with regard to ships carrying grain cargoes during the coming winter. He understood the right hon. Gentleman then to intimate that he thought vessels of not more than under 100 tons burden should be excepted from the provisions of the Bill. ["Agreed, agreed!"] Hon. Gentlemen might call out "Agreed;" but they must remember that Representatives of the shipowning interest in the House were very few, and had certainly a right to be heard. It should be remembered, too, that this Bill had been brought in and was being passed, not with a view to the protection of seamen, or with a view to the rightful protection of the shipowning interest, but in deference to a sensational agitation in the country. ["No, no!"] That was the view which he took of the matter. He would take the liberty of affirming that, notwithstanding all that had been said against shipowners, they were as anxious for the safety of sailors as any one else could be; while as regarded their supposed excessive gains, if the poor-houses at the shipping ports were examined they would be found to contain a large number of persons who had belonged to that class, and who had lost large fortunes in it.

inquired whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any application to the authorities at the Black Sea and the Baltic ports with reference to grain-laden ships? Without proper regulations at the ports in those seas there could be no adequate security for life in the case of grain-laden vessels.

said, that as to the point which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had raised yesterday, Her Majesty's Government had taken the best legal opinion that they could obtain at the moment, and on considering the Amendment suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) they had arrived at the conclusion that there was no necessity for introducing it, the clause as it stood being perfectly clear. In the interval which had since elapsed the Government had further considered the point, and they remained of opinion that there was no necessity for altering the wording of the clause. As to the question of small vessels to which the hon. Member for Sunderland had referred, the Bill would of course not apply to small vessels navigating inland waters, but it would apply to small seagoing vessels, because it was of equal importance for the security of life that the grain put on board small vessels should be safely stowed as it would be in the case of larger ships. Although the wording of the clause was undoubtedly a little loose and vague in consequence of the short time the Government had had to prepare the Bill, and of their anxiety to secure the safety of sailors without causing commercial inconvenience, he thought its provisions were ample to compel vessels carrying grain to stow their cargoes in a manner that should be safe. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) had fallen into an error as to what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said as to grain and deck cargoes upon the second reading of the Bill. He had not stated that the Government would consider the matter, nor had he said anything to encourage the idea that the Government were prepared to deal with those points in Committee. All he had said was, that the Government would not object to those matters being discussed in Committee, and he had coupled that statement with a reservation which sufficiently indicated the difficulties which would attend an attempt to deal with both grain and deck cargoes, and that the Government did not intend to take the initiative with regard to them. The course he had then pointed out had been exactly followed by the Government, and the House, after hearing the subject fully discussed, had ratified the decision of the Government that it was not advisable in a temporary measure of this kind to deal with the very difficult question of deck cargoes. With regard to grain cargoes, that was a question newly raised, even since the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, and the Government had accepted a proposal which promised to be of great use, whilst it would cause very little inconvenience to merchant vessels. At all events, it was an experiment worth trying. Respecting other matters, he could not agree in the view which the hon. Member for Pembroke had taken of the history of the Bill. The proposal of the Government had been to limit the Bill to two clauses, which appeared to be the most pressing, and to exclude other matters on no other ground than that of the want, or supposed want, of time. It had seemed, looking at the Notice Paper relating to the original Bill, that if clauses such as those which had been agreed to had been proposed, they would have led to considerable discussion, and possibly have endangered the passing of the Bill. The clauses which had been added to the Bill had been for the most part taken from the original Bill of the Government, and when it was seen, on Amendments being moved, that the House was prepared to adopt, with slight modifications, some of the original proposals of the Government, the Government were, of course, perfectly willing to accept the additions. The hon. Member said they had given way after discussion, and he instanced the question of the load line and the Proviso fixing the 1st of January, 1876—afterwards altered to the 1st of November, 1875—as the time for bringing the provision into operation. It ought to be remembered that the hon. Member for Derby himself, in the Bill which he introduced at the beginning of the Session, fixed January 1, 1876, as the time for the coming into operation of the provision with regard to the load line. Therefore, it was not quite fair to seize every opportunity of that kind for the purpose of showing that the Government had tried to resist these provisions. They had done the best they could, and had met all suggestions in a fair and candid spirit. Where they had been obliged to resist they had given reasons which, upon the whole had been satisfactory to the majority of the House. They hoped that the discussion would prove useful in enabling them to deal with the subject more completely next Session; and while sorry at the abandonment of the original measure, he could not say that they looked to the history of the matter with the slightest feeling of regret as regarded the course of this short Unseaworthy Ships Bill.

moved the insertion of the following clause:—

said, he was surprised that no Member of the English Bar had risen to reply to the proposal. It was impossible to understand what object the hon. Member could have in view from merely looking at the proposed new clause. He (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) objected to it, because, while professing to give barristers the power of recovering their fees, it would impose on them obligations and responsibilities from which they had hitherto been exempt, and which the hon. Member professed to be desirous not to impose upon them. For instance, if a member of the Bar was entitled to recover fees, he would be liable to an action at law for want of skill in giving an opinion by which the client might have incurred loss. ["No, no!"] He maintained that it would be so, and remarked that solicitors were frequently visited harshly for the results of steps which they had bonâ fide taken in the interests of their clients. Members of the Bar felt as deeply as any one else the inconvenience and loss sometimes caused by their unavoidable absence from a case. But what could they do, if two cases in which they were engaged came on at the same time in different Courts? They would cheerfully adopt any system by which loss of this kind could be prevented; but he must protest against the suggestion of the Amendment, which might lead to consequences that would be most unjust to the Bar; and if the matter was to be considered by the House at all, it ought to be upon apt and proper words fairly raising the question.

regretted that this important subject should have been brought forward in the waning days of the Session; but he concurred with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in thinking it was right that the great practical evil of enormous fees being paid to barristers for which no work was done in return should be dealt with by legislation. If the members of the Bar felt that they had ground of complaint on account of this subject being brought forward it was their own fault for not making proper regulations for their own guidance. He was not sure that this was the most convenient form of raising the question; but unless a matter so germane to their system of jurisprudence were mentioned while this Bill was under consideration, surprise that it had not been brought forward now would be expressed when the subject was mooted on a future occasion. This clause was drawn up in an unobnoxious form, expressly and designedly, and simply provided that the relations between barristers and clients should be dealt with as an ordinary matter of contract. It had been suggested that the hon. Member for Hull was wrong in stating that physicians could recover fees; but the Medical Act of 1858 enabled them for the first time to do so, subject to the bye-laws of the Colleges of Physicians. The Colleges of Dublin and Edinburgh had passed no bye-laws on the point, so that every member of those Colleges was entitled to recover his fees. With regard to the College of Physicians in London, the state of the case was slightly different, for their bye-law prohibited Fellows from recovering their fees, but allowed the ordinary members to do so. He could not understand why, when engineers, surveyors, and surgeons, were liable to the extent of their whole fortunes for unskilfulness, barristers should be exempt from the rule of law that a man undertaking a duty for fee or reward should not only be liable to perform it to the best of his ability, but should also be responsible for gross negligence. This peculiar state of things arose from the old notion of patron and client; but the system of honorarium had been long since exploded. It ought also to be re-collected that the remuneration of the profession had doubled within the last 30 years. He had in his hand a correspondence between the clerk to a distinguished Queen's Counsel and the solicitors who had engaged his services in an important appeal case which was fixed to come on in Court upon the following morning, and he would read an extract or two without mentioning names. It was as follows:—

"May 11, 1874.

"Mr. A. B.'s Clerk to Solicitors. Dear Sirs,—I find the leading counsel on the other side has 100 guineas marked on his brief. I take the liberty of suggesting that Mr. A. B.'s he marked the same. Would you kindly do so before he appears in the case to-morrow. I am, gentlemen, yours most obediently,—."

What was the meaning of that letter? The brief had been in the hands of the learned counsel and his clerk for some days; the case was fixed for the following morning; and the night before the solicitors got a letter to the effect that they must place him on a level as re- garded honorarium with his skilful opponent. "If they did not, to-morrow's sun might shine; "but he (Mr. Lewis) thought it was meant in that case there would be some difficulty in finding the counsel. The House would not be surprised to hear that the solicitors replied with indignation to the following effect:—

"London, W.C., May 12, 1874.

"Solicitors to Mr. A. B.'s Clerk. Sir,—This appeal stands second in the list for to-day. We have this morning received your note of last night informing us that you have ascertained that the leading counsel for the appellant has 100 guineas marked on his brief, and virtually demanding that we should increase Mr. A. B.'s fee from 50 guineas up to that amount, and indirectly conveying to us the intimation that this must he done before he appears in the case this morning. We can scarcely believe that Mr. A. B. can give his sanction to his clerk going to the clerks of the opposing counsel in any cases in which he may be retained to ascertain the amount of fees marked on their briefs, and then, if these fees are in excess of what may be marked on Mr. A. B.'s brief, utterly regardless of any special circumstances, but as a mere matter of course, to demand (as we take your letter to be a demand) that Mr. A. B.'s fee should be increased to a similar amount.

"If there be such combinations among counsel's clerks with the approval of the members of the Bar, which we cannot for one moment believe, the result will be that solicitors will find it necessary for the protection of their clients to confer with each other before delivering briefs with the object of marking such fees as they in their discretion shall think right, and saving their clients from such an intimation as we have received from you within a few hours probably of the case being argued.

"We are, Sir, very obediently yours,

"B. and B.

"Mr.—, clerk to Mr. A. B., Q.C.,

"Lincoln's Inn."

