said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He did so, he hoped, upon intelligible grounds —his chief reason being that the proposal itself was really one that, upon public grounds, ought not to be allowed. They were often told, both in the House itself and in the Committee Rooms, a great deal about tramways; and he was not there to deny that tramways might be of great public advantage, provided that the locality through which the tramways were to run was fitted for the purpose. But his contention in this case was that the Bill now submitted to the House proposed to run a tramway over a locality that was utterly unfitted and unsuited for the purpose. Those who disagreed with the Bill had, he thought, some reason to complain of the course which had been adopted in regard to it. The Bill proposed to carry a tramway from the foot of Kew Bridge, through the town of Brentford, through almost the whole of Isleworth, and then through part of Twickenham— ending where? Why, at the foot of Richmond Bridge. Out of London there was, probably, no more popular thoroughfare. It was the main road leading from London through Richmond towards Hampton Court and Bushey Park, and other places of popular resort. It was, no doubt, somewhat extraordinary, but it was nevertheless the fact, that hitherto upon this road from Brentford to Twickenham no speculative or industrious individual had even thought of running a one-horse omnibus for the use of the public. If it was not thought worth while to do that, he would leave it to the House to imagine what profit the promoters of the present undertaking expected to make. As he had already stated, the Bill proposed to lay down a tramway from Kew Bridge to Isleworth and Twickenham. The House was aware that, when a tramway proposed to go through a certain district, the Standing Orders of the House required the assent of a proportion of the public authorities. Now, what was the fact here? The local authorities of Brentford dissented, the local authorities of Isleworth assented, and the local authorities of Twickenham dissented. The result was that the Standing Orders of the House were not complied with. But what did the promoters of the Bill do? They immediately gave notice that they would abandon the whole of that portion of the scheme which went through the district of Brentford, thus leaving a mutilated scheme for the consideration of the Committee. Surely the course pursued by the promoters was somewhat hard upon the public body of Isleworth, who had agreed to the scheme as a whole, but had never been asked to assent to it in its present shape. It was rather hard upon that body, to turn round upon them now and say—"You have assented to the scheme because you originally assented to it as a whole, and now that the promoters have mutilated it, and only propose to carry out a portion of it, making it end at the parish of Isleworth, whereas in its original form it went on through Brentford, you have no right to dissent now." What the public authority of Isleworth assented to was very different from the scheme contained in the Bill as it was now submitted to the House. They had never in reality agreed to the mutilated scheme now contained in the Bill, and the scheme which, if it was allowed to go forward at all, would be presented to the Committee. Upon that point he thought the assent of the local authorities of Isle-worth amounted to very little; because it was quite certain that if the promoters had adhered to their original scheme, the original scheme must have been thrown out on the Standing Orders, and would have been heard nothing of in the House itself. There were many grounds upon which he opposed the Bill. He had already mentioned one. Another strong ground of opposition was the manner in which it was proposed to carry the line on from Isleworth to Twickenham. The road throughout its entire length was altogether unsuited and impracticable for the laying down of a tramway. He might tell the House that upon a great part of the proposed line the road varied from 18 and 19 feet in width to between 14 and 15 feet. Surely the measurements of the road ought to be taken into consideration, varying, as they did, so considerably as from between 19 and 20 feet, or it might be here and there a little more—say 25 or 26 feet—narrowing down in many places to between 14, 15, and perhaps 16 feet, and so on. What was to become of the unfortunate people who wanted to travel along this road in carriages or vehicles of any description? There would be scarcely room for a wheelbarrow. And when they had a tram-car travelling along the road, any person wanting to pass it in a carriage would find it impossible to do so. In one part of the road it proposed to cross a bridge where there was no footpath at all, and upon the top of the bridge there was a station of the South-Western Railway Company. He was informed that the Railway Company were among the petitioners against the Bill, and he was certainly not surprised at it, because, if the Bill passed, the condition of things would be this — while the tramcars were passing over the bridge, any person desiring to go to the South-Western Railway station would find the greatest difficulty in getting access to it. The roadway of the bridge was only some- thing like from 18 to 19 feet in width from parapet to parapet, and there was no footway at all. Yet that was the sort of road over which the promoters of the Bill proposed to carry their tramway. He had just presented a Petition to the House which was signed by a large number of frontagers along the proposed line, and he thought it was not unimportant that he should call the attention of the House to it. From the end of the town of Isleworth to the foot of Richmond Bridge was a distance of one mile and a-half. Along that line of road there were only 40 occupiers, and 33 of them had signed the Petition against the Bill. That was an enormous proportion of the householders upon the proposed tramway route; and it showed that, in their opinion, their interests would be seriously and materially affected by the Bill. The promoters of the scheme had circulated a statement in favour of the Bill. No doubt, they were quite within their right in doing so, and he did not object to the course they had taken. At the same time, he wished to point out that the statement itself was not altogether as plain as he should like to see it. It said that the Motion he was now making to throw out the Bill on the second reading emanated from a few of the inhabitants of Twickenham who were opposed to the proposed tramway. He had shown that the Petition he had presented against the Bill came from the majority of the frontagers on the line of the tramway. Another clause of the statement said—

"Petitions in favour of the Bill have been signed in the district through which the proposed line is to pass by upwards of 350 frontagers."

Now, it was necessary he should tell the House what the real fact was. This was a statement made in support of the second reading of a Bill which was not the Bill originally introduced by the promoters; but a Bill in which the promoters had struck out all that part of the scheme which related to Brentford. And when he told the House that the 350 frontagers who had petitioned in favour of the Bill were frontagers at Brentford, the House would know what value to attach to this statement. In point of fact, the statement had no bearing at all upon the Bill now before the House. The petitioners referred to were petitioners whose objections had been assented to by the promoters by striking out that part of the Bill which related to them. He had now stated all the facts upon which he relied for saying that the Bill ought not to be allowed to go forward. His chief ground was that the area over which it was proposed to carry the tramway was unsuited for the purpose, and that over such a narrow road as this the parties promoting the Bill ought not to be allowed to carry a tramway. He failed to hear that any person connected with the Bill was rated in the district, or had any interest in the property there. A statement had been drawn up by the petitioners against the Bill, which he held in his hand, and in which they went fully into the measurements and distances; but as he perceived that he had already called the attention of the House accurately to the details, he would not repeat them. He would simply content himself with moving that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.

said, he had rather expected that a statement would have been made by some hon. Member who was directly interested in supporting the measure. That, however, had not been done; but an explanation of the nature and object of the Bill had been lucidly given by the hon. and learned Member for Newark opposite (Mr. Bristowe). In the absence of any statement from the promoters of the Bill, he (Mr. Raikes) thought he might be allowed to offer to the House such views in regard to the Bill as had struck him after giving due consideration to the matter, and after hearing the speech which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Newark. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken to the House in opposition to the second reading of the Bill; and he (Mr. Raikes) was sure that the statement just made by his hon. and learned Friend was well worthy of consideration. At the same time, he felt bound to point out to his hon. and learned Friend and to the House that the objections which the hon. and learned Member for Newark had taken appeared to him (Mr. Raikes) to be entirely in the nature of objections which might very fairly be raised, before a Committee upon the Bill upstairs. The scheme might be a very imperfect one, and might be a very bad one; from some of the allegations which his hon. and learned Friend had made with regard to it, it was certainly open to very grave question whether such a tramway as the Bill proposed to lay down would be compatible with the public interests; but, at the same time, his hon. and learned Friend and the House were well aware that matters of this sort were most difficult to deal with in the absence of that information which was supplied by plans and maps, the arguments of counsel, and the examination of witnesses in the presence of those who had a direct interest in the question. There was one point which had been noticed by the hon. and learned Member for Newark opposite, which was, perhaps, of a somewhat more grave character, because it related to a question touching the Standing Orders of the House. As his hon. and learned Friend stated, the promoters of the Bill failed to obtain the consent of a majority of the local authorities on the line of route. The Standing Orders required that if a tramway was proposed to be made in any locality which was within the jurisdiction of one authority, the assent of that authority should be required. If it passed through the jurisdiction of more than one authority, the assent of a majority of the authorities was required. And if that assent was not obtained, the Committee on Standing Orders would hardly be asked to dispense with Standing Orders. In this case, the Twickenham and Brentford authorities dissented from, and the Isleworth authority assented to, the whole scheme; and it would have been impossible, under these circumstances, for the Bill to pass the Standing Orders of the House. The course then taken by the promoters— and it was a course that was certainly within their right — was to drop the Brentford part of the scheme, and thereby to limit the extent of their line to two parts, in regard to which one local authority was more or less favourable, while the other dissented from it. Under these circumstances, the Committee on Standing Orders thought proper to dispense with the Standing Orders, and thus to allow the Bill to proceed. He was not there to question the soundness of the judgment of the Standing Orders Committee in the matter, because the House left it to the Committee on Standing Orders to exercise a wise and careful discretion in dealing with questions of this sort. The objection now taken by the hon. and learned Member for Newark appeared to relate to a great many issues affecting very largely the public convenience; but still it was quite possible to bring all those issues before a Committee upstairs, and the persons interested would all have a locus standi to be heard before the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred by the House. The Railway Company, to which reference had been made, would also have a locus standi that would enable them to bring their case forward. Under these circumstances, he was certainly of opinion that the matter was one which would be most satisfactorily dealt with by the ordinary tribunal of the House.