He was sorry to say such occurrences were not uncommon, and that the result in such cases was that a solicitor often found himself obliged to give extravagant fees to counsel, a considerable portion of which was disallowed on taxation. The evil was, in fact, two-fold. As had been correctly stated by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), there was no reason to complain of the Chancery Bar; but in the Common Law Courts, unless a suitor provided himself with two leaders as well as a junior, he could not be certain that he would have one leading counsel in his case. Counsel made professional engagements which it was impossible for them to perform, taking fees to attend in eight or ten different Courts sitting at the same time, reminding one of the story told of the late Mr. C. Austen, of the Parliamentary Bar, who, in the height of the Session, being engaged in a number of railway cases to come on the same morning, was met coolly taking a walk in Hyde Park by one of his clients, who asked him why he was not at Westminster. "Oh," said he, "I am doing equal justice to all my clients; nobody can complain of my deserting one client for the advantage of another." When a leading counsel did not take that course he ran from one Court to another, opening a ease here, cross-examining a witness there, and going about in such a way as to utterly destroy the value of his services to any one of his clients. It would be said that this was the fault of the clients, who need not employ very eminent counsel if they pleased. But the practical answer to that argument was, that if a leading barrister let it be supposed that he could be in any one of 10 Courts, a client would say—"But if I do not secure his services I shall not be able to prevent his appearing against me." So the counsel were paid a sort of hush money, to prevent their serving the other side. This evil could not exist if on the Common Law side Queen's Counsel followed the rule of the Chancery Bar. There, a barrister, having obtained a silk gown, attached himself to a particular Court, and, according to the etiquette of the profession, did not leave it without a special fee. At present, the client had no opportunity of protecting himself; but the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hull would place matters on a right footing, for if counsel could be compelled to return the money when they rendered no service, that would be one of the most splendid reforms which could be effected. The connection of the barrister and his client should be a contract for service. A barrister should also be liable for gross negligence. Would the House believe that at present he might break the positive instructions of his client, and would not even then be liable? He referred to" Swynfen v. Swynfen," in which Lord Chelmsford had been counsel, and who compromised the case contrary to the instructions of his client, and when the question was brought before Chief Baron Pollock, it was laid down that a member of the Bar conducting a case possessed absolute immunity in such a case. He trusted the time would soon arrive when an attempt to place on a better footing the relations as between barrister and solicitor would be made, and he should certainly vote in favour of the clause, believing that it was full time that evils should be removed which reflected no honour on the Bar itself.

said, that on a proper occasion he should be perfectly prepared to discuss the relations between barristers and solicitors. He did not think, however, that the present was such an occasion, and if he wanted any argument to support that assertion he could find it in the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry himself. How was it possible to deal at that moment with the charges which he had made? How could the House enter into a consideration of the correspondence which the hon. Member had read between the clerk of a barrister and certain firms of solicitors without being more accurately acquainted with the facts of the case? How, also, could the House deal with anecdotes such as that which had been told about that eminent man Mr. Austen, and which had been told, almost in the same words, about other barristers in large practice; it was clear that such anecdotes were merely related for the purpose of raising a laugh. Again, what evidence had the House before it as to the circumstances of the case in connection with which the name of Lord Chelmsford had been brought forward. The clause of the hon. Member for Hull, he could not help thinking, was hardly germane to the subject before the House, and he appealed to the House whether it was consistent with convenience that at the end of the Session so large a question as one involving the practice and custom which had so long existed between solicitors and the Bar should be changed by the introduction of a clause into a Bill which had nearly reached its final stage? He, for one, did not propose to enter into the discussion of the question that evening, and he thought the House would be of opinion that he was justified in adopting that course. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid a compliment to the Chancery Bar; but he (the Attorney General) declined to accept that compliment at the expense of his brethren of the Common Law Bar, who, he believed were, in all respects, as upright and honourable as the members of the Equity branch of the profession. He would, under the circumstances, appeal to the House whether it was desirable to proceed further with the discussion.

thought no body could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Hull and Londonderry without feeling that they had raised a question of deep interest to the whole community. He hoped, however, the clause would not be pressed to a division or further discussion upon it invited at so late a period of the Session. Speaking frankly on the subject, he felt bound to admit that there was a great deal of truth in the complaints which had been made by those hon. Members; and many members of the profession, in common with himself, deeply deplored the evils to which they referred and were most anxious to devise some remedies to clear themselves from such imputations. They wished to spare no labour to bring about a result so beneficial to the public; but the House, he thought, must see that the subject was far too large a one to be entered upon on the present occasion. It was scarcely the moment for introducing a change which would revolutionize the practice of centuries, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Hull would not press his Motion.

, as a solicitor of many years' experience, could not help saying that there was cause for such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for Hull. Whether the clause which he proposed was the proper remedy for the evils which existed was another question. From experience gained in connection with the firm of which he was a member, he could say that the solicitor was sometimes placed in a most painful position as matters stood, it being his duty to have regard to the interests of his client on the one hand, while upon the other hand he had to pay fees which he might deem excessive to secure the services of counsel. He was aware that the evils complained of had grown up as part of a system, and in his younger days they had been by no means so prevalent. Something like a demoralizing influence had, he was afraid, been introduced among the Bar of England at the time when railway speculation became so rife, when barristers came to be feed for the purpose of rendering their services unavailable to others, thus leading to the practice of the clerks of counsel in many instances demanding fees which their employers would hardly sanction. There was no doubt, he might add, that at the Common Law Bar there was no arrangement now existing by which the services of barristers could be secured in the cases for which they had been retained. The members of the Bar were, no doubt, as honourable as they had ever been; but, then, there could be no doubt that briefs were sometimes taken somewhat recklessly, and when there was little probability that they could be satisfactorily attended to. He should like, therefore, to see some such arrangement made in the Common Law Courts as that which prevailed in Chancery. Hoping that the members of the Bar might be able to devise some scheme of the kind among themselves, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Hull not to press his Motion to a division.

said, he should support the Motion, for in his opinion remuneration at the Bar, as in every other walk of life, should be based upon contract. In the medical profession, of which he had the honour to be a member, the question had more than once arisen, and it had been over and over again decided that a person practising as a surgeon and apothecary could recover from his clients the fees to which he was entitled for his services. There was the difference in the case of the physician that he received his fees when he attended his patients; but in the case of barristers the fees were received by their clerks, who, of course, took in as many briefs as were offered to them. He felt bound to add that the great augmentation of fees in the case of members of the Bar in this country had not extended itself to Ireland. He felt almost ashamed when he considered the amount of work done by barristers in Ireland and the smallness of the fees.

said, he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment, but would point out that it had been on the Paper for several weeks, and he begged to vindicate the propriety of the course which he had taken. Admitting that the present was not a desirable time for the discussion, he begged to give Notice that if the subject was not taken up by some hon. and learned Gentleman, he would next Session move for leave to introduce a Bill, when the whole question could be fairly and properly discussed.

rose to say a word for the Common Law Bar, with which for many years he had been connected, and of whose history he knew more than probably most hon. Gentlemen. There had been a considerable change in the practice of the profession of late, and there were now complaints which, in his early days, were never heard of. There was then nothing like bargaining for fees. He always understood when he began to practise that a barrister was bound to take any fee marked upon his brief. What had very much increased the evil complained of was that men practising in the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, even when confining themselves to one of those Courts, were no longer able to be sure of being present when cases they were engaged in were called on. For some years past there had been two Courts in the Queen's Bench, in the Common Pleas, and in the Exchequer, and though a counsel might have prepared himself for a particular case in the Queen's Bench, he might suddenly find that it had been transferred to the second Court. That had led to a great increase of the evil, which was not the fault of the Bar.

said, that the next four Amendments he had to propose would be all in this clause, and had reference to the constitution of the new Court of Appeal. His first Amendment was in page 2, line 23, to substitute the number "three" for the number of "five" ex officio Judges originally proposed. It had been intended that in addition to the two Judges of Appeal and the ex officio Judges there should be three additional Judges. He now proposed to make it one additional Judge; but further on in the clause, in line 38, after the word "appeal," it would be proposed to insert a provision that the Lord Chancellor might by writing, addressed to the president of anyone or more of the divisions of the High Court of Justice, other than the Chancery Division, request the attendance at any time, except during the times of the Spring or Summer Circuits, of an additional Judge from such division or divisions—not being ex officio Judge or Judges of the Court of Appeal—at the sittings of the Court of Appeal, and that a Judge, to be selected by the division from which his attendance might be requested should attend accordingly; and that every additional Judge while attending such sittings, should have the jurisdiction and powers of a Judge of the Court of Appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the first-mentioned Amendment.

hoped the House would allow him to draw attention to this most important clause, as it practically constituted the whole of the Amendment Bill brought forward on the present occasion; the remainder, whatever it might consist of, being only the consequence of what had been done in 1873. They had very recently been informed that Her Majesty's Government had passed a measure for the reform and re-construction of the Courts of Judicature. He wished to remind the House on what that claim was founded. The great measure of 1873 was left in one respect incomplete, and that was with reference to the Final Court of Appeal for Ireland and Scotland. Before the Session of 1874 had arrived, the obligation of completing that legislation fell on those who, at present, formed Her Majesty's Government, and they attempted to complete that measure, and made a proposal for a Court of Appeal which was to be final. But no satisfactory arrangement was completed in that year, and the obligation remained in the present Session, when a new plan had been submitted; but, in consequence of the pressure from without upon the Government, a fresh proposal had to be submitted, so that the Government had not adhered to the measure proposed by themselves; for, by one of the Amendments proposed in this clause, in this matter of the constitution of the Court of Appeal, it was now proposed that the number of ex officio Judges should be three instead of five, as was formerly proposed, and thus the question had assumed a new phase. There was really nothing in the Bill except that which was in opposition to, and an obstruction of, the Act of 1873. This Bill that the Government claimed credit for as having been introduced to reform and re-construct the Judicature of this country, reformed nothing and re-constructed nothing, and it was only because the Government had fallen away from the legislation of 1873 that the present legislation was rendered necessary. When this claim for having effected the reform and re-construction of the Judicature of the country was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, a scene was brought to his (Sir Henry James's) mind in which an eminent architect was described by Charles Dickens. That architect was engaged upon the rebuilding and reconstruction of a grammar school. A great meeting was held, the mayor stood upon his right, the hon. Member for the gentlemanly interest was upon his left, and he made a speech. He produced his plans—plans for the reform and re-construction of the grammar school; but whilst he was claiming credit for these plans, the real author of them looked over his shoulder and said—" Confound the fellow! Why, these are my plans, but he has put in four new windows and spoiled the whole thing." He would suggest to the Prime Minister that when next he claimed credit for the reform and re-construction of our Judicature system he should first see whether there was any ground for so doing; that he should consult his Law Officer, who knew the details of the Bill, before he took credit for that in which he had no share. He (Sir Henry James) could see in the Bill the four windows; but he could discover no clause or line in it which tended to the reform or re-construction of our system of Judicature. On the contrary, what had been done altered and maimed, in a serious degree, the legislation effected in 1873. They were to have a Court of Appeal which was to be singularly weak—a weakness which was attempted to be justified—because the Bill was to be merely temporary, and temporary by the action of the Government. There was to be a Court of Appeal composed of three persons, and the Lord Chancellor was to have permission to borrow two members of one of the Courts below, whenever such Judges should be wanted. That was a system which would be as full of evil as anyone could conceive. It reminded one of ill-regulated domestic establishments which instead of having their own staff of servants within their walls, depended upon some greengrocer or charwoman hired for the day. The system would work in this way. The Lord Chancellor sent to borrow a Judge, and if there should happen to be in the Court a particularly weak Judge, whom the Chief Justice did not approve of, he would send him. When he came back, he would say to the other Judges that he had overruled their decision, and that certainly would not tend to make the position of that Judge or of the other Judges more pleasant. But at that period of the Session it would be impossible to raise an effective opposition to clauses that were fundamentally wrong. Some Amendments were indeed upon the Paper, but this Court of Appeal would be so weakly constituted, and would, indeed be so much weaker than the Courts from which the appeals sprung, that the only consolation they had was that it would be a temporary Court, and that it would come to an end in a few months. The Bill was so framed that instead of claiming credit for the measure as one of reform and re-construction, the Government should have expressed their regret that pressure, which they were not strong enough to withstand, had caused them to give up the Bill which they introduced to the House in 1873, and to produce this weak and ineffective measure, which they could only pray would be temporary and not lasting.

said, he regretted the course adopted by the Government with regard to the proposed Court of Appeal, and that they had proved so unequal to the occasion. The success of the measure of 1873 depended almost entirely on the construction of the Court of Appeal; but, as now proposed, the Court would not command the confidence either of the profession or the public, and the Government were tempting failure in making such a proposal.

said, he did not think the House would concur in the strictures passed upon the Government by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). The Bill was a necessary supplement to the Act of 1873, which would not work, and had been deservedly condemned in many respects by the whole profession. If it had not been so supplemented, it must have been either suspended or abandoned altogether. Its chief feature—the abolition of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords—now had not a defender. It overturned the tribunals of the country, without establishing in their place anything nearly so good, and, in short, it was a regular nightmare to the profession; and, except for Party purposes, no one in this House would venture to say that it would not have been an almost unmixed evil. As to the proposal to substitute three for five Judges, he was sorry he could not concur in it. He maintained that to take two Judges from the Divisions of the Court in order to supplement the Court of Appeal would be a great injury to the administration of justice, for, in his opinion, nothing was so objectionable as a system of removing Judges from one Court to another. Therefore, he much regretted that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, yielding to the economical arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, had consented to diminish the number of the Members of the Supreme Court of Appeal, although he hoped that even now it was not too late for his hon. and learned Friend to re-consider his former proposal.

said, we were about to change the whole course of the administration of the law without a pretext to justify that course. Neither the opinion of the public nor of the profession called for that great change. He could say, on good authority, that the late Lord Westbury, contemplating in his last hours the effect of the Act of 1873, declared that a more fatal and more injurious change in the law of the country had never been made. Among the members of the legal profession the prevailing idea was, that the change now proposed would be attended with the most serious and fatal consequences, and that nothing satisfactory could be looted forward to except a complete reversal of the policy we had been hurried into.

said, he opposed the Bill, whilst recognizing the fact that all opposition must for the present be practically futile. He could not at all accept the statement that this measure was necessary. The Act of 1873 would have worked efficiently, if it had only been allowed to come into operation. It only required rules to put it into working order, and those rules would have been published if the late Government had remained in power. The present Government brought in a Bill which would have carried out the Act of 1873, but they suddenly withdrew it, and substituted the present one. He regretted that the Government had yielded to the wish of the late Prime Minister, and reduced the number of Judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal were not stronger than the tribunals whose decisions it reviewed, what would be the use of having an Appeal Court at all? The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had yielded on this subject to an authority to which he owed no allegiance—namely, that of the late Prime Minister, who some time ago came down to the House and denounced the increase of expenditure in the administration of the law, and charged the lawyers in the House with having urged that increase. This Court of Appeal would be about the weakest—he was going to say the most worthless—institution that could be set up. After that came the delay, expense, and cumbrous machinery of the House of Lords. He could not refrain from entering his protest against such a course of procedure, believing that nothing was more important to the country than the due administration of justice and the public confidence in its tribunals.

then moved the insertion of the following clause:—In page 2, line 38, after the word "appeal," to insert the words—

"The Lord Chancellor may by writing addressed to the president of any one or more of the following divisions of the High Court of Justice, that is to say, the Queen's Bench division, the Common Pleas division, the Exchequer division, and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty division, request the attendance at any time, except during the times of the spring or summer circuits, of an additional judge from such division or divisions (not being ex-officio judge or judges of the Court of Appeal) at the sittings of the Court of Appeal, and a judge, to be selected by the division from which his attendance is requested, shall attend accordingly;

Every additional judge, during the time that he attends the sittings of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, shall have all the jurisdiction and powers of a judge of the said Court of Appeal, but he shall not otherwise be deemed to be a judge of the said court, or to have ceased to be a judge of the division of the High Court of Justice to which he belongs."

said, he must again protest against the principle of moving a Judge from one Court to another. So far from thinking that the number of Judges in the Supreme Court would be too great, he hoped that in the course of next Session the Government would bring forward a proposal to increase that number.

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting words which would enable the Government, at their option, to borrow Judges for the Court of Appeal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as well as from the Common Law Bench. The Members of the Judicial Committee were very lightly worked, and would be still less worked in future, whilst the Judges of the Common Law Courts were overworked, and had heavy arrears. He thought it only fair that the Members of the Judicial Committee should be liable to selection according to the original proposal of the Government. He believed some of them, at any rate, were men with an immense appetite for work, and he was sure that all would put forth the interests of the public service.

opposed the Amendment.

said, that, having regard to the discussions which had already taken place upon the subject, it was not considered desirable that the salaried Members of the Privy Council should be called upon.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, he considered that one of the great requisites of the Judicature Bill was that the country should have a strong and well-appointed Court of Appeal, and that he was in favour of permanent Judges for that Court, and not for borrowing them from other Courts, in which case their attendance and services would be fluctuating and uncertain.

said, on that—the Conservative—side of the House there was an almost unanimous opinion in favour of maintaining the jurisdiction of the House of Lords.

regarded the proposed constitution of the proposed new Court of Appeal as a breach of faith. He ridiculed the notion of bringing Judges from the Final Court of Appeal to an inferior Court.

said, that whilst he was not satisfied that the effect of the proposal of the Government would be to constitute a sufficiently strong Court of Appeal, he trusted that the House would not accept the Amendment, as the principle which had been admitted throughout the discussions on the Bill was that the Privy Council should not be disturbed.

said, he was anxious not to weaken this very weak Court, but he could not help noticing that the Common Law Judges would have to depend for assistance upon two borrowed Judges when they might be wanted; and a result of the present legislation would be that they would have to get two Judges from the Equity Courts and one from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take part in Common Law matters, about which they really knew nothing. He must oppose the Amendment.

proposed to add to the Attorney General's Amendment this provision—

"That no Judge of the said Court of Appeal shall sit as a Judge on the hearing of an appeal from any judgment or order made by himself, or made by any Divisional Court of the High Court of which he was himself a member."

said, he had been under an impression that the object of the Amendment was otherwise attained, but, as it might be open to question, he would accept the Amendment. It helped to make the clause more clear.

suggested to amend the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) by substituting for the word "himself," the words "was and is."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 19, after "every" to insert "person appointed after the passing of this Act to be." The object was to prevent the necessity for the existing Judges again taking the oath of allegiance.

moved the following series of Amendments:—Page 5, line 11, after "the," insert "present holder of the office of." Line 14, after "court," insert—

"and the office so far as respects the duties in relation to such appeals as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a separate office within the meaning of section seventy-seven of the principal Act, and may be dealt with accordingly."

Line 20, leave out "said registrar," and insert—

"The person who is at the time of the passing of this Act registrar of Her Majesty in Ecclesiastical and Admiralty causes."

Line 23, after "heretofore," insert—

"But it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council made upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to make, notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament, such arrangements with respect to the duties of the said last-mentioned office, either by abolition thereof, or otherwise, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient: Provided, That such Order shall not take effect during the continuance in such office of the said person so being registrar at the time of the passing of this Act without his assent."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 39, after "England," to insert—

"The Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and the Lords Justices of Appeal in Chancery, or any five of them."

The object was to give greater security for the proper consideration of the Rules, so that they should have the consent of five out of seven of the ex officio Judges and the consent of a majority of the other Judges.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 5, after "Act," add,—

"The present Judge of the Probate Court and of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes shall retain, and the president for the time being of the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice shall have, with regard to non-contentious or common form business in the Probate Court, the powers now conferred on the Judge of the Probate Court by the thirtieth section of the twentieth and twenty-first years of Victoria, chapter seventy-seven, and the said judge shall retain, and the said president shall have, the powers as to the making of rules and regulations conferred by the fifty-third section of the twentieth and twenty-first years of Victoria, chapter eighty-five."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 65, line 2, Order 35, after "exercising," insert—

"And may also exercise the same authority and jurisdiction in respect of discovery, whether of documents or otherwise, and inspection and interpleader as may be exercised by a Judge at chambers, subject nevertheless to appeal to a Judge or the Court."

The reason why district Registrars should have more powers than Masters in London was, that in London it was as easy to go before the Judge as before the Master; but in the country it was a very costly matter to conduct matters in London which might be left to the Registrar. The cost of coming to London from Liverpool, for instance, would be four times as great as it would be if the matter might be dealt with by the district Registrar.

said, he would accept the Amendment, with a slight modification.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 65, line 2, Order 35, after Rule 5, insert—

"5a. The several district registrars of any district in the county of Lancaster, may exercise, in addition to the authority and jurisdiction given to them by the last Rule, all such or the like authority and jurisdictions as, previously to the coming in force of this Act, might have been exercised by the prothonotary or district prothonotaries of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, and in addition thereto the settlement of issues under this Act."

, as an Amendment, moved the omission of Rule 12. His object was to provide that where a defendant entered an appearance in the district Court, it should not be competent to remove the cause to London without the order of a Judge. As the rule stood, if the defendant resided in the district, or if he chose to enter an appearance in the district Court, he might of his own arbitrary act remove the cause to London. He thought that all these cases when once they were begun in the district Court should be prosecuted there to their final issue, unless they were removed to London by the order of a Judge. That system existed in the county of Lancaster, and gave great satisfaction, and the inhabitants of the county desired to retain it, an object which would be gained by the passing of the Amendment.

supported the Amendment, on the ground that it secured to the county of Lancaster the fulfilment of the promise that its jurisdiction should not be interfered with.

also hoped that Her Majesty's Government would assent to the Amendment.

also spoke in support of the Amendment, and hoped the Government would not do anything to interfere with the privileges which the county of Lancaster now enjoyed.