was understood to say that the hon. and learned Member for Newark opposite (Mr. Bristowe) had pointed out the unsuitableness of the locality for a tramway, and that if its construction were authorized the tram-cars would virtually obtain a monopoly of the route, because in some places the road was so narrow that it would be impossible for a cart or carriage, and almost for a wheelbarrow, to pass. He wished to point out that if the Bill were referred to a Committee upstairs, they would have no power of widening the road, and the promoters would not be able to get over the difficulty that the measure was opposed by the frontagers along the line it was intended to occupy. He failed to see what public advantage would be gained by constructing a tramway which would interfere with, the interests of the frontagers, and prevent them from drawing up any vehicle by the side of their own premises. He was of opinion that the passing of the Bill would result in the obstruction of the road, and he should, therefore, vote against the second reading.

said, the Chairman of Ways and Means had referred to the fact that the promoters of the Bill had got rid of the opposition of one of the local authorities and a portion of the frontagers by dropping a part of their scheme. Although he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) was not upon the Standing Order Committee when this particular question was brought forward, he wished to say that the course taken by the Committee was one which was every day pursued. When a Bill was introduced which formed one or more parts, it was quite within the discretion of the Standing Order Committee to allow a certain portion of it to be dropped. To put the matter in another way—if, after a majority of the frontagers had raised an objection to one part of the scheme, the promoters modified their Bill and left out all that part of it which was opposed, such a proceeding would have been objectionable. But he did not consider that that was the case in this instance. The statement made was that the scheme consisted of three portions, and that one only was opposed. That portion was dropped by the promoters, and it was quite in accordance with the powers of the Standing Orders Committee to allow that course to be followed. He was not able to say what the details of the measure were. There might be great objections to the scheme; but he thought it was one that deserved to be referred to a Committee upstairs for their investigation and decision.

remarked that it was only under exceptional circumstances that the House consented to reject a Bill of this nature on the second reading. What he wished to point out to the House was this—that in connection with the promotion of these schemes in the neighbourhood of London there was a large general public whose interests were not represented except upon the second reading. He spoke now as one of the general public who had no locus standi to go before a Committee upstairs. The frontagers could protect their rights, because they could be heard by counsel before the Committee; but he ventured to say that in the case of these schemes which had for their object the securing of a monopoly of a large portion of the public roads in the suburbs of London, it was not the frontagers alone whose interests were involved, but those of the general public as well. If it could be shown, as the hon. and learned Member for Newark opposite pointed out, that this was one of those roads largely made use of by people living in London and riding down to Twickenham, and that the proposed tramway would occupy so large a portion of the public road as to be a serious hindrance to traffic, then he thought it was one of those cases in which the general public should have a right to be heard in that House on the second reading of the Bill. He had no hesitation in saying that, as far as he himself was concerned, he should take the unusual course of voting against the second reading.

said, he took considerable interest in the question of tramways, and he hoped to be permitted to say that he thought the objections taken to the Bill, if they had any force at all, applied to all Tramway Bills. No doubt all tramways did interfere more or less with the comfort of carriage-driving people; but there were other classes upon whom tramways conferred inestimable advantages, and therefore he entertained the hope that the Bill would be allowed to go up to a Select Committee, where the statements made would not be of an ex parte character, but where there would be a full examination into the merits of the scheme. When it came down to the House, after such an examination, it could receive the impartial consideration of the House. He therefore hoped that the recommendation of the Chairman of "Ways and Means would be accepted by the House, and that the Bill would be read a second time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, To whom the telegram sent from London on Monday night to Portland Prison directing the release of William Habron was addressed, and whether he will lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House; and, whether it is true that this young man, who has received a free pardon because he is innocent of the crime for which he had been sentenced to be hanged, was handcuffed during part of his journey from Portland to London after the receipt of the aforesaid telegram from the Secretary of State; and, if true, whether he will take into consideration such conduct on the part of the prison officials?

Sir, no telegram was sent directing the release of William Habron at Portland. I had received a private intimation from the master whom he had served, and from his brother, that if he was released it would be agreeable that either the master or the brother should come up in order to receive him on his release. I therefore thought it the better course not to release him at Portland, but to bring him up to London. A telegram was sent for him to be brought up, and another to the master to come up, and also to bring the brother if he chose, to receive him and to consult what was best to be done. I had thought, from the intimation I sent to Portland, that, although they were not aware that he was to be actually released, they would not have treated him in the way they did; but I am bound to say, in justice to officials, that if it had struck me for a moment that they would do so, I certainly would have given more positive directions. I can only regret what has taken place, and for the absence of those positive instructions which I ought to have given I take the entire blame on myself.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the case of Habron, wrongfully convicted of murder, and of several other persons whose sentences he has remitted as being wholly innocent, he is prepared to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Judges to grant a new trial, as a matter of right, in all criminal cases where reasonable grounds exist to challenge the verdict; to enable the Crown to grant compensation, as a matter of right, to all persons who, though innocent, have been found guilty; when their innocence has been made known to restore them to liberty, not as a matter of grace and pardon but as a matter of right also; to declare, as well, that writs of error in all criminal cases are writs of right which the Crown has no authority, by common law or statute, to refuse; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Evidence on which he advised Her Majesty to release Habron?

Sir, I hope I may be allowed to say, with regard to the last part of the Question, that it would be a most inconvenient practice to lay the evidence upon the Table of this House. With regard to the first part of the Question, I have never been able to understand why a person who is likely to lose some small portion of his property, real or personal, may have an appeal, and in another case, where he is very likely to lose his life, no appeal is granted; and I have always, been in favour of having an appeal in, at all events, certain criminal cases upon questions of fact, always of course, preserving the Prerogative of the Crown to exercise mercy untouched. But if the hon. Member will look at the Code laid upon the Table last Session, he will find that provision was then made for an appeal in certain criminal cases as to questions of fact. That Code, as the hon. Member may be aware, is at the present moment being revised by several learned Judges and other eminent persons; and I believe that it will contain practically the same provisions, although I am not at the present moment aware what alterations they may have made or suggested in its actual form. As to the question of granting compensation in all cases in which there has been a wrong trial, the House must remember that in these cases it is not through the action of the Executive Government, but through some unfortunate mistake of the country, upon whose judgment the prisoner is put to take his trial. I am not aware that in any other country in Europe compensation is granted as a matter of right. As to the case of Habron. That case, like that of Barber, is of a very ex- ceptional character, and I am sure both the House and the country would desire that some compensation should be made. With regard to the question of writs of error, I think, if the hon. Member will refer to this Code, he will see it is proposed that writs of error in criminal cases should be abolished altogether, and other provisions with reference to them have been made.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if I am to understand him as saying that the question of compensation has been settled with regard to Habron?

I did not say so. I said that I had been in communication on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of William Mitchell of Keighley, who was summoned before the magistrates at Bingley on the 27th of November last, and fined by them for refusing to obey a Vaccination Order; whether it is true that in the unavoidable absence of William Mitchell, the magistrates refused to hear Mr. George Kidson, who stated he was duly authorised by him to appear in his behalf under Section 11 of the Act of 1871; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such a case?

It is true, Sir, that Mr. Kidson was authorized to represent Mr. Mitchell in his absence, and that the magistrates refused to hear the speech which that gentleman desired to make. Certainly, in my opinion, every proper opportunity of hearing any person who appears before the magistrates ought to be given if what that person desires to say really applies to the case before them. In the present instance, I understand from a letter which I have received from the magistrates, that the ground of their refusal was not that they desired to stop this gentleman from saying anything relating to the particular act of the accused; but that they refused to hear any discussion as to whether the law, in its present shape, was right or wrong.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What amount of the sum of £77,448 11s. 2d., which Her Majesty's Government were obliged to provide for interest and commission, in consequence of the default of the Turkish Government to pay the dividend due in February 1878 on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, specially charged upon the Egyptian Tribute, has been received from the Turkish or Egyptian Government, and the date of any such payment; whether Her Majesty's Government has been called to make provision for any subsequent dividends on this Loan; and, if so, to what amount; whether the French Government has in any case paid one moiety of the sum or sums issued to make good the default of the Ottoman Government; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence with the French, Turkish, or Egyptian Governments upon the subject?

Sir, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer, without exactly following the order in which the Question is put, as the matter is rather complicated. I think I can give him information as completely in another form. The Turkish Government owes £45,604 on the dividend due on the 1st of February, 1878. Upon the dividend that fell due on the second half of last last year nothing is due. That was paid in full. But it owes £60,600 on the dividend that was due on the 1st of February, 1879, making a total arrears of £106,204. These two sums have been advanced from the Consolidated Fund, besides a small sum for expenses due to the Bank. But, though the Porte is in default by this amount, it should be added that it ordered the Khedive in February, 1878, to pay out of the tribute then due to Turkey the sum of £45,604, and that, under old standing arrangements, the sum of £36,000 should have been provided by the Khedive towards the dividend due on the 1st of February, 1879. Thus, the total sum due is£106,204, towards which the Khedive should pay £81,604. As, however, there seems no prospect of early payment, the Treasury are applying to the French Government to repay the moiety due by them under Treaty. The Correspondence is not yet in a complete state, and it would not be convenient at present to lay it on the Table of the House.

May I be allowed to ask a Question which is not on the Paper? Has the Khedive paid the interest on the Suez Canal Shares?

I think so. If I find I am wrong, I will correct it. My impression is that he has paid.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the expenses of Her Majesty's journey to the Continent and of the Duke of Connaught to the Mediterranean are to be paid out of the public purse?

No, Sir. The expenses of Her Majesty's journey will be borne by Her Majesty out of the Civil List, and the expenses of the Duke of Connaught will be paid out of the income of His Royal Highness which has been provided for him.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I shall ask the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), Whether certain language which he is reported to have used in Glasgow is correctly given in the public journals or not?