, in opposing the Motion, said, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had not moved the Amendments which really pointed at the object which his supporters had in view—the retention of a separate jurisdiction for Lancashire. The whole object of the Judicature Bill was to secure uniformity of procedure throughout the whole country; and he could not therefore accept the amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. In Lancashire there had been a peculiar jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction had had reference only to a particular class of cases. The rule in question had been recommended by the Committee of Judges, and that was itself a strong reason for accepting it.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that the argument for uniformity was untenable, as there was a Court of Chancery in Lancashire which it was not proposed to touch by this legislation, and which exercised unlimited jurisdiction to the great advantage of the suitors.

opposed the Amendment. Were he speaking in the interest of the London solicitors, he should be disposed to support it from his experience of the profitable business which had arisen in appeals from the local registers; but it would be a monstrous hardship upon the public to subject them to these registers, which were to be established under the present Bill, and of which, as yet, they knew nothing, without a power of removing a case to the superior tribunals.

also opposed the Amendment. The Bill was intended to establish one uniform of procedure over the whole country, and should be administered with a profound knowledge of jurisprudence, and that was a qualification of the district Registrars. In 1870, at the instance of the attorneys of Liverpool and Manchester, a Bill was introduced into Parliament for the alteration of the ancient Palatine judicature, on the plea of saving the poor man, whereas their real object was to benefit themselves by securing all the costs in each case without having to share them with their London brethren. The local Courts were fed with speculative actions, and a respectable attorney, unless he appeared for the defendant, was scarcely ever seen in one of them. The state of things fostered by some of those local Courts had disgusted him early in his professional career, and confirmed him as a law reformer. The Government would do well to oppose the Amendment.

did not think it was desirable that any exceptional privileges should be given to the district Registrars in Lancashire, and was quite sure his constituents were too reasonable to expect him to vote for a Motion which, in his opinion, ought not to be adopted.

approved of the Amendment. If a wealthy suitor were allowed to take his claim to London, that would amount to a denial of justice to the defendant, if a poor man.

supported the Amendment, because he considered it a very reasonable proposal.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 66, line 21, Order 35, after Rule 14, insert—

"Any party to an action proceeding in London may apply to the court or a judge for an order to remove the action from London to any district registry, and such court or judge may make an order accordingly, if satisfied that there is sufficient reason for doing so, upon such terms, if any, as shall seem just."

, in moving to amend Order 55 by the addition of the following:—

"Provided, That where any action or issue is tried by a jury in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer Division of the High Court, the costs shall follow the event, in the manner heretofore existing in the Superior Courts of Common Law, unless upon special application and for good cause shown the judge before whom such action or issue is tried or the Court shall otherwise order,"

said, the Bill proposed to give the Judge entire discretion in the matter. The result, therefore, might be that while the jury were of opinion that one party was entitled to recover, the Judge might give the costs to the other and unsuccessful party. That was an immense and far too great a power to give to the Judge. It was a practical question, and from what he had seen and what he was afraid he should see, if the Bill passed without amendment, the power of the Judge would be raised over that of juries. Already the Judges had this overriding power to a certain extent, for they could grant new trials in cases where they differed from the juries, and this was freely exercised. But if during the trial the Judge could show that he had the power over the costs, the good results of trial by jury would be gone. In the Common Law Courts, advocates were not in the habit of accepting what the Judge said so unreservedly as they were in the Court of Equity. In the latter, if the Judge said anything, the advocates immediately agreed with him. The Attorney General did so. His hon. and learned Friend would say, "Just so;" but immediately afterwards he would endeavour to persuade the Judge that he was wrong. In the same way the Bar, if it so happened that they did not agree with the Judge they went a very long way about to express their view, for they knew well that if they established a difference with the Judge their client's case was gone. Then if the Judge did not agree with the jury, he would say, "The costs must be paid to the unsuccessful party," and in that case the independence of the jury was gone. But then there was another aspect of the matter. There were a great many cases which ought never to be brought, but which came within the strict rule of law. Now, to meet such cases he would propose a middle course. While he would say that, as a rule, the costs should follow the event, in special cases, if not proceeding from caprice, and after cause shown, the Judge should be allowed to give his reasons why that rule should be departed from. His hon. and learned Friend would say that the rule, as proposed by the Bill, existed in the Court of Chancery; but there the Judge had to determine the question of fact, and where a jury had to determine that question, it was not right to put the Judge in antagonism to the jury. He would conclude by moving the Amendment, which he thought would be a fair compromise between a capricious exercise by the Judge of his discretion in every case and a uniform rule that costs should follow the event.

said, he could not follow the hon. and learned Member (Sir Henry James) in the argument he had used in support of the Amendment. He (Sir Henry James) said that if the juries decided one way the Judge might decide as to costs in the opposite direction; but he (the Attorney General) should be sorry to believe that the Judges, in awarding costs, would be influenced by such motives as the hon. and learned Member attributed to them. The House should bear in mind that the same Rule as was now proposed was contained in the Schedule of the Act of 1873, and it was not a Judge-made Rule, but one adopted by the House itself. It was then thought well that there should be uniformity of procedure with regard to costs in all the Divisions of the Court, instead of allowing them to be awarded at the discretion of the Judge in one Division, and to follow the event in another. Were the House prepared to repeal so much of the Act of 1873 as dealt with costs? It was, however, a question for the House to decide.

said, that the Bill proposed to repeal, as far as the Appellate Jurisdiction was concerned, the Act of 1873, and if the Bill could repeal that essential part, surely they might consider whether it was not worth while to amend that portion of the Act of 1873 which applied to Common Law trials. There was no analogy between a trial before a single Judge who found as to the facts, and, therefore, might well exercise jurisdiction over costs, and a Court in which the jurisdiction was divided into the decision of law by the Judge and of facts by a jury. He would not put it into the power of any Judge, however able and high-minded, to turn round upon the jury and mulct in costs the person to whom they had given a verdict. The present rule that costs should follow the event was a sound one, and, instead of applying the rule in Equity to the Common Law, he would rescind the rule in Equity and make the Common Law rule the general one. The question affected every suitor in the country. Why should a man be put to expense in litigation for asserting or defending his rights? The Amendment was not an extreme one, and he hoped it would be adopted.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that from a long experience in the trial of civil cases, he was strongly opposed to any deviation from the present law, under which costs, as a general rule, followed the verdict of the jury.

said, much had been said of the Act of 1873, but, as a practical man, he believed it to be a great sham. The lesson taught by that Act was that there were two noble and learned Lords in "another place," sitting one on the Ministerial, and the other on the Opposition side, who were too much inclined to take upon themselves to settle the legislation as to the legal business of the country, and that they seemed to think they were the only parties to be consulted in this matter; and that had been at the root of the difficulty. The proposal of the Government would produce great uncertainty in the law.

cordially supported the Amendment. If not carried the Bill would, in its present form, entirely alter the relations that now existed between the Bench and the Bar in the Common Law Courts, and lead to a revolution in the administration of the law which was little dreamt of.

considered the Amendment of so moderate a character that the Government should accept it. He should vote for it.

said, he thought that no Judge should have the power to give costs against the party who had obtained a verdict.

then proposed an Amendment that the Court should have a discretion to direct that the costs should be between party and party, or between solicitor and client, as he should think fit.

objected to the Amendment, which had, he said, been already discussed and decided upon.

said, that what had been decided upon was a compulsory enactment, whilst the present proposition was, that there should be a discretionary power in the Judge as to costs. He could not understand why the Attorney General should not approve of this Amendment. He should vote in favour of it.

hoped that the Government would not object to give this discretionary power. The present Rule as to the costs involved great hardships, and many persons had to forego their rights rather than pay the extra costs which would fall upon them when they had established their claim.

thought that the former vote in no way concluded the present proposition. In numerous cases costs as between party and party were not sufficient, because when a plaintiff recovered a verdict the amount of it went not to him, but too often to his attorney for the extra costs.

Before, Sir, this Bill is read a second time, I desire, with the permission of the House, to make some observations upon the course and conduct of Public Business during the present Session. I can assure the House that I do this with the greatest reluctance—partly, because I feel myself incompetent to enlist the attention of the House as it should be enlisted in reference to a question of this kind, after it has undergone labour so long and arduous, and, partly, because I feel still more incompetent to dispel those mists of illusion, which somehow or other—perhaps before the conclusion of this debate we may discover how—have, in my opinion, gathered round the subject. But statements so remarkable, and, in my opinion, so calculated to lead the public mind to false conclusions, have been made within the last few days, that I feel myself absolutely compelled to lay before this House a plain and bare, but I trust a true, statement of some passages that have occurred within this House during the present Session, in the hope that some one more competent than I am may hereafter be able to place the matter in its true light before the public mind. We are all aware that very recently the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury dined with the Lord Mayor, and that after the banquet he made, as he said, "some not party, but rather historical comments on what may have "—I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to say that he is reported to have said—

"What may have occurred in great places during the present year? In the first place, it should be recollected," said the right hen. Gentleman, "with regard to the present Session, that it has been a Session in which, as a Ministry, they were called upon to perform that ceremony which in homely language, but in popular phrase, was generally described in that country as redeeming their pledges! During the five years that they spent in Opposition they endeavoured to impress upon the country their sincere convictions that the time had arrived when political change was no longer required, when the distribution of political power was no longer the problem to solve in the country, but that its intelligence and energy should be directed to the improvement and elevation of the condition of the people."

I propose, as shortly as I can, to discuss the manner in which, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have redeemed these pledges and carried out the policy stated in the words which I have just quoted. And, in the first place, let me give to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, as composing the Government, the credit which, in my opinion, is duo to them by frankly acknowledging that, in regard to the questions of the Labour Laws, they have acted wisely and boldly. But I think the House will agree with me that the task was not one of such magnitude and difficulty as was represented by the right hon. Gentleman. The question was ripe for settlement, and I believe the Government found the materials for its solution ready to their hands. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not deny that he derived, at least, considerable assistance in his task from the materials which had been accumulated at the Home Office by his Predecessors, and in the conduct of the measures through the House I think I may be permitted to say that the Government were well supported by the Opposition. I may also be permitted to add that the Bills as they stand at this moment are, to a very great extent, the work of the Opposition. To the Opposition it is due, as the right hon. Gentleman boasted the other day at the Mansion House, that punishment by imprisonment for breach of contract no longer exists, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, it is due that the law as to intimidation and annoyance has been made general and is not confined to particular classes. Well, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the difficulties surrounding this subject were so great that success was believed to be almost impossible; but with the advantages that I have enumerated, I cannot see what difficulties the Government have had to meet and combat, unless they were their own repugnance and aversion and the repugnance and aversion of their supporters to undertake to deal with the question at all. But while I give the Government credit for the spirit in which they have brought forward this question, I cannot give them equal credit for the manner in which they have executed their task. They adopted, as I have said, the clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, but in adopting it they, to a great extent, spoilt it. They spoilt it, at least in our opinion, so that we were obliged several times to divide, of course unsuccessfully, against Amendments, which they introduced. But the Bill containing that clause has gone to "another place," and the Lord Chancellor of the Government has given his decision, not in favour of the clause as moved by the Government, but for the Amendment proposed by the Opposition. The Amendment in favour of which we divided and which the Government rejected has been proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords. At the same time, the Lord Chancellor, I believe, has introduced new matter into the clause, matter which raises questions of no unimportant character, questions which ought to be thoroughly discussed when they come before this House, but which at this period of the Session it is impossible can receive adequate consideration. I will pass on to the consideration of some other measures affecting the social condition of the people to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I admit that the Government has called attention to many important questions affecting the social condition of the people; but I ask, have the pledges of the Government been fulfilled by merely calling attention to these questions? None of them have been broadly or completely dealt with. Why, the Social Science Congress—an institution for which I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has no great respect—could do as much in calling attention to questions of great public interest; and I may say that in the course of the present Session it has occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet would make no indifferent members of the Social Science Congress—the right hon. Gentleman himself acting as President and the heads of his Departments superintending Political Economy, Education, and the other sections. I maintain that in dealing with these questions affecting the social condition of the people, the Government have established no principle, grappled with no difficulty, solved no problem. I maintain that the Government have subdued no class interest conflicting with the public welfare. Let us see how far these assertions can be substantiated. First let us take the Bill relating to Public Health introduced by the Government. In reference to that measure the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said—

"Sanitary reform is the great object and need of the day, including in that phrase, so little understood, most of the civilizing influences of humanity."

I confess I am unable to comprehend that sentence; but I humbly suppose it means at least that the question of Public Health is a very large one. But what has the Government done in relation to Public Health? Either they found that a great portion of the work to be done had already been performed by their Predecessors or else they have grossly neglected their duty; for all they had done was to introduce a Consolidation Bill, containing no new provision whatever. I admit that that Consolidation Bill is a useful undertaking, and I believe an excellent piece of work; but it is essentially the work of a draftsman, and I venture to say it has never been submitted to the Cabinet at all, or, at all events, has not cost the Cabinet an hour's labour. Well, that is the way in which the Government have dealt with the question of Public Health. We have heard a great deal of the Artizans Dwellings Bill. That is a Bill which gives certain powers to certain authorities in a certain limited number of places, enabling those authorities to destroy dwellings unfit for habitation and replace them by others. But under the Bill the authorities act only if they feel inclined to do so. It is an invitation to local authorities—nothing more; and it is simply an enlargement of certain local Acts which the Government found already in existence. Glasgow and Edinburgh have obtained local Acts which give them almost all the powers they could obtain under the Artizans Dwellings Bill of this Session. But when they obtained those useful and salutary Acts, Glasgow and Edinburgh did not deem it necessary to call heaven and earth to witness what a magnificent work they had achieved, and I do not suppose it ever occurred to the authorities of those cities that they were setting in motion "almost all the civilizing influences of humanity." In short, the Bill does for towns little more than Glasgow and Edinburgh have succeeded in doing for themselves, and I doubt whether it will even facilitate improvements, for the trouble of obtaining a local Act, perhaps better suited to the necessities of a particular locality, would be small in comparison with the operations to be performed. Then there is another measure affecting the condition of the people which the Government have introduced and carried—I mean the Bill relating to Friendly Societies. What is the history of that measure? The late Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the subject, and last year the Government introduced a Bill which embodied some of the recommendations of that Commission. This year they introduced a Bill embodying fewer of those recommendations, and in its progress through the House they abandoned some of its provisions—in fact, I believe, everything objected to by anybody, even by the representatives of the societies which were admittedly conducted on unsound principles, was struck out, and scarcely anything was left in it that anybody could object to. It is, in fact, a Bill which deals little with principles and only with details. The result is, that it makes very little difference in the existing state of things, and it can hardly be held to justify the somewhat magniloquent description of it which appeared in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament. There is another question which the Government have dealt with, and in which, at this moment, the House and the country, perhaps, take a deeper interest than in any other. The difficulties of the historian in dealing with materials for history are proverbial, and in case the future historian of the year 1875 should seek to save himself trouble by referring to the "not political, but historical" remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the other day as to the Merchant Shipping Bill, I think it will be only an act of charity to indicate some authorities by referring to which the historian may possibly be able to form a more correct estimate of the matter and of the real circumstances of the case. We have all read the history of the Merchant Shipping Bill as given at the Mansion House on Wednesday last. I believe it was a short history, and I propose to give the House a short history of that Bill too, and I will refer to no authority except the Journals of this House and the recorded words of the right hon. Gentleman himself spoken in this House. The Bill was read a second time without very much discussion, and certainly without any serious opposition. Three sittings were occupied in the discussion of it in Committee. In one of the earlier sittings two of its most material clauses were postponed, either because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did not exactly understand them himself, or because he was unable to make them comprehended by the House. In the third sitting the time of the Committee was occupied to a very great extent by a discussion on the subject of advance notes, and after the Committee had been for some hours laboriously engaged in the discussion, after the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken part in the debate and assented to certain Amendments in the clause, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government got up and coolly informed the Committee that that was a clause to which he had never been favourably disposed, inasmuch as it interfered with the sacred principle of freedom of contract—that it was introduced into the Bill in deference to the opinion of the Royal Commission; and that as there was some difference of opinion on the subject, he thought it better to drop the clause altogether. The Committee separated on that occasion in something like amazement, and that Committee has never been asked to resume its labours. The right hon. Gentleman has referred more than once to the number of Amendments on the Paper of the House as the cause of his abandonment of the Merchant Shipping Bill, and he stated that—

"When he came to examine the Paper on the 22nd of July he found 178 Amendments, of which 140 were placed there by Members of the Opposition,"

I am not certain whether I have the numbers quite accurately, but I believe they are very near the mark, and I should like to call the attention of the House, not to the Notices on the Paper when the Bill was abandoned, but when we went into Committee on the Bill. When we went into Committee on the Bill there were 290 Notices of Amendment on the Paper, 175 being placed on the Paper on this side and 115 on the other. When the Bill was abandoned, if my figures are accurate, of which, however, I am not absolutely certain, after the three not very satisfactory sittings to which I have referred, no fewer than 112 Amendments had been disposed of, and very considerable progress had been made in the discussion of the Bill. It is impossible to estimate the amount of opposition a Bill will encounter by merely counting the number of Amendments. Everybody who has taken part in the discussion of a Bill knows perfectly well that 20 or 30 Amendments may hang together, and may depend on the adoption or rejection of one. But in these three sittings considerable progress had been made in the discussion of the Bill, and I believe it was the opinion of competent authorities that four more sittings would have brought the Bill through Committee. [Laughter.] I hear an hon. Gentleman laugh, but I do not know what reason he has to do so. I am informed that eight pages of Amendments out of the 16 on the Paper were disposed of; only eight pages were left, and I repeat I am informed on most competent authority that four more sittings would have brought the Bill through Committee. I now come to that eventful Thursday—not Monday, by-the-by, when the 15111 was abandoned. On the previous Tuesday things had not gone quite as well as had been hoped with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. On the Wednesday there was a meeting of the Cabinet. On Thursday morning we were informed a meeting of the Conservative Party was held, and on Thursday evening the Bill was abandoned. The inference I should be disposed to draw from these facts would have been that the abandonment of the Merchant Shipping Bill was not altogether unconnected with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill; but I do not want to draw any inference at all. I would rather call the attention of the House to the words used in this House by the right hon. Gentleman himself. On Monday the 19th the right hon. Gentleman told us that he would proceed with the Merchant Shipping Bill after the Agricultural Holdings Bill had been disposed of. On Thursday the 22nd—I will read his own words—the right hon. Gentleman said—

"Certainly it was shown to my satisfaction that if we could have got through the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill this week we might have succeeded in passing the Merchant Shipping Bill without detaining the House to an unreasonable period. In that we have been disappointed; and, therefore, I have to say—and I say it with unfeigned and unaffected regret—that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to continue their efforts to pass the Merchant Shipping Bill this Session."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 1820–21.]

We know a change took place since, but at that time it was clear that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the Merchant Shipping Bill could not be proceeded with on account of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. But we know now he thinks otherwise. However, we are informed that after dropping the Merchant Shipping Bill, the idea immediately presented itself to Her Majesty's Government to proceed with another measure. [Mr. DISRAELI: Not another measure.] Well, then, it is the same measure. Certainly, that idea did not present itself to my mind when the right hon. Gentleman first made the announcement to the House. On the Thursday to which I have already referred the right hon. Gentleman said—

"It has been suggested to me that we might pass the measure in a limited form, and in that limited form it might not be devoid of utility; but I am not myself disposed to deal with the measure in that fragmentary manner, and on reflection I declined to take that course."—[Ibid. 1821.]