In the absence of the hon. Member for Meath, I may be permitted to ask the hon. Member for the West Riding, whether he will kindly read now the language complained of, or, at all events, communicate with the hon. Member for Meath on the subject, as, otherwise, he will not know what is to be complained of until he comes down to the House on Monday?

I should not think of putting such a Notice on the Paper without communicating with the hon. Member for Meath, and pointing out the special language to which I desired to call attention.

I now desire, Sir, to ask you, whether it is in accordance with the Rules which govern our proceedings, for one hon. Member to put a Question to another hon. Member as to statements which the latter may have been reported to have made outside of this House?

The Rule of the House in regard to putting Questions to hon. Members, not being Ministers of the Crown, is this—no Question can be put, except such as relates to some Bill or Motion before the House. Therefore, the Question of which Notice has been given is not regular.

, in rising to call attention to the deficiencies existing in the arrangements made for the administration of justice in this Country; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that measures should be adopted to provide a more speedy and efficient and less expensive mode of administering justice than now prevails,"

said, he had no words of censure or criticism to utter in relation to the conduct of those who bore the principal part in the administration of justice. Those Members of the Government on whom fell the responsibility of making arrangements for the administration of justice—the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary—had strenuously endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the Legislature; and nothing could be more unjust, in the absence of the Judges, or more inexpedient, considering the respect they entertained for the law and for those who administered it, than to make their conduct the subject of debate. The limits within which he desired to confine his observations would be in relation to the system which now prevailed in some of the Courts in which justice was administered. It seemed to him that the public might be well satisfied with the system of Appellate Jurisdiction. He thought that practice had shown that the compromise which was made in reference to the continuance of the House of Lords as the Final Court of Appeal, strengthened by the introduction of members sent into it for the purpose of sitting as Judges, had turned out wise and judicious. They might also be satisfied with the Intermediate Courts of Appeal, except that the sittings were not continuous, the result of which was that nearly 300 causes were now waiting to be heard. There was little to be said with regard to the administration of justice in the Courts of Equity. His area of discussion, therefore, was limited to matters connected with the administration of justice in the Civil Courts of Westminster, London, and upon Circuit, and to some matters connected with the administration of the Criminal Law. The main object of the Judicature Act of 1873 was the establishment of one great Court of Justice in which all causes were to be determined upon the same principles, and as nearly as possible by the same mode of procedure. Unfortunately, great latitude was shown in the attainment of this object. The three great divisions of the Common Law Courts were maintained, and the barriers so injurious to their practice still existed, in spite of efforts to remove them, which were defeated by forces summoned by the division bell. In 1876 the present Government attempted to mitigate some of the remaining evils, and passed an Act laying down a principle which he hoped to see carried further. By the Act of 1876 it was intended to abolish the Divisional Courts; and the 17th clause provided that as far as practicable causes were to be heard, determined, and disposed of by a single Judge, and motions relating to them were to be heard by the Judge before whom the trial took place. Under the Act rules had been framed which, to a great extent, rendered this legislation nugatory, and the Divisional Courts existed with all their former virtue taken out of them, and all the evils of the old system remaining. Under the rules a Judge did not hear a case right out, but, as other cases were waiting, he adjourned the arguments on a disputed point, necessitating the attendance of the parties on a future day. But this judgment did not determine the case any more than did the verdict of a jury previously, and there was an appeal to the Divisional Court in the first instance, so that a new and a useless stage had been created, adding delay, expense, and inconvenience without any benefit resulting. They were now simply halting between two systems. They had neither clung to the old system with all its benefits, nor had they the courage really to proceed with the new. They must either recede or go forward, and, following the law of forces, he knew they would have to go forward. Another matter which interfered with the administration of justice, and which was a cause of delay and expense to the suitor, was that in the conduct of every suit there were necessarily many minor or interlocutory motions, which were disposed of at Chambers, where a large crowd of persons might be seen engaged in a struggle or scramble to obtain justice, which was administered by the Masters and their assistants in a desultory and unsatisfactory manner. The matters might be small in themselves, but, unfortunately, the decisions might be appealed against—first, to the Judge sitting in Chambers, and, secondly, to the Divisional Court; and our Courts were constantly occupied by two Judges listening to appeals on these minor matters. Then, in the Divisional Courts, there was always a most unseemly squabble as to what occurred in Chambers, no one being present to clear up the matter. And after the Divisional Courts had been occupied with discussions of these minor matters on appeal No. 2, there was an appeal No. 3 to the Intermediate Court of Appeal, where the Lords' Justices of Appeal were compelled to sit and listen to the same sort of proceedings, which might have no other object than that of running up costs or causing delay. Another of the evils of the present system, which operated disadvantageously on the public as well as on juries, was the want of continuousness in the sittings of the Courts. No one, however diligent in his inquiries, could know what Courts were about to sit and for what purposes they were about to sit. For instance, on looking to the Cause List any morning, one might see about 30 cases set down for trial at six Courts of Nisi Prius. It did not, however, follow that all these cases would be tried on that day, for many of them would have to stand over until the next morning, when probably there would be only one of these Courts sitting; whereas, perhaps, the day after there might be two or three, according to the disposition of the Judges. Sometimes there was a break in the sittings altogether for three weeks, so that suitors, witnesses, and jurors were kept in a state of uncertainty and put to great inconvenience from day to day. The result was that whenever a large number of cases were entered for trial, a considerable proportion of them never came to trial at all; they fell out of the Cause List like dry leaves from a tree, either being postponed for want of time to try, or abandoned by the suitors, who despaired of getting them tried. In 1875 there were set down for trial in Westminster and London 2,564 causes, of which only 861, or 33 per cent, were tried. The rest, in some way or other, took care of themselves—they assumed the character of remanets, or became dead altogether. In 1876 the number set down was 2,771, of which 1,037, or 36 per cent, were tried; in 1877, 3,131 causes were entered, and only 953, or 30 per cent, were tried. Now, the circumstances he had described were most injurious to the public interest and to every person who had to do with the administration of justice in the Courts. If this were only a transient position of affairs, it might be inexpedient to call attention to the matter; but because it was in no way due to transition, and there seemed no proba- bility of its being altered, it was necessary that something should be done. The obvious remedy for this state of things was an increase of judicial strength. Some suggested that this should be accomplished by an addition to the number of Judges; but for his part he would regard an addition to the number of Judges as an evil in itself, which ought, if possible, to be avoided. There was another means of attaining the end in view, which, he believed, the House would find more acceptable— namely, the saving of judicial strength which was now wasted. That there was at present a vast waste of judicial strength no one who was acquainted with the subject could doubt. It was not the fault of the Judges, but of the system; and what he had to suggest was, first, that Parliament should insist that the legislation of 1876 should be carried into effect, and that each Judge in the Common Law Courts should take upon himself the same responsibility as was now individually borne by the Judges in Equity. He was not in anyway attempting to detract from the position of the Common Law Judges. On the contrary, he assumed that they were fit for the discharge of duties from which they now appeared to shrink; and his suggestion was really only a simple acknowledgment of the learning and ability which they undoubtedly possessed. If they were placed on the footing of the Equity Judges, a great saving of judicial time would at once be effected. Secondly, if, in minor affairs, the waste of judicial strength could be stopped, a great saving of time and of money would be effected. For instance, the Divisional Courts were occupied one or two days each week hearing appeals from the inferior Courts; but it was strange that, while in the case of an appeal from a County Court, which in matters of Equity had jurisdiction to the extent of £500, the appeal was to one Equity Judge, in the case of an appeal in a Common Law case, where the County Court had jurisdiction to the extent of £50 only, the appeal must be heard and decided by two Judges. Thirdly, the appeals from the decisions of the Masters in Chambers should be made direct to one Judge sitting in open Court, and should go no further— thus saving the time of the Divisional and Appeal Courts. A still greater opportunity of economizing judicial time he had yet to refer to, and it related to the administration of criminal and civil cases on the Circuits. The error that had too long been committed was that no distinction had been drawn between the exigencies of the administration of justice in criminal and in civil cases. In respect of these a great distinction should be drawn. It was a benefit that criminal justice should be administered within narrow limits—at least, within the county where the crime was committed. It was well that the young and the ignorant should be impressed by witnessing the solemn administration of the law, and that all classes of the community should have the advantage of seeing Judges of a High Court perform their duty. But still they had to face the fact that untried prisoners should not be kept in custody for any long time—certainly not longer than three months. In that respect a great advance had been made of late years, for prisoners might have remained in custody untried only a few years ago for six or even eight months. That great scandal had, however, been removed. He called it a great scandal, because if they had heard that an English subject in some foreign country had been arrested and allowed to remain eight months in prison because there was not a Judge to try him, they could all conceive the outcry that would have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had loyally accepted the principle of speedy trial, and they could not go back from it; but must assume that, for the purposes of the administration of justice in criminal cases, there must be Circuits four times a-year. If prisoners were taken to be tried a long way from the place of committal, there was great risk that injustice would be done them. They would be deprived of the opportunity of calling their witnesses, and they would lose the benefit of consulting the professional adviser they had originally engaged; and, indeed, everyone who had had practice in Assize Courts was aware of instances—almost cruel instances—of injustice done by a carrying out to a too great extent the principle of centralization. When, however, they came to deal with the administration of justice in civil causes, a different view presented itself. In that respect they were following, with but little alteration, the system which prevailed in the time of Edward I. They had taken no heed to the greatly increased means of conveyance which existed now, or to the fact that agricultural districts had become great centres of population; and as they acted centuries ago, so they acted now, without relation to the changes that had taken place. There was certainly no necessity for two Judges visiting each county for the purpose of trying civil causes. The Judges had at least a month before the Circuits commenced to fix the time they would remain in each county, and that without any knowledge of the number of causes to be tried in any one of them. They had, in fact, to take the average number, going back for some years; and it frequently happened that very few causes were to be tried in one county, in which case the Judge, greatly against his will, would be compelled to remain idling his time in a country town, while a larger number of causes than usual were awaiting trial in the adjoining county, some of which, perhaps, from want of time to try them, would necessarily be postponed till the next Assizes. Would the House believe that in 20 Assize towns in England and Wales the number of civil causes tried in the year 1877 at the two Circuits was 48; the number in the following year in the same towns being 49, or one cause and one-fifth of a cause in each town at each Assize? In the case of many Assize towns, it sometimes happened that no cause whatever was to be tried. In the great centres of industry the case was very different, for he found that in the year 1877, of 1,413 Assize causes entered for the whole country, 590, or 41 per cent, were for trial in Lancashire and Yorkshire; and that in the following year, of 1,172 causes entered, 431, or 36 per cent, were for trial in those two counties alone. The effect of this state of things was that many cases entered for trial in the centres to which he had drawn attention never obtained a hearing. He found that upon the Northern Circuit, out of 282 causes entered for trial—264 of them being entered at Liverpool and Manchester—only 144, or 50 per cent, were tried; and that on the North-Eastern Circuit, out of 237 causes entered, only 128 were tried. A different state of things, however, existed in the smaller counties; and on the Western Circuit, which was the smallest Circuit in England, out of 114 cases, 96 were tried. When a great number of cases awaited trial, a large percentage always failed to be tried. In North Wales, where only 25 cases were set down for trial, 24 were disposed of, and in the South Wales Circuit the percentage was nearly the same. The reason why in Liverpool and Manchester only 50 per cent of the cases were tried, while 96 per cent obtained a hearing in the two small Circuits to which he had referred, would be found to lie in the great and unequal pressure placed upon the Judges. The effect of the present system was that cases that ought to be tried were not tried, and that there was, at the same time, a waste of judicial strength. He hoped the House would understand to what extent cases were tried on Circuit. In 1876, the number of cases so tried amounted to 903, and only 195 of them were for the recovery of sums above £200, or for the trial of any right, or for the recovery of land. In the next year, 905 cases were tried, only 171 of them involving sums above the figure which he had just mentioned. In such circumstances, was it right they should preserve the present system regulating Circuits, merely because it had existed for centuries? Were they to go on without the institution of constant Assizes and not to make allowance for the increased facilities of conveyance, by which a person could, with the greatest convenience, be brought to any town where a Judge might be? Anyone who objected to centralization on the ground that suitors ought not to be brought into centres should remember that every equity cause, except those tried in the County Palatine, was tried in London, and that no complaints were made against that system. All Probate and Divorce cases were also so tried. Persons also brought their cases to London for trial in the Civil Courts, and no complaint was made. The fact was that the suitor did not object to travelling as long as his case was tried at the appointed time. What he did object to was being kept waiting in an Assize town a certain number of days, and then having his case left untried. The House would see that a great saving of judicial strength would be caused, and that much convenience to suitors would result if the system of centralization were introduced in different parts of the country. He was asking simply that the system which was followed in equity, and which existed to a great extent in London, and which it had been attempted to introduce in a minor degree by the establishment of registries throughout the land, should be extended a little further. If Courts were constantly open in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and some towns of the Midland counties, presided over by Judges of the Superior Courts, the results would be most beneficial. It would be found, taking the legal year of 210 days, that the average number of cases tried per annum—namely, 800—would be tried in half the time they occupied at present. The Judges, having decided these cases, would then have half their time, or some 110 days, at their disposal, in which to try the prisoners in the counties in the neighbourhood of their centres. Whereas now some Judges were absent from London for about four and a-half months, no Judge, if his suggestions were adopted, would be away for so long a time. The Judges would not have to travel about so much, and there would be a total saving of the time that was lost in those places where the Cause List was small. On the one hand, the Judges' time would be economized, and, on the other, the suitor would be given a certain and known day on which his case would be heard. He had now placed before the House the views which he entertained in regard to the waste of judicial strength, and the remedies which he proposed. He hoped the House would pardon him if he explained the reasons which had led him to bring the matter to the notice of hon. Members. The fact was that it was difficult for the question to attract pub-lie notice. If a member of the public endeavoured to bring it forward, unfortunately, or rather, perhaps, fortunately, for him, he possessed but little of the requisite technical knowledge, and, as a matter of fact, very few of the public cared to bestir themselves in the cause of legal reform. As had been said, one might as well expect a man who had had one leg cut off to devote his time to the improvement of the instrument with which the operation had been carried out, as to hope for assistance in the improvement of legal matters from the general public. The Government also, unless they proposed measures for the adoption of Parliament and bore the responsibility of them, could raise no discussion on the subject of legal reforms. It appeared to him that there was only one class who could very well interest themselves in the matter which he had brought to the notice of the House—namely, those independent Members who had given their attention to the administration of the law. It was for the interest of the public, as well as for the interest of the Profession to which they belonged, that those who were versed in the law should deeply consider the proposals which he had made. He was certain that lawyers would best consult their own welfare by adapting themselves to the changes demanded from them by the public. He had constantly to hear complaints from suitors against the existing state of things; and it appeared to him that it was almost a very fault to remain silent and make no attempt to see if some changes, not of a destructive character, could not by common consent be introduced. It was in this spirit, and for the purpose of raising discussion, that he had called attention to the questions which he had placed before the House; and he trusted he should not be considered presumptuous if he moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he might refer to the manner in which business was conducted in the Court of Chancery as illustrating the system which he thought might well be applied, to a great extent, to the other tribunals of this country. He had examined the judicial statistics for the year 1876–7, and, taking it that practically there were only four Judges in the Court of Chancery in that year, he found that those Judges disposed of 2,266 causes, and motions in the nature of causes. In addition to that, they dealt with 1,600 petitions, some of which might, indeed, be of a formal character, yet many of them involved points of considerable importance. In the Registrar's Office of the Court there were over 17,000 orders drawn up. That large amount of business was got through by continuous sittings in one place. The Vice Chancellors sat from day to day, and it was known when they would sit and what business would come before them. The Judges were all members of one tribunal; they were not split up into divisions, and a cause could thus be readily transferred from one Judge to another. If one Judge had exhausted his Cause List, he might take causes from another, so that no Judge should be overburdened with work as regarded the Chamber business. The staff of each Judge consisted of a chief clerk and some assistants; and the number of attendances in Chambers before those gentlemen in the year 1876–8 was 97,000. By this means a large mass of interlocutory and administrative business was disposed of. Each solicitor knew when his case would come on, the day being divided into distinct parts. The case went before the clerk in the first instance, and if the party was not satisfied with the clerk's judgment, he would go before the Judge, who sat two days a-week after his other business had been done in Court to hear applications, and these might be conducted by the solicitors who appeared before the Chief Clerk, or might on their application be adjourned into Court and argued formally by counsel. In all cases the Judge in Chancery sat alone and disposed of the whole matter, being Judge both of the law and the fact. That was a system worthy of imitation as far as it could be carried out in the other tribunals of the country. It was to be regretted that when they were dealing with the Judicature Act, the Common Law Judges were not brought into one great division, as the Vice Chancellors were. If that had been done, much complaint might have been avoided; but they had now the three divisions of the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer, with but little connection between them. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) as to the evils of the want of continuity in the sittings of the Common Law-Judges. It was now very difficult for solicitors to know the time and the place at which their causes would be tried. That might be partially corrected when the new and more commodious buildings for the Law Courts were completed; but, in the meantime, the faults of the system ought not to remain unremedied. He was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton did not propose to disturb the arrangement for having four Circuits in the year for criminal business; but in respect to civil business he went very much with the hon. and learned Member. There was no doubt that much of the civil business on the Circuits was of the most trumpery character, and that the time of the Judges was taken up, in many instances, where their presence was not required. He did not say that the commercial centres did not require the presence of the Judges for their civil business, and sittings should be held there from time to time by the Judges of the Superior Courts for the disposal of it; but he thought the way would be considerably cleared in that respect when they had some extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. No doubt, the importance of a case did not always depend on the magnitude of the claim on which it was founded, and the parties could not and ought not to be precluded from trying their causes if they chose in the Superior Courts; but there was no reason for putting in motion all the machinery connected with the sending down of the Judges to the extent to which that was now done in places where there was little or no civil business. If the parties in such districts preferred to have their cases dealt with by the Superior Courts, there was no great hardship in bringing them to one of the great commercial centres or to London. In fact, notwithstanding all the facilities afforded for the conduct of business in the country, there was a tendency to bring business to the Metropolis. One reason of this was that all the principal railways had termini in London, and parties engaged in litigation often found it more convenient to come up here than to any of the great provincial towns. In London, too, they could obtain first-rate professional assistance at a less cost than they could procure it in the country. It was a great satisfaction to him that he had been requested to second his hon. and learned Friend's Motion, as he was always glad to advance and facilitate the administration of justice; and he sincerly trusted that before long something would be accomplished in that direction.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton in the propriety of assimilating the practice of the Common Law Courts with that of the Equity Courts in regard to the hearing of cases by a single Judge. He never could see why, if one Judge could try a mixed question of fact and law at Lincoln's Inn, two or three Judges should be required to try a simple question of law at Westminster. Before hon. Members committed themselves to the new plan shadowed forth by his hon. and learned Friend, they ought to consider the fact that the Judicature Act had never yet had fair play. If they did not take care, it might become a great reform spoilt in its administration; and it would be a national misfortune if so vast a scheme were shipwrecked for want of energy and forethought in carrying it out. Two years ago he called the attention of the House to the circumstance that that Act had much increased the business, of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. In consequence of the discussion which was raised by that Motion, Mr. Justice Fry was appointed a Judge in the Equity Division. Everything was going on very well, when, unfortunately, one day it was thought necessary to send Mr. Justice Fry to try prisoners on the Northern Circuit, and he did not return to Lincoln's Inn till the middle of February. Whether or not it was necessary to have four Circuits a-year for the trial of prisoners, certain it was that the holding of those four Circuits would completely paralyze the Central Administration of Justice in London. When the Judicature Act was in course of discussion, one of the things which everybody insisted upon was that there should always be two Courts of Appeal sitting in London, one at Westminster and the other at Lincoln's Inn, in order to try to get through that most important part of the judicial business of the country. Well, during the whole of January and February last, with the exception of three days in February, no Court of Appeal was sitting at Westminster at all, as the Lords Justices were on Circuit. Although it was, of course, necessary to have regular Assizes for gaol delivery, the House was hound to consider whether they could not be held without the present waste of judicial power. Recently, Lord Justice Thesiger had to go down to Denbighshire to try three or four trumpery cases, which might as well have been heard at Quarter Sessions; and during the learned Judge's absence in Wales, the proceedings of the Court of Appeal in London were stopped for three or four days. He did not say that these persons should not be tried as soon as possible; but was there no other way of doing it? He did not say it was necessary to add to our judicial strength, but something must be done. Even when Judges were not on Circuit, it was by no means easy to find in London a sufficient judicial staff to constitute two Courts of Appeal. Last week the case of "Martin v. Mackonochie" was being tried, involving the somewhat curious question whether a clergyman was entitled to break the law with impunity. The Court of Appeal did not find itself strong enough to deal with that case, so it had to borrow Lord Justice James. The Court of Appeal in Lincoln's Inn was then left incomplete, and it was obliged to borrow a Judge from the Rolls Court. The result was that the Rolls Court could not sit, as the Master of the Rolls had to go away. Then the Court of Appeal caught Lord Justice Baggallay; but as, through an unfortunate accident, Vice Chancellor Malins was obliged to be absent, Lord Justice Baggallay had to go off from the Court of Appeal, and for more than a week the Court of Appeal in Lincoln's Inn could not sit at all. Ought they to localize the administration of justice more than they did at present? The effect of his hon. and learned Friend's proposal in that respect would be absolutely to destroy the Bar; and as Judges were taken from the Bar, if they destroyed the Bar they would destroy the Bench. But the whole matter ought to be discussed and sifted, as the present state of things was most unsatisfactory to the suitors, and was certainly not creditable to those who had the control of the administration of justice. He hoped, therefore, before the debate closed, the House would hear what the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and others, had to say. Until public opinion outside the Profession could be roused, they should never get the momentum necessary for the judicial reforms which the country required.