Well, Sir, the Government, as we know" had reason to change their minds, and they thought it desirable, after all, to deal with the question in a somewhat fragmentary way. Let me now say a few words as to the measure which has been introduced and passed through this House in substitution for the larger Bill, which, let the House recollect, was one of the nine measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech which the right hon. Gentleman takes credit for having passed in the present Session. The Bill which has been read a third time this evening contains five important provisions. Two of them were introduced by the Government and have been passed—one of them in a somewhat modified shape. One provision, that relating to the owner's load line, is a provision which was not included in the original proposal of the Government, and which found its way into the re-committed Bill. Another provision relating to the loading of grain in bulk does not find a place in their proposals, either in the Government Bill or in the re-committed Bill. Another, which is due to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) relating to the punishment of officers under the Act, was not included, I believe, in either of the proposals of the Government. Another provision, which was due to the hon. Member for Heading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), I believe—a most important provision relating to the liability of owners to their crews—had found a place in the original proposals of the Government; but upon consideration had been omitted by the Government in their re-committed Bill. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: No, no!] If I am in error, I apologize; I am under the impression that provisions have even been omitted or considerably modified by the Government in their re-committed Bill. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: No!] A measure which contained so many provisions which were not introduced by the Government, but were rather introduced in spite of the Government, can hardly be claimed by the Government as one of their legislative triumphs during the present year. Add to what I have said, the whole of this measure is to last only one year, and it was explained by the right hon. Gentleman, when in a more humble mood, that it was introduced mainly as a material guarantee to bind the Government to legislate early next Session. This is the account, which I think it would be difficult substantially to contradict, that I have to give of the history of the two Bills relating to Merchant Shipping which we have been discussing during the present Session. If it were not for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the Mansion House, I should be inclined to say of the Merchant Shipping Bill it had dragged heavily in its progress through this House, partly because the Government did not very well understand it, partly because they did not care much about it; that it had been abandoned by the Government without regret in order to make way for the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill; that the question had been taken up again, partly on account of the excitement produced in the House by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), and partly on account of the agitation which had been excited throughout the country. But, Sir, we are informed this would have been an entirely erroneous supposition. How fortunate it is that there is not far from these walls a sympathetic audience, where the right hon. Gentleman can un bosom the secrets not only of his own mind, but of his Cabinet, to whom he can confide the details of Cabinet Councils—details which are never vouchsafed to this House; where he can reveal his hopes and fears, where he can exchange his despondency for ultimate triumph, and where he makes known the real gist of the misunderstood plans of the Government to the whole country. Well, Sir, I have referred, I am afraid at too great length, to the measures introduced and carried by the Government—the Merchant Shipping Bill, the Artisans Dwellings Bill, the Public Health Bill, and the Friendly Societies Bill. I maintain, as I stated at starting, the Government have not, in their conduct of these measures, established any principle for the guidance of the House, nor solved any problem, nor attempted to battle with any difficulties; and the Bills, such as they are at this moment, are rather the Bills of the House than the Bills of the Government. The Government have given us little assistance in dealing with them; they have given us no principle to work with; they have scarcely even afforded the House the requisite structure of a Bill upon which to graft Amendments. But, forgetful of all this, the right hon. Gentleman has told us "that the Government has achieved other triumphs besides those connected with the social condition of the country, and that a Government which has reconstructed and reformed the Judicature of the country cannot be said to be indifferent to law reform." We have had partial discussions of the question this evening, and I will dwell upon it as briefly as possible. I think the real facts of the case are not unworthy of the attention of the House. In 1873 the late Government introduced and carried a measure relating to the re-construction of our Judicature. The measure was complete in its principle, and it was nearly so in its structure. It is true that Scotch and Irish Appeals were not dealt with, because the Opposition of that day would not allow us to deal with them. What remained to be done? It was to allow the Act of 1873 to come into operation, and to provide for Scotch and Irish Appeals upon the principle which had been assented to last Session by both branches of the Legislature, and which in the present Session has been assented to by the House of Lords. That, I say, was what remained to be done; what was done? In deference to a Committee consisting of Members of both branches of the Legislature, but sitting outside its walls, the Government have declined to make that provision to the principle of which Parliament had already assented. The consequence is that the principal provision of the Act of 1873 has been suspended for another year, a temporary Court of Intermediate Appeal has been constructed, and the Act of 1873, shorn of its principal provision, is allowed to come into operation. This is what we are now told is the re-construction and the reform by the present Government of the Judicature of the country. I must say I think this statement does credit to the courage of the right hon. Gentleman, especially if he recollects that the Lord Chancellor, when he announced in the Lords the withdrawal of the original Bill which had been introduced by the Government, in accents which vouched for the sincerity of his words, said that he deeply regretted the necessity under which he was placed. Sir, I think it is worthy of the genius of the right hon. Gentleman that he has been able not only to turn what others would have considered a defeat into a victory, but that he has been able to reap a triumph where others would only have seen humiliation. With regard to the next subject, I have on another occasion endeavoured to bring before the House my views in regard to the Government legislation on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. I still regret that the Government did not think fit to postpone their proposals until another year, because I think if they had done so they would have brought in a simpler, more useful, and much better measure. I have before said, and I still say, that the Bill contains in my opinion a valuable principle—namely, that the tenant should be entitled to the unexhausted value of the money he has laid out in the improvement of his land. I cannot help thinking, however, that it would have been far better if the principle had been laid down in a simpler form, leaving the parties to make their own agreement, or in default of so doing leaving them to the common process of the law; whereas, as it was, the Government at first professed to construct a complicated and minute detailed code applicable to landlord and tenant, but being conscious of the impossibility of regulating those matters by Act of Parliament they were obliged to re-consider the subject, and by a simple notice on one side or the other the Bill may be absolutely and completely got rid of. I cannot think that this is a complete and satisfactory solution of this important question. I should wish to make one other remark upon this Bill. The Government have entirely altered the principle and structure of the Bill since they first introduced it into this House. It came to us with the principle of compensation for the letting value. That principle was the keystone of the measure. That, however, has gone, and with it the whole structure of the Bill had to be altered, and that measure which we received from the other House in good time we are going to send back to them in the second week in August. That is the respect with which a Conservative Government treat the House of Lords, which they call upon us so often to respect. The Government, in addition to these legislative triumphs, we are informed, "made a frank and vigorous attempt to deal with the Public Debt of the country." But when the right hon. Gentleman told the Lord Mayor this, he omitted to inform him that the Government have not devoted one single sixpence of the Revenue of the year on account of that object. They neglected to make due provision for the Supplementary Estimates we have lately had before us, and if certain contingencies occur, so far from reducing the Public Debt, they will be under the necessity of increasing it. Then, again, Sir, we were told that although the subject of Local Taxation was not formally mentioned in the Queen's Speech, yet that various measures incidentally raising it would be introduced. The Local Authorities Bill, we were told, raised the question of Local Taxation. That Bill, which was introduced with considerable pomp, contained two important proposals—one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be authorized to advance to the local authorities sums from the savings banks, and the other that the local authorities should submit to the audit of their accounts. Both these provisions have disappeared from the Bill, and that has been the contribution of the Government in the present Session towards the settlement of the question of Local Taxation. But the Government have laboured, we are told, under considerable difficulties. They have had to encounter, not one, but three Oppositions, and although we are told that is favourable to the discussion and ventilation of public questions, it is costly in point of time. I think I might appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, whether a homogeneous Opposition is always economical in point of time. I will not go into statistics; but if it were desired I could point to measures passed by the. late Government, which I will not say were factiously opposed by a homogeneous Opposition, but which Opposition could hardly be described as economically conducted in point of time. When therefore the right hon. Gentleman regrets that he has not been confronted by a homogeneous Opposition, and that in consequence a great deal of time was spent in discussing the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, I should like to ask him whether, if he had not been supported by a large portion of the Opposition, the debates on the Peace Preservation Bill, instead of occupying 12 nights, might not have been protracted to 20 or 30 nights. I have already referred to the Public Health Bill. That Bill contained 240 clauses, and, although it comprised no new provisions of importance, it did contain some new matter. If the Opposition had desired to obstruct the Business of the Government, what would have been easier than to prevent the passing of a Bill of 240 clauses? What was the unusual course taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)? He went through that Bill, and gave it his most careful consideration. He found that it had been admirably drafted, and was an excellent piece of workmanship, but that it would be impossible to pass it, if it were gone through clause by clause, and he entreated the House to pass the Bill almost without discussion. That Bill was accordingly passed at two sittings of the House. I maintain that the Government have no right to plead want of time for the paucity of their measures. Want of time is not the origin of the weakness and feebleness of the Government measures. Those measures were prepared before the Session began at all, and if they have been wanting in principle and resolution, it is not want of time which can be pleaded as an excuse. Time, it is true, has been wanting, but it has been wanting for the discharge of the first duty of the House of Commons—namely, watching over the Estimates. On the 22nd of June, I pointed out that the Committee of Supply had only then sat five times, and although since then we have sat in Committee of Supply now and then during the month of July, yet that has happened which has rarely occurred—namely, that some of the most important Votes in the Navy Estimates were hurriedly passed through Committee on Tuesday last, without sufficient discussion, and that a very large portion of the Civil Service Estimates were passed through in the course of an hour or two on Wednesday. If time has been wasted, it is not the House of Commons or any other section of it that is entirely responsible. Time has not been wasted only on the consideration of the Irish Coercion Bill. I maintain that time has been wasted by Her Majesty's Government. Why were five nights of the Session occupied at that most valuable time of the year, when the House was fresh and ready for Business upon the Regimental Exchanges Bill, which never even found a place in the Queen's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman will scarcely deny that the Opposition were entitled—in fact, were bound, to give that Bill a thorough discussion. The question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is, were not some of the most valuable hours of the Session devoted to the consideration of that measure when measures of immeasurably greater importance, and which the country really demanded were allowed to wait in vain, for discussion? There is one other subject which I desire to touch upon. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has always been profuse in his acknowledgments of the high character of the House of Commons and of its debates. I ask the House whether, in its opinion, the character of its debates have been raised under the Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman? I ask any hon. Member who has had a seat in this House for some time, whether there has ever before been so much time, as there has during the present Session, spent upon personal questions—questions of Privilege and other interruptions of the ordinary course of Public Business? I am quite aware that it would not be fair to charge all, or even a large part of, those interruptions upon Her Majesty's Government; but I do ask whether the right hon. Gentleman led the House wisely when he supported the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) in his Motion to summon the printers of two newspapers to the Bar of this House upon a matter which, after all, was merely personal? If that were a wise proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, how came it that the Order for the attendance of the printers at the Bar was ultimately discharged, but that the right hon. Gentleman at the outset had not the slightest idea of what he asked the House to do? I should like also to know when it has ever before been boasted by a Leader of the House that a measure earnestly desired by the people of this country could not be introduced until the necessity for it had been forced upon his attention by what he calls a dramatic scene? When we recollect what was the character of that scene, what was the cause of that scene, and what were the proceedings of the Government, I think the House has reason to blush. Then, in regard to the Rules for the Exclusion of Strangers, it was only under pressure that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to place our Rules upon the basis of common sense; and he has deferred settling questions in regard to the Publication of our Debates until some pressure of the same kind again arises. I do not think I need trouble the House any further. I repeat what I said when I rose—that I have discharged this duty with reluctance. I would willingly have allowed this Session to expire in the silence which would have best befitted it; but when it is held up for comparison with some of its glorious predecessors, I believe that I am bound to express the opinion which I firmly entertain, and which I believe will be re-echoed by the country—that, compared with many of its predecessors, this Session has been marked by feebleness; that it has been aimless and purposeless, and barren of all benefit to the country and all credit to Parliament.