said, it was impossible to come to a satisfactory decision upon a Resolution expressed in such vague terms as that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he would have cordially supported if he had brought forward a definite proposal of a character likely to serve as a basis for a substantial improvement in the administration of the law. The Resolution spoke certainly of the need of reform; but it did not shadow forth what kind of reform was likely to be most effectual. For that reason, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press it to a Division. But, at the same time, these matters, which affected the practical working of the Courts of Law, deserved the greatest consideration. In his opinion, the Divisional Courts at Westminster ought to be abolished. He would have preferred three Judges, in the first instance, to try actions; but that was not agreed to, and the country was irrevocably committed to the present system of trial in Courts of First Instance before a single Judge. It was a matter beyond dispute that they ought to insist that the Act of 1873 should be fully carried into effect, and that a Judge who tried a case should try it throughout, and give final judgment upon it. With regard to motions for a new trial, in the first instance the proper course would be that the motion should be made before the Judge who tried the case. If he were dissatisfied with the verdict, it would be a proper case for a new trial. But where both the Judge who had tried the case and the jury were satisfied, the proper course would be to apply to a Court of Appeal. He should certainly object to the abolition of appeals upon interlocutory applications. The Courts of Chancery had always allowed those appeals, and to get rid of them would lead to very considerable confusion; besides, the suitors were protected against frivolous appeals by the power of the Courts to award costs. The facility of appeal, moreover, tended very much to create a feeling of satisfaction with the administration of justice by the Judges of First Instance. With regard to the continuity of sittings in London and Middlesex, he did not see why the system adopted in Equity of continuous sittings by the same Judge should not be carried out in London and Middlesex. With regard to Circuits, he would suggest, in order to facilitate the administration of justice, that there should be the clearest separation between civil and criminal business, and the criminal business of the Circuit should be taken by a Judge sitting in connection with the Court of Quarter Sessions, on the principle of the attendance of the Judges at the Central Criminal Court; and the civil business should be taken by a Judge who should sit at each place till he had finished the business there before going to another place; so that, according to the requirements of the business, one Judge should go from place to place, and dispose of the whole of the civil business of the Circuit; and that the absurd practice of fixing the dates and places of the Circuits for Civil business weeks before it could be known what amount of business there would be at each place, should be abolished. The concentration of business might, perhaps, be carried too far. Prisoners from Cambridge were lately tried at Norwich, but they might be tried in London with almost equal, if not greater, convenience; and it was a hardship upon prisoners—especially as regarded the difficulty of obtaining the attendance of their witnesses—that they should be tried at a distance from their own county. On the other hand, local courts and the adoption of centres for civil business would not have a great tendency to withdraw business from London—which experience and the choice of suitors showed to be the most convenient place of trial in the majority of cases—but would, in his opinion, involve an unnecessary interference with the system of Circuits, and a great increase of cost in our judicial establishments without any corresponding advantage.

said, on behalf of the lay element in the community, he must express his thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) for the able and lucid way in which he had brought forward a question of so much interest to the commercial classes. So far as regarded the Common Law Courts, the state of things was most unsatisfactory. Too much had not been said as to the constant loss and vexation caused by the uncertainty which now existed as to when and where a case would be tried, either in the Provinces or the Metropolis. The experience of the Judicature Act had been disappointing. The expectation that there would be a fusion of Law and Equity, continuous sittings, and order and regularity in the conduct of the legal business of the country, had not been realized. Whilst agreeing with many of the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member, he thought sufficient stress had not been laid upon the possible extension of the County Court jurisdiction. He (Mr. Norwood) felt sanguine that, at no distant date, without depriving the Superior Courts of important business, the jurisdiction of the County Courts might be increased, so as to relieve the superior Courts of matters that were scarcely of sufficient importance to engage their attention. He agreed that while there ought to be gaol deliveries in every Assize town, as at present, a well-considered scheme of Centres in the Provinces for the trial of causes might be useful; but, in many instances, it would be more convenient for suitors to go to London than to go to such a local centre. The Bar would not be of the same importance at the local centres as in London, and it would cost more to bring the highest forensic skill to such centres than to secure it in London. If all the suggestions that had been made were acted upon, there would still, in his opinion, be something required to put our legal machinery in order, for a state of chaos and anarchy prevailed in the Common Law Divisions. He would be the last to say a word unfairly criticizing the Judges; but still duty compelled him to state that the operations of the Judicature Act did not appear to have been sufficiently assisted by certain of the Judges, who—whatever their private opinions might have been— ought to have endeavoured to carry out the views of the Legislature as soon as changes had been determined upon. There ought to be some direct responsibility for control over judicial arrangements—someone in the position of a Minister of Justice, who could pre- scribe, within certain limits, the course and order of procedure in our Courts, and the mode in which the Judges were to serve the country. It might be said there was some Constitutional difficulty in placing such a power in the hands of a political officer or a Member of the Government; but, be that as it might, it was a scandal that there appeared to be no regularity, no order, no proper control with reference to the duties of the Judges. Laymen had recently been scandalized by the attacks of one Judge upon another, which had almost become epidemic; and it was a great pity if, as currently reported, there was not the harmony between members of the Judicial Bench—that desire to facilitate business—that there ought to be. He trusted that means might be found of putting an end to all these scandals. Difficulties did not occur in Chancery, where the Judges appeared to work harmoniously together, and to assist each other; but in the Common Law, in spite of the new Act, there were still the three Divisions, and there was not that harmony they had reason to expect. Whether it was possible to invest the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice with a regulating power he did not know; but he trusted that means would be devised for putting an end to the difficulties that were now experienced.