In war, Mr. Speaker, there is a military evolution which is well known. It commences with a thundering cannonade. When the clouds are dispelled some sharpshooters are seen advancing to the front. Soon a mass of infantry terrifies you by their compact and serried ranks. Then come squadrons of cavalry, trampling the earth, creating a great dust, and waving sabres. But, when the clouds have vanished, you find that your enemy has retired to a prudent distance, and this military evolution is called covering a retreat. The noble Lord to-night has covered the retreat of his forces; but, while he has criticized what we have done in this campaign, I am unable to criticize the conduct of the noble Lord and his Friends. They have done nothing, for the simple reason that they have attempted nothing. The noble Lord has alluded to my description in another place of the three sections of the Opposition. I did not make that reference that those who heard me might infer that the Opposition being broken into three sections was a source of strength to themselves, or of embarrassment to the Government, but to show that the representation of three sets of opinion opposite to us—often contrary and sometimes contradictory—must necessarily lead to considerable—I will not say waste of time, but—expenditure of time. If the noble Lord, instead of being what he now appears to have been, the sedulous and silent critic of the Government, had only employed his energies and his constant presence in disciplining his forces and inspiring them with those homogeneous sentiments upon which he now looks with so much contempt, the noble Lord might to-night when he entered upon the discussion of the policy of the Government and the conduct of the Session have brought forward the cases of rival measures which had been introduced to our notice and which were candidates for public approbation. He might have referred to the long and determined struggles he had made in favour of some great object, and the hosts—even if they were in a minority—which had supported him, at least, by their enthusiasm. But the catalogue of events, so far as the Opposition is concerned, is a barren and ignominious one, and this attempt at the end of the Session to bring forward a Motion—or rather to make a speech of this kind will not cover their failure. The noble Lord has talked of my historical account; well, we have had an historical account from the noble Lord this evening of the doings of the Session, and that without the excuse of its being made after dinner. Let us follow the noble Lord in his criticism and see what is his case. In the first place, he deals with the laws, which I am glad to say have now been passed, with reference to the relations between the employers and the employed. The noble Lord could not refrain from offering his congratulations on the passing of those measures, nor from giving credit to the Government which had introduced them. But what does the noble Lord go on to say? He says—" You are entitled to no great merit for passing those Acts, because you found the accumulated information upon which you acted already prepared for you at the Home Office." All I can say is that that information was never known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If so, he certainly concealed it from his Colleagues, and from whomever else took an interest in the subject. The noble Lord goes on to say—" Not only did you find this accumulated information in our pigeon-holes, but the most important part of the Bill was suggested by one of my Colleagues." Why, Sir, the most important part of the Bill is not what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to whom he referred. I have not at hand its exact expressions; but the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, though no doubt an improvement in the Bill for any one to make, yet it had nothing whatever to do with the main principle of the Bill, which was the abolition of imprisonment for what we now consider a civil offence, and dealing with the law of conspiracy. The noble Lord says that in dealing with a question affecting the social condition of the people the Government have proposed no new principle, and he says that our Public Health Bill is a mere Bill of consolidation. That was not a mere haphazard phrase on the part of the noble Lord, because he repeated it two or three times. He dwelt upon the idea; he praised the dexterity of the draftsman, and more than once assured or reminded his Friends that it was nothing more than a consolidation of the laws upon the subject. He further said that he had no doubt that it had never been submitted to the Cabinet. No doubt, if the account of that Bill given by the noble Lord is correct, it never was submitted to the Cabinet, because the Bill which was submitted to the Cabinet in December was not a mere Consolidation Bill, but contained considerable alterations and amendments in the existing law, and alterations and amendments of the law were made in it not only by the Cabinet, but also in both Houses of Parliament. Well, then, we come next to another measure which the noble Lord sneers at—the Artizans Dwellings Bill. That, forsooth, is a mere "permissive Bill"—it is, he says, in fact, perfectly nugatory, and only attempts to do that which every great city might do, and which some great cities have already done for themselves; in short a mere pretext and pretence of a legislation. "It is an invitation merely to do something," says the noble Lord; but in that case I ask—" Why did not you and your Colleagues give that invitation?" What has been the consequence—of our giving that invitation—of the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department? The consequence has been that before this year passes, as I am informed—and I believe on the highest authority—many millions of money will have been invested with the view of carrying out the purposes of that Bill by an association brought forward and supported by the highest persons belonging to both parties in the country. So much for our permissive legislation at which he sneers—so much for the invitation which he never gave, but which we have given, and which has been so amply and so zealously accepted. Then the noble Lord proceeds, with his easy sarcasm, to criticize the Friendly Societies Bill, and says—"You are entitled to no credit for this piece of legislation, because the late Government issued a Commission to inquire into the subject." I admit that—it is the first statement of the noble Lord that I admit to be perfectly accurate, but I must also remind the noble Lord that he quite forgets to inform us that that Commission was forced upon the late Government, and he cannot fail to recollect that two of the most active and distinguished Members of that Commission are Members of the present Ministry. So much for the noble Lord's sympathy with the three measures which I have mentioned, one of which will have a speedy effect in improving the habitations of the artizans of this great City; another which has effected a great improvement in our sanitary laws, by altering and codifying them, and has laid the foundation for future action; and another which is a measure so provident and so prudent, and, I will say, so essentially charitable, that it has placed the Friendly Societies of this country in an intelligible, an intelligent, and a secure position. Now, Sir, we come to a subject which the noble Lord endeavoured to make much of, but I do not think he succeeded in treating it with the hand of an artist, because he began with the end and he ended with the beginning, which is not the way to place a case perspicuously and effectively before a popular Assembly. With respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill, he makes a great accusation against the Government, and especially against me. Upon that subject I must, with the permission of the House, which I am aware must be much wearied of the subject, make a few remarks in answer to what the noble Lord has said. I cannot myself see that there has been any inconsistency in the conduct of the Government in their treatment of this subject. It is true that we brought forward a Merchant Shipping Bill which nobody can deny was a large measure, and was one which had been well studied, and was well conceived, and dealt with a subject of a controversial nature, and which everybody knew must meet with criticism and opposition. I would not, I must again say, advert to a point which has been so fully alluded to lately, for it must weary the House, and I know I shall be trespassing upon their indulgence if I dwell for a moment or two upon it. But it is necessary for me to do so since the noble Lord accuses me of great inconsistency. He says that when I gave up the Bill which we first introduced, I announced that I would not deal with the subject in a fragmentary way—that proposals had been made to me to deal with it in a fragmentary way and that I declined to do so. That is perfectly true and perfectly consistent with all the course which I have taken. It was suggested—I am not sure that it was not suggested in debate, but certainly all those who took a deep interest in the subject on both sides of the House were aware that the question had been mooted—that it might be well to omit the clauses which had not been reached, and which would give rise to great controversy, and be satisfied with those which had been passed and others that we might pass without controversy, and in this manner pass during the present Session what I would call a fragmentary measure. I refused to do so. I said in my own mind it was a matter which must be dealt with, if at all, in a comprehensive way, and that I objected to a permanent measure of a fragmentary kind. I did not object to a temporary measure being fragmentary; but when I was asked to pass a large measure which omitted to deal with many of the problems involved in the subject, I saw that great mischief would result from the course proposed, and that such a measure would be only an obstacle to any future legislation. The noble Lord says I was not justified in giving up the Bill, and that the presence of a large number of Amendments on the Paper was not at any time an adequate and valid reason for giving up a Bill. Well, of course, the number of Amendments is not an adequate reason for giving up a Bill. You do not give up a Bill because you see 240 Amendments notified by the Opposition; but you look at the Amendments, you examine their character, you inquire as to their objects, you seek to find out what are the interests of the particular sections of the House in bringing forward those propositions, and also what are the means of resistance. You must go into very minute calculations. It is not a subject which you can debate openly in the House of Commons, because the House would be wearied by such details; but the person who is responsible for the conduct of Public Business must enter into these minute calculations before he decides whether he will go on with a Bill or not. As to the idea that a Bill could be given up, simply because the Secretary of the Treasury came and said there were 240 Amendments on the Paper, I can hardly conceive how it can have occurred to the noble Lord, holding so responsible a position, to which he has proved tonight that he is adequate. The noble Lord says that on the Monday I announced to the House that I had hopes, if the Agricultural Holdings Bill got through Committee that week, we might carry the Merchant Shipping Bill. Well, I had hopes; and as long as I had hopes I adhered to my determination. But you must remember that when I made the second announcement, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday were gone, were wasted. We had not advanced a single step, and we had, under these circumstances, to consider the course which it would be necessary to take. I will not enter into any discussion on this point. It is not necessary. It is scarcely a fair discussion, and it could never be settled to anybody's satisfaction by discussion, whether we sacrificed the Merchant Shipping Bill to the Agricultural Holdings Bill or not. What I want is 'simply to assure the House that in the opinion of the Government, the consequence of our proceeding with the Merchant Shipping Bill would have been this—that we should have sacrificed both Bills, for if we had sacrificed the Agricultural Holdings Bill, we should not have been able to get on with the other. Well, it has been said that we acted with great inconsistency, and solely in consequence of public excitement in bringing in the short temporary measure. Well, so far as I am concerned, I say, without the slightest wish to disguise my feelings, that if there was a measure which I desired to carry, I should not in the least object to have the aid of public excitement, and I should not shrink from the responsibility. When we decided to give up the Merchant Shipping Bill, we considered whether it was possible to render more effective the administration of the Act of 1873—an excellent Act passed by our Predecessors. We had actually before us a plan for increasing the staff of the Board of Trade. We considered, also, the necessity for drawing up new instructions for those officers. That was conduct on our part which required no appeal to the House. But in examining the question in this way, we, of course, deeply felt the necessity for statutory assistance. My right hon. Friend was my principal counsellor at that moment upon the subject. Indeed, at the first, he was my only counsellor, because it was impossible to consult to the same extent with my other Colleagues, who were scattered. "Well, a Cabinet Council had been already summoned for the next day on the subject. My having said Wednesday instead of Saturday, on another occasion, seems to be considered by the noble Lord, who referred to it, as one of the greatest mistakes that ever was made. All I can say is, if the noble Lord never makes a greater mistake than saying Wednesday for Saturday, when he dines at that distinguished place which he has described to-night in such singular phrases, his career will be one of the most enviable. Whether I said Wednesday or Saturday, what I wanted to impress upon those whom I was addressing was, that the day after the dramatic scene which we witnessed in this House, a Cabinet Council was held, at which I submitted for consideration the measures upon which I had consulted with my right hon. Friend. Knowing that statutory powers were necessary for us to do anything very effective, I proposed, that as there was now an opportunity of bringing in a Bill, that, as time was precious, and we did not know what discussion might arise, a Bill of only one clause should be introduced. That is the simple history of the whole affair, and it was, I must say, a most successful move. It is perfectly true that the Bill as passed contained more than one clause, but how was that done? They plundered our own Bill and presented us with the spoil. This Cabinet secret, the noble Lord says, was not told to this House. I am not quite sure of that. I think it was told to the House. But he proceeds with his catalogue raisonné of our acts, which he could not contrast with any proposals that were ever made in the dreary annals of his own Party. They scarcely brought forward a single Bill; they scarcely offered even a single counsel; and but for the dignity and good breeding of the noble Lord—whom we all recognize as an ornament of this House—I think the Opposition would not even have been represented. The noble Lord says our conduct of the Judicature Bill was extraordinary—that it was not creditable to us. All I know is that our Judicature Bill, which has passed this House, will introduce most beneficial changes, and I believe it is very popular in the country, and for the very reasons which the noble Lord has made matter of accusation against us. The late Government in their legislation acted without sufficient preparation, and in ignorance of the public temper and the public mind. Their Bill died, because it had no public sympathy and it excited much odium. And why the people look with interest and satisfaction to the Judicature Bill which has just passed this House is, because they believe there is now a hope of the happy settlement of one of the greatest questions in this country—a question near and dear to the hearts of Englishmen—the establishment of a High Court of Appeal which historically possesses the confidence of the nation. Then the noble Lord came to the Agricultural Holdings Bill, that Bill which, we were led to believe, was never to pass. Why, there is no subject on which the noble Lord has given such advice to the Government as on the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Every time that the Order of the Day has been read for that measure, he has always recommended us to postpone it to another year. I am not at all surprised at that. The noble Lord seems extremely dissatisfied that any happy solution of that question should be undertaken and accomplished by those who sit opposite to him. But, with the greatest personal respect for the noble Lord, I cannot conceive that it is any part of my duty in the position I now occupy to take his advice on any subject. Although I do not believe a man of more honourable or more amiable qualities exists, yet when he gives me advice, I must view it with the greatest suspicion, and put on that adamantine armour which, they say, guards one from spirits hostile to one's career. Then, he comes to the measure relative to the Public Debt. I do not know whether the feelings expressed in the magnificent chamber which the noble Lord has certainly not described in poetic language—I do not know whether the feelings there expressed by public men of eminence and of all parties in the City the other day with regard to that measure was justified or not; but this I believe I have reason to say—that if I can judge from those expressions and from what reaches me from all quarters and all parties in the City of London, represented by men who sit even on both sides of this House, that measure is looked upon as a wise and prudent one, and that whether this year it will work much or little is not what the people of England—and the most sober portion of the people of England—are thinking of; but whether at least there is not a practical foundation laid for dealing with that vast Public Debt which in times of doubt and difficulty, and when the country is not prosperous, causes us so much anxiety and concern. I do not know that there is any measure that we have brought forward for which the approbation of those classes whose esteem must always be valued by a Government has been more decidedly pronounced than in respect to that one. Then the noble Lord says that we proposed Bills as to local taxation and local authorities, but that they were given up. But the noble Lord has belonged to Administrations in his time; and did they not at the end of the Session give up measures? "Why, I found an eagerness on the part of the noble Lord himself to get me to give up our measures at the beginning of July, or rather at the end of June. Indeed, he has been educated in the school of statesmen who have been so accustomed to give up their measures that, in his most serious mood and almost with passionate fervour and glowing words, he has attacked us night after night because we did not begin in the merry month of May to give up our measures. Then the noble Lord defends himself against the charge which I made against the Opposition. He says I described the Opposition as factious. Now, my memory completely deceives me if I over made that charge. It is not a charge which I am in the habit of making. I have passed a considerable part of my time in Opposition, and I acted freely when I was in Opposition; but I hope those to whom I was opposed generally consider that I was a fair opponent. I remember Lord Palmerston's saying once—" They accuse us of faction, but faction is only another man's action;" and it struck me that there was pith in that remark. I have never for one moment thought of charging the Opposition with factious conduct during the present Session. Indeed, I have never accused them in any way. The noble Lord went on to say that he was very much opposed to the Regimental Exchanges Bill, and he defended himself against the charge of faction in that ease. Well, we all know that the Opposition to the Regimental Exchanges Bill did waste—I will not say waste, but consumed—a great deal of time. But the noble Lord, without being accused, excuses himself—which is a dangerous process—with respect to the Regimental Exchanges Bill. I never accused the noble Lord, though the Opposition to the Bill proceeded from the front bench, and was not carried on by the three great parties opposite. I recollect five nights were occupied on one clause. [Several hon. MEMBERS: There was only one clause.] Well, another great charge which the noble Lord makes against the Government is that their measures are wanting in principle. What principle? The principle in which it seems they are wanting is the compulsory principle, and the question is, whether the country is in favour of that principle? Laws of general application must be founded on compulsion; but in this country, when you are dealing with the manners and the customs of some particular class or trade or part of the population, if you have recourse to the compulsory principle you will do nothing but create bitterness and opposition. It is only by persuasion—the finest persuasion in the world, which is example—persuasion in action, that you can influence and modify and mitigate habits which you disapprove. Then the noble Lord comes to Supply, and charges us with having been very lax and deficient with respect to the progress which we made with the Committee of Supply. Well, we gave you a whole fortnight for Supply only very recently; but the noble Lord was not ingenuous enough to admit—if, indeed, he recollected the fact—that we, whom he so easily charges in this matter, took off the restrictions on the right of hon. Members to bring forward their Motions which were imposed by our Predecessors in office. If we had established those restrictions, Supply, of course, would have been more readily obtained. I am not, however, prepared to say that I regret the course we have taken in this respect. I should be sorry to be obliged to recognize the necessity of again imposing those restrictions, although I think they were salutary and constitutional, and that it may yet become necessary to do so. Then the noble Lord proceeds to criticize my conduct of the Business of the House. It has, he says, lowered its dignity. There have, he tells us, been scenes in the House which I ought to have prevented. What scenes? Does the noble Lord mean to say that it was my duty to order the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, when he rose to make a speech after entering the House? There was a scene on the occasion to which I refer. Does the noble Lord think I was responsible for it? Why, the hon. Member for Stoke is a great supporter of the noble Lord. He sits exactly behind the noble Lord, and I daresay offers him suggestions on constitutional points which, perhaps, are offered to a deaf ear. I appeal, then, to the candour of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether I was responsible for the exhibition which was then made? Was I responsible for the course which was taken by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) with respect to the presence of Strangers? Was he not to use his Privilege of taking notice that Strangers were present, if he thought right to do so? I do not think I was at all responsible in that case either; but I am perfectly prepared to take my share of the responsibility in the case of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). I have touched on the points in connection with the scenes produced by the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Louth—scenes which, it is said, have lowered the dignity of the House. If I had interfered, it would have been supposed that I did so to restrain the legitimate exercise of the Privileges of hon. Members. But with respect to the action of the hon. Member for Londonderry, my own opinion is that what occurred never would have happened—though, for reasons I will allege, I do not regret that it has—if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), who was Chairman of the Committee whose conduct was questioned, had done that which, I believe, every Gentleman in the House expected he would have done, and which I have the highest authority for saying would have been perfectly consistent with his duty. That scene, however, was rife with very important consequences, because it enabled the Leader of the Opposition to take the only decided step which he has taken during this Session of six months. Then he was for once not only the Leader of his Party, but the Leader of the House. The course he then pursued received the congratulations of his friends out-of-doors; and all the newspapers—those representing the three sections—said—" Here is a man come to the rescue of the dignity of Parliament and the principles of the Constitution; he is going to knock up all 'the musty precedents' which the right hon. Member for the University of London said were no longer adapted to the ago." Well, the noble Lord did go on manfully, and appealed to the House. But what was its decision? By an overwhelming majority, swollen by many of his own most influential supporters, Members whoso opinions, from their experience and talents, rightly have great influence, this House gave its verdict that the policy with regard to Privilege recommended by the noble Lord and his right hon. Friends was a policy fatal to the dignity, the freedom, and the power of Parliament, and that decision never would have been come to but for the accidental conduct of the hon. Member for Londonderry. The noble Lord said, though I refused the concession which related to the public Press, still I had to make one great concession—that the presence of Strangers should not be noticed in the Gallery. The concession I made was an extremely guarded concession, I think at that moment, in consequence of the inexperience of some hon. Members in the now Parliament, who, I am sure, will never do the same thing again, it was necessary to come to some resolution which could check their vagaries. But that was only a Sessional Order; it does not touch the Privileges of the House, which I do not think over can be interfered with. I do not think the noble Lord will burn his fingers again with that matter. I believe I have now touched on every remark made by the noble Lord adverse to the Government—at least I am not conscious that I have omitted one. I have no doubt the points which he urged against mo were well-considered, that the charges were well-meditated, and that he had the advice of those who have much Parliamentary experience as to the mode in which he was to dispose his arguments and accusations. I ask the House what case has he made out? Has he proved that we have done nothing; has he proved that he has done anything? I believe the opinion of the country at this critical moment, now that our labours are nearly at an end, will be unanimous on the subject. The country will see, in a few days, in the most authentic and official record, the catalogue of the labours of the House of Commons. They are not discreditable to the Ministry. They are, I think, manifestly calculated to be beneficial to the country. But I take no credit to myself, whom the noble Lord has made the author of all these delinquencies. I take no credit for that authentic catalogue of the achievements of Parliament. Though I am placed here to take some chief direction in the conduct of the Business of this House and its general management, the House must know full well that it is not my shoulders or the shoulders of a more gifted man than I that can bear this burden. I am assisted by those who surround me, by Colleagues most able; and I will say this—whether I speak of Parliament, or of the Cabinet—the most devoted Colleagues a Minister ever possessed. But above all, and beyond all, Cabinets or Colleagues, what the country is most indebted to for the measures of infinite benefit which have been brought forward this year and carried successfully, is the patriotism of Parliament and the good feeling and high spirit of Gentlemen who sit on both sides of the House.