denied that there was any want of harmony amongst the Judges in carrying out their duties, or reluctance on their part to facilitate business, and he regretted that any reference had been made to personal controversies that were irrelevant to this Motion. The Motion had one inconvenience, that it raised no definite issue; but the subject was introduced with ability and moderation. As to the Act of 1873 introducing uniformity of principle and practice, he always thought it was too grand a scheme, and that it was destined to end in comparative failure. The evils which at that time required a remedy could have been cured by an Act of Parliament of half-a-dozen sections. The idea was very good in theory; but they could not abolish the distinction between Law and Equity except by establishing a Code. Division of labour was always the result of advancing civilization; and so long as the distinction between Law and Equity existed, it was desirable to have persons eminent in both branches to administer the law. It was not desirable that our Judges should be like Maitre Jacques in Molière's L' Avare, who performed the duties of both cook and coachman, and when called for desired to know in which capacity he was required and in which dress he was to appear. It was not to be expected that the Judicature Act would be a great success, and it was only astonishing that they had succeeded as well as they had. It was an ambitious scheme, but the reforms that were really required might have been effected by an extension of the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854. It was not desirable that the system of appeals in interlocutory applications from Masters in Chambers should be encouraged; but it was absolutely essential that certain questions which, though of detail, were of great importance, arising under the new law, should be settled, and even now the appeals were diminishing from day to day. It had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), why, if the single Judge system worked well in the Chancery Division, it should not work equally well in the Common Law Divisions. In the first place, the business in the Court of Chancery differed so materially from the business in the Courts of Common Law, that a system which worked well in the one case could by no means be assumed to work well in the other. In the second place, it did not follow, because one Court of Appeal could successfully dispose of cases coming from only six Courts as in Chancery, that another similarly constituted could, with equal success, dispose of cases coming from 15; and it would follow still less if appeals were allowed, as they must be, from the decisions of single Judges in those cases which were now decided by Divisional Courts consisting of two or more Judges. If the 15 Common Law Judges were sitting in as many different Courts, the present Court of Appeal would be utterly unable to cope with the business; and, as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and others objected to increasing the number of Judges, how would the Court of Appeal be reinforced except by promoting some of the Judges from the three Divisions, and thus reducing the number of Courts of First Instance? As to criminal trials, there was nothing to be said now. It had been decided that there should be four Assizes in the year, though, for his own part, he had not been greatly impressed with the plea put in favour of the so-called innocent prisoners, inasmuch as of the numbers he had seen acquitted in his time 99 per cent in his humble judgment ought to have been convicted. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) that one List of Causes should be made for the whole Circuit was, if he might be allowed to say so, altogether crude. ! With regard to the suggestion that there should be Courts sitting continuously at some of the great centres, though not necessarily with the same Judge, the proposition had come upon him somewhat by surprise, and he was not exactly prepared to express a definite opinion upon the subject; but he was afraid it would have one evil effect which the hon. and learned Member for Taunton had perhaps not sufficiently considered. It would tend to localize the Bar, and this, he could not help thinking, would be a great misfortune not only to the Profession itself, but to the public. The spirit of discipline now animating the Bar would be impaired; and suitors in one part of the country would have additional difficulty in obtaining the services of particular counsel whom they might wish to engage and who were employed elsewhere.

said, he was strongly opposed to the Divisional Court being abolished, for if that Court in its present form were done away with, it would be necessary to go to the Court of Appeal for new trials, and the Court of Appeal would consequently be overwhelmed with work. He thought, however, it would be a great advantage if the distribution of the business of the Courts were placed in the hands of a competent manager, who would make arrangements by which the Judges would know in the morning what Court they were going to sit in, and what business they were to be engaged on. He also thought that when once the List of Causes to be taken by each Judge was arranged, it should be kept separate and never be tampered with. No cause should be removed out of its List and taken in another Court without the consent of the parties on both sides. With respect to appeals from the inferior Courts, a considerable economy of judicial strength might be secured. He could not see why such appeals could not be heard and disposed of by one Judge, as one Judge now heard and determined complicated questions of law arising on the argument of demurrers. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that there were at present a sufficient number of Judges. In his opinion, the Judicial Bench was considerably undermanned. There was a certain amount of work to be done; that amount could be approximately ascertained; and he had no doubt in his mind that there was not at present a sufficient number of Judges to cope with it in the manner the suitors had a right to expect their causes should be dealt with. They might take a lesson from the Courts of Chancery in making provision for a List of short causes in the Courts of Common Law. Many short causes were indefinitely postponed by long causes, some of which lasted several days in hearing, standing before them in the List. It had been said that the number of Circuits should be increased to four instead of two; but in that proposal he could not concur. The necessity of such a step had not been shown. He also thought that judicial strength on Circuits might be much economised. He could state from his own knowledge that at the last Assizes two Judges went to Bodmin. They found that there were but three prisoners to try and no cause, and yet no fewer than 105 jurors had been summoned to attend. Of the three prisoners, one pleaded guilty, another, being insane, could not plead, and the trial of the third lasted just half an hour. It would, therefore, he believed, be a great convenience if counties were grouped on Circuits, not only for criminal cases as was now sometimes the case, but also for the trial of civil causes. He considered that in the case of grouped counties, as now arranged for the trial of prisoners, it was very unfair that the jurymen and grand jurymen should be taken as at present from one county, and it was also unjust that the Sheriff of the county in which the Assizes were held should be put to the extra expense. If local centres were established as suggested, and Judges were to remain in them all the legal year, the Judges being changed every three months as suggested, what would they do in all the spare time that they would have? In the more important centres, such as Liverpool and Manchester, the plan of periodical sittings might be adopted; but that would entail a local Bar, a result which would be far from desirable for reasons which had already been pointed out. If the jurisdiction of the County Courts were extended, it would be necessary to increase the fees of the Judges, as recommended by the Committee, as a better class of Judges would be required than existed at the present time. He was, however, quite willing to admit that some of the Judges were most able men, as good, indeed, as could be found even in Westminster, but others were quite the reverse; and some appointments had been recently made from barristers who never even had a brief. The extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts would very soon lead to a block of business in those Courts, and then the help of the Registrars would be resorted to, a course which the public might not completely approve. He thought, therefore, it would be a very great mistake to increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts. They were excellent Courts for the recovery of small debts, and that was their proper sphere. He was very glad that the whole subject had been brought before the House by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and hoped that some scheme might be devised which would cause the business to be carried on in a regular manner in our Courts of Law. If some governing head were appointed to arrange the work in the Courts, such as one of the chiefs of the Courts, a great deal of valuable time might be saved by attorneys, counsel, and others engaged in legal business.

observed, that the public, the patient who was supposed to be suffering, did not, from the scanty attendance in the House that night, appear to feel acutely this grievance which was said to be so great; and if they did feel it, it was but a poor consolation to them to find that no two doctors agreed as to what the remedy ought to be. He ventured to say that there was a great misapprehension in the minds of hon. Members and the public generally in the idea that there was such a great block in the judicial system at the present time, or that there was an undue delay in the trial of causes. If they looked back during the past two years, they would no doubt find that there had been a great block, which was caused by the attempted fusion of Law and Equity, but that had been to a great extent removed, and there was at present very little cause for complaint; still he believed that there must always be a certain amount of difficulty and uncertainty in reference to the trial of Common Law causes. He thought they had derived many advantages from, the new system, and there had been a considerable dispatch of business; and, in his opinion, whatever delay existed now arose not from the Judges not doing their work, but in consequence of the alteration in the system of pleading, which gave more opportunities for fighting out small cases at Chambers, and more opportunities for multiplying interlocutory proceedings at Chambers, thereby enormously increasing the expense of litigation, and postponing the period by several weeks when the cause would be ready for trial. A remedy, therefore, should be found in an alteration of that system. Causes when ripe for trial were tried as rapidly again in the Common Law Courts as in the Courts of Chancery. In the latter, the Judges got rid of their long causes by remitting them to Chambers. It was in the offices of the chief clerks that delay arose, and this was owing to the system adopted, and not to any remissness on the part of these gentlemen. There was, moreover, no parallel between Chancery and Common Law cases. Matters that could be tried by affidavit, as most Chancery causes were, might be tried equally well in London or elsewhere; but with the Common Law system, where evidence was always taken orally in Court, the great desideratum was to bring justice home to the doors of the suitors. It was desirable, therefore, to keep up the Circuits. The suitors were the persons whom the law was designed to benefit, and it was their convenience which had to be consulted. His own experience of the last South Eastern Circuit was that on an average the causes tried there were fully as important as those tried in town, and that the expenses, as a rule, were much less than they would have been if the cases had been removed from the Assizes. It was clear that the expense and inconvenience caused by the removal of a trial, and the consequent necessity of bringing witnesses from a distance, were very considerable. An- other great difference between Common Law and Chancery was the far greater variety of the work done by the former than the latter, and which would, to a certain extent, always prevent that complete fusion which some so desired to see carried out. As a matter of fact, all the confusion that had lately been noticeable was due to the abandonment of the old system in one particular, and that was in having order and regularity in the work done by the respective Judges; and until there was a return to the old idea in that respect of having three Courts, there would always be confusion. They had now 16 Common Law Judges of one Court—as the old Divisions were supposed to be abolished—to four Chancery Judges, each having his own Court; yet there was no directing head over them to plot out their work. There was no confusion when they had the Chief Judge of each Court who was responsible for the work of that Court, and who could with the four or five Judges under him plot out for a month in advance all the work to be done during that period. Now they went about from day to day in different Courts, and neither counsel nor attorneys could arrange their work beforehand. The Judges themselves were anxious to have some plan by which they might know their own Courts and arrange their plans previous to coming into Court, instead of being kept in ignorance as to which Court they were to be attached. What was wanted was a controlling power—not a Minister of Justice, but a Judge on whom should rest the responsibility for the work of his Court. It would be better to go back to the old system, and let the Chiefs have the regulating of the business in their respective Divisions. By doing so, an immense amount of trouble and inconvenience would be saved the Bench and the Bar, and it would be more economical and convenient for suitors, while all the other advantages of the present system might be retained. It was a matter of great annoyance to the Judges, not knowing the work they had to do, and how they could conduct it. He ventured to say again, however, there was no real block in the trial of causes, and that when the Long Vacation arrived very few cases would be left to be tried.

expressed his regret that when a question so directly affecting the commercial interests of the country was before the House, there was not a single Member of the mercantile class present to assist them by their countenance and support, except his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). At the time the Judicature Act of 1872 was under discussion, there was a great deal said about the fusion of Law and Equity. Everyone acquainted with the subject knew that the so-called fusion was impossible. They were not only different in form and procedure, but were founded upon principles wholly distinct from one another, and often opposed to one another; and so they had now those same two different systems of jurisprudence in force the same as before, whilst in the Common Law Divisions they had the same three distinctive jurisdictions of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, perpetuated under a mere change of names. That there should be confusion and waste of judicial strength was not astonishing, since the Judges had to do the work of Divisional Courts, and were, at the same time, bandied about from Court to Court to sit separately, no Judge knowing, from day to day, where he was to sit, or what duties he might be called upon to perform. This, of course, was a serious evil for the suitors. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) had done good service in bringing the subject before the House; but he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) could not altogether concur in the remedy he proposed. He thought that time should be given to see how the changes in the Circuits would work. The object of the Circuits, as was the object of Justices in Eyre in the olden time, was to bring justice home, as it were, to every man's door. In this object he concurred; but he was opposed to what was commonly called localizing justice. If the present system of Circuits did not meet the requirements of modern times, he would say, reconstruct them. He approved of the system of grouping, which had been commenced for the purposes of the Criminal Assizes, and sending Judges alternately into one county and another in the group; but he was wholly opposed to any plan which would have the tendency, as he thought the plan of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) would, of localizing Judges—that was, of placing Judges permanently in any one place. He objected to it in the interest of the suitors and of the public generally. The effect of localizing Judges, he thought, would be to lower the tone and the dignity of both the Bench and the Bar; for in this country they could not touch the one without affecting the other, and the result would be disastrous. Englishmen were justly proud of their Judges, and no foreigner ever entered our Courts without being impressed with the ability, the dignity, and, above all, the impartiality, of our Judges. These qualities were the necessary result of long training and experience at the Bar, at which they had made their way, and of the independence of their position. In Continental countries, the Judges were educated as a caste, as mere State officials, having no community of feeling or of interest with the Bar, or the public. They were essentially, and above all, servants of the State. With us, our Judges were a part of the people, and they belonged to the people no less than to the State which appointed them. In their professional career they had been in close contact with the people, counselling them as to their rights and liberties, and pleading for those rights and those liberties. Our administration of justice, moreover, was essentially popular. All classes of the community, from the squire, the merchant, and the banker, down to the petty tradesman, all were called to take part in it. The people watched it with interest, and popular opinion was brought to bear upon it. The criticism of the Bar was also a powerful influence. Every Judge on the Bench felt the force of that criticism, for every Judge had in his time, when at the Bar, been a critic of the conduct, the learning, and the ability of the Judges. To place a Judge in a provincial town and create a local Bar there, as a necessary consequence, would be to strike at the foundation of those qualities which had given to both the high place they enjoyed in public esteem and confidence. A local Judge, whatever his ability or his learning, would in time degenerate. He would either hold himself superior to a public opinion which he regarded as inferior or unimportant, and which he would not respect, or he would become its creature. He would be indifferent to the criticism of a Bar among whom, however able some might be, he would not recognize equals in abilities and learning. Local influences, moreover, social connections, which were inevitable in provincial communities, would have a lowering and a narrowing effect. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) remembered an instance of an able and accomplished man, who, after filling for many years the office of a local Judge, came to regard himself not so much as Judge between party and party, but as one whose special function it was to watch over the interests of the town in which he was called upon to administer the law. Whenever there was a case before him touching a local interest, he was sure conscientiously to consider himself bound to keep the local interest in view. In the interests of the public, then, he said, let them not transform the Judges of our High Court into local Judges, as he feared would be the case if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend were carried into effect. With respect to the proposed increase of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, he did not say that some increase might not be desirable; but he protested against such an increase as would change their character from the poor man's courts in order to furnish cheap law for rich suitors. His hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had said that there ought to be a Minister of Justice. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) thought so too. In every country in Europe, he believed, there was a Minister of Justice. In England the duties of that Minister were a sort of semi-official work unattached, and it was divided between the Lord Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He thought that a Minister responsible to Parliament—especially for all judicial and magisterial appointments — would strengthen our judicial system, and help the administration of the law.

observed, that in former times the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Exchequer were not only Courts of the First Instance, but also Courts of Appeal. An improvement was made, by which the Court of Appeal was substituted for the Exchequer Chamber, and made separate from the Court of First Instance. But it should be remembered that that improvement relieved the Superior Court, which was now called the High Court of Justice, from a good part of its work; and he thought that pro- perly to carry out the system now in force, and which, he hoped would continue to be in force, the High Court of Appeal ought to be strengthened, even though the Court of First Instance were to lose some of its strength. It seemed unnecessary to have two Chief Justices and one Chief Baron belonging to the High Court of Justice, while in the High Court of Appeal they had not got any Lord Chief Justice at all. He thought the Lord Chief Justice of England ought to be made President of the High Court of Appeal. He thought he was right in saying that, suppose they established in England a local centre where civil business would be administered by a stationary Judge, and provided at the same time a travelling Court for the trial of criminal cases, they would be doing exactly that which was done in France now. It must be remembered that the present system in France dated no further back than the time of the Great Revolution; but in our case we had to deal with a system which had been in operation for very many centuries. If the proposal to make local centres were adopted, it would of necessity tend to localize the Bar; and he could not help thinking that such a course would cause the Bar to deteriorate, mainly because it would put members of the Bar in too close a connection with the other branches of the Profession. He thought the difficulty which frequently arose from the Judges going Circuit not knowing the dates at which to fix the commission days in particular towns, by reason of the fact that beforehand they had no adequate idea as to the business to be done, would be removed to a great extent by allowing provincial solicitors to enter their causes at the Associates' offices in London before the commencement of the Circuits.