Complained of the conduct of the Government in regard to proceeding with this partial measure, seeing that the Lord Advocate had brought in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the sheriffs, and promised, on the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) being withdrawn, to proceed with his own Bill; and, instead of doing so, the Government proposed to deal with Lanarkshire, without being alive to the risk of causing difficulties in legislation for the comprehensive plan, and he therefore moved—

"That it is not expedient to proceed with this measure until this House has had the opportunity of fully considering the changes which it would he desirable to make in the whole judicial establishment in Scotland."

seconded the Motion.

said, the object of this Bill was to sanction the appointment of another sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire and another magistrate for Glasgow, and contended that those appointments were required in consequence of the great increase of the population of Glasgow.

, Who had given Notice of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said, he was altogether opposed to it, from a desire that that House should not make an addition to the Judicial Establishment in Scotland, unless it could be shown that this could be done, as in this case he believed it might, without any additional expense to the country. In his county there were five sheriffs substitute, and they had only 767 cases per annum to dispose of among them. He objected, therefore, to an addition to the total number of sheriffs substitute in Scotland as a useless expense. The Scotch did not want any such expenditure of public money.

regretted that the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) had seen it his duty to oppose the Bill, because he (the Lord Advocate) regarded it as necessary for the administration of justice. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir George Balfour) was mistaken in supposing that there had been an increase of judicial expense in Scotland. On the contrary, that expense had been considerably reduced by a union of sheriffdoms, and the Government were doing their best to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1868.

said, he did not object to the proposed addition to the judicial force in Scotland, but failed to see the necessity for charging the additional cost upon the Consolidated Fund.

hoped that the Bill, which was a Bill merely for the purpose of giving greater facilities for borrowing to local authorities, would be proceeded with. Some clauses had been taken out, and practically it was merely a Consolidation Bill, giving no additional powers.

maintained that the measure, which had been altered and re-altered, was really not the measure which had been read a second time, and therefore he objected to its being proceeded with at half-past I o'clock in the morning.