Sir, I did not intend to take any part in this discussion; but the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), to which I listened with pain, with shame—not with surprise, but certainly with contempt—has been followed up by such a general chorus from the Common Law side, more especially from the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), who never addresses the House on a legal question without holding up the Judges as being the perfection of human nature, and without running down everybody else—these effusions have been such, that I really cannot resist giving expression to my opinion upon this utterly degraded episode in our debates. When I read the hon. and learned Member's Resolution, I hoped we should have a discussion in which a large-minded view of the law and its defects might be presented. But in place of that, we have had only small suggestions; and these have been rendered still more trifling by the fulsome, loathsome sycophancy with which the hon. and learned Member adulated the Judges, as if they were infallible men—when we know that there is no public body less worthy of the name. All these praises come, no doubt, from very "disinterested" sources; and, strange to say, they come only from the Common Law Members, as not a word of this crawling nature has been uttered by any of the Equity Lawyers, who seem to have too much self-respect to abase themselves before the Bench. This thing seems to have grown of late into a sort of system; and it is upheld by those who are assuredly not the most independent members of the Bar—although, if we credit them, the Bar contains nothing but independence. I, for one, protest against this style. But there are others who dislike it, though they may remain silent. I do not wonder that they are mute; for anyone who has the courage to express an honest and an independent opinion is saluted with an outcry, no matter how truthfully he speaks. This slavishness is derogatory to the character of the House, whose functions embrace the right as well as the duty of criticizing every person, from the highest to the lowest, who is in the Public Service of the country; and to say that anyone shall be exempt from remark in his public character is not only cowardice, but is a sort of treason to the rights and privileges of those who send us here. I, Sir, do not deny that there are some honourable men on the Bench—I should be sorry to think there were not, though I wish there were more—but I entirely secede from the hallelujahs of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, who prostrates himself before all the Judges with a species of Oriental adulation which I hope will meet with its reward. But how severe was the censure which he really passed upon them, without seeing it, by some of his statements! He speaks of the business done at Chambers by the Masters; and of the scenes where two attorneys' clerks fight and wrangle about little or nothing. And he says that this is followed up almost invariably by an appeal to a Judge; and that there is again an appeal from him to the Appellate Tribunal. All this is true; and it is a great evil. But why are the rulings of the Masters always appealed from? Because in any matter of the least difficulty they are hardly ever right. These gentlemen are appointed by the Chief Judge in each Court—not for merit, that is a thing that no one ever heard of—but under the influence of a nepotism the most scandalous. They are nearly all connections, or henchmen, or flatterers of the Judges—this is their sole recommendation; not learning or ability. Hence their decisions at Chambers are distrusted and despised; hence there are appeals which cost suitors heavily; hence the innumerable instances where their decisions are reversed, but which are carefully kept from public view. Is there one hon. Gentleman here who can contradict these facts? No. The whole Bar with one voice denounces the fashion of their nomination. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton knows it as well as anybody. But in his suggestions of law reform does he offer any cure of this sore? Does he propose to take away the nomination of those Masters from the Judges, who so abuse their patronage? If he had done that, he would have cleared our Courts of officers who bring scandal and disrepute upon them. But he makes no such proposition. He cannot embrace that measure of reform, because it would not suit the Judges, of whom he is so passionate an admirer. His regard for the public interest is great, if we believe himself; but he has no desire to see a real measure of reform. These appointments ought to be in the hands of some Public Minister, directly responsible to Parliament for his nominations. At present no one is responsible; and such abuses prevail as I have named. The hon. and learned Member has drawn a pathetic picture of a Judge in the Assize town, who discovers to his grief that he has only a cause or two to try, who rises at mid-day, and almost weeps in his lodgings because he has no work to do; who thinks with sympathy and sadness of the many suitors who are waiting for him elsewhere. If we are to believe the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, the tears almost run down the Judge's cheeks as he contemplates this state of things. Nothing can be more absurd or farcical than this. It is almost to mock the House to present it. All around us are hon. Gentlemen who know how the Judge chuckles and rubs his hands with pleasure when he finds he has nothing to do. Instead of pining and weeping alone, as is suggested, he is off to some pleasant county family, with whom he stays until he has to go to the next town. Instead of being reduced to despair, as is pretended, he is uplifted to rapture. And this is the sort of delusion that is practised upon those who are outside, and who have no real experience of what goes on. None but very ardent supporters of the Judges would resort to it. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton professed a wish in his Resolution to make law less expensive; but he has pointed out no practical road to economy. But economy in law is become an absolute necessity. Before the passing of the Judicature Acts we heard that they were the great means by which law would be made cheap and almost perfect. Unfortunately for these predictions, law has become doubly, trebly, quadruply more expensive than it was before; and there is more doubt now about the law than ever. There is a larger number of new trials, and there is a great increase in the reversal of decisions. This, of course, suits the lawyers and barristers whose fees are quadrupled under the present system; and if the hon. and learned Member were in earnest he would endeavour at reform. But I have heard nothing but peddling proposals. We are asked to send a Judge to the country for three months, to sit and try causes every day during that period. How absurd the idea! Perhaps in Liverpool or Manchester, or a united Bradford and Leeds, business might be found to occupy the Judge, though of that I am by no means sure; but of this I am certain—that it would be impossible to group any other three or four, or even ten, Assize towns in England which would give employment to any Judge for anything like three months. This proposition, therefore, I regard as absurdity itself. We have then a criticism on County Courts; and we have oblique and covert hints as to the Lord Chancellor—whom they do not openly name—glances, as it were, at him, as the man above all others who has lately filled the Bench with an inferior class of Judges of those Courts, and who is responsible for much of the dissatisfaction which prevails in the public mind. I am no advocate for the Lord Chancellor; I have no reason to be, but rather the reverse. But right is right, and truth is truth; and there are plenty of men in this House who know that the present Chancellor is not the first who set the evil example of appointing inferior men as County Court Judges. Ever since these Courts were established by those who call themselves "Liberals," it is notorious that they have been made pleasant nests and holes and corners for jobbing politicians. The Liberals are always boasting about their purity—about their extraordinary virtues; they are perpetually crowing and flapping their wings, and making loud noises in this direction; and the poor Tories get frightened and sit silent, and invariably allow themselves to be put down when these amazing claims to political perfection are put forward. I am no Tory, but I am for truth; and I hope I may be allowed to give them a word of advice; and that is, for the future not to give in, as they are generally accustomed to do, but to meet their assailants with weapons like their own. One of the main sources of expense in our present system is the constant granting of new trials. This is a practice of comparatively recent growth. It was not until the middle of the last century that Lord Mansfield almost began the practice. Since then it has grown into a common nuisance. In nearly half the cases tried there are motions and rules for new trials. Sometimes there are as many as three, and there have been known to be even four, trials of the same case. This, of course, enriches counsel and attorney, and reduces to ruin the wretched suitors; but as it puts money in their purse, none of these law reformers, like the hon. and learned Members for Taunton and Dewsbury, have a word to say for its abolition. For my own part, I am entirely opposed to them. Hardly one case in 50 requires a new trial. There is no intricacy or perplexity in the majority of cases tried. There is nothing to puzzle 12 men of common sense and honesty. Exceptions there are, doubtless; but, as a rule, the cases tried are simple enough, and easy of comprehension—generally of contract, with few facts. I would like to see new trials in such simple cases absolutely forbidden by law. But how is it now? Cases involving few facts are tried at the Assizes, and decided by 12 plain men in the neighbourhood, who probably know a good deal themselves about the parties to the suit, and even some of the real circumstances connected with it. A new trial is applied for, and three or four Judges, sitting in London, who can have no real insight into the case, and have not watched the witnesses, led away by affidavits that are false, and speeches of counsel that are not always correct—I do not like to characterize them, as I might, in plainer and stronger language —take upon themselves to upset what has already been decided. This is a crying evil. But not a word is breathed against it. It tends to swell the emoluments of these honourable gentlemen, whose praises have been loudly sung to-night; but, while it is sport to them, it is death to the suitors. Surely any honest and sensible Judge can, if he likes, keep his jury right; can prevent them from being led astray; can keep them in the true groove, and help them to find a verdict that is just! And, if he is incompetent to do this, he is unfit for his office. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary means to introduce any measure which shall remove the great and acknowledged abuses that exist in and under the present Judicature Acts, he will be a public benefactor; and I hope he will bear in mind the words I have uttered on the evils of new trials. There ought to be no new trials, because there ought to be no wrong trials. A Judge, if he is worthy of his place, ought to prevent a jury from ever coming to a wrong conclusion. As a rule, cases are of a very simple kind; and, on the whole, no real doubts ought to exist. If the Judges are the superior class of beings that they are represented to be, justice would be done in all cases; and there would be no need for the present abomination of putting suitors to double and treble expense, as is now done by these new trials. Another great evil has not been alluded to by these great and disinterested Law Reformers—and that is the costs and charges to which unfortunate suitors are now put under the Acts which exist, with reference to bills of costs. I am almost inclined to think that barristers, notwithstanding their "independence"—of which I have heard so much to-night that I am sick—have almost as much worship for attorneys as they have for Judges. I am a living proof of their independence and public spirit; and when I bring my own case before the House, as I hope to have an opportunity of doing, a good deal of what we have heard to-night in adulation of Judges and the Bar will melt away. I should like, if I could, to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he has ever had the pleasure of being served with a bill of costs? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: No.] Then I can tell him what a bill of costs is—it is neither more nor less than highway robbery by Act of Parliament. The old Dick Turpin put his pistol to your head and cried, "Your money or your life." The lawyer is now authorized by law to make the same demand; but, instead of a pistol, he has his bill of costs. He could not do it effectually if he were not backed up by Statutes, and these Statutes should be altered. The costs and charges to which unfortunate suitors are now liable are mere extortion under the colour of law. We have fine theories about cheap justice; but justice is found to be the most expensive thing we have. A friend of mine, some time ago, had four interviews with a country lawyer, and he sent him in a bill for the small sum of £30. What was my friend to do? I advised him not to tax, for the Master would probably not tax off one-sixth—as I have always found the Masters to favour the lawyers—and then he would have to pay the costs of the taxation also. I told him that the first loss was the best, and to yield to the demand, however exhorbitant, unjust, and even wicked. This is an example of what goes on—under the sanction of the law. It causes the greatest dissatisfaction in the public mind; it disgusts people with the general administration of justice, when, even in the attempt to get justice, they are robbed. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad of that approving cheer from these hon. Members, as it shows me that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) is not the only person here who chafes at the present state of things; although that hon. Member, for giving expression to feelings which I believe pervade the mercantile community generally, as to the unsatisfactory state of the law, and the more unsatisfactory condition of the Bench, has had remarks made upon him far from agreeable by the Judge-worshippers who followed him. But the feelings of the country are with him, and are certainly not with those who fatten upon abuses. The hon. Member for Hull has devoted much time and thought to a remedy for our legal misfortunes, and can find none, but in an extension of the County Courts. I wish I could agree with him; but, seeing how they are confessedly constituted of inferior and incompetent men, of whom we have heard enough to-night, I am afraid the cure would be worse than the disease. I cannot consent to give increased jurisdiction to men who are unfit to deal with the matters already before them—men in whom, with an exception or two, no one has any confidence. But I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is driven to this, not because he loves County Courts, but because he detests the Superior Courts, as being, in his judgment, even far worse. I do not know which is the worse. Both are admitted by all the outside world to be bad. There are few Judges whom any sane man would like to go before, and there are fewer County Judges at whose tribunal it is not almost a misfortune to to appear. But no real remedy, as far as I see, has yet been suggested by any of those barristers whose virtue is approved when they buy other men's wives in public market.

said, it was unnecessary, after the speech they had just heard, to devote any time to proving that the mere fact of being educated in a liberal Profession, and of associating for a great number of years with some of the worthiest of one's fellow-countrymen, might fail to endue a person who had those advantages with that set of feelings and that state of thought which would qualify him to exercise an impartial judgment on a question like that now under discussion. But the last speaker had devoted a considerable portion of his remarks to the eulogy of his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), not so much out of love for the hon. Member as out of detestation for other persons whom he wished to bring in comparison with him. The whole of the representation made by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, as to the tenour of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull, was an entire mistake from beginning to end. In the hearing of the hon. Member for Hull, he now stated that that hon. Gentleman did not say this evening the things which had been imputed to him—to his credit—by the hon. Member who had just sat down; and he stated this at the desire, and with the authority of, his hon. Friend the Member for Hull. Groundless as was the eulogy bestowed upon one person, equally groundless was the blame so freely bestowed upon others. "While he would not stop to follow to its ultimate end the series of vituperations about the loathsome sycophancy of gentlemen with whom he had the honour to associate, and while he felt that such men as Master Dodson and Master Francis would be rather astonished to hear that they knew nothing about law, and that they had been appointed to their posts through pure and outrageous nepotism, yet he must assert that no hon. Member of the House, and, least of all, the hon. Member who had just sat down, was entitled to speak on behalf of the Profession, and to state that he represented the opinions of every member of the Bar. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would rejoice to hear that a verdict once given should be understood to remain; that there ought to be no new trials; and that anything in the shape of a new trial was a detestable abomination. The hon. Member for Stoke maintained that the verdict of a jury once pronounced ought to be held good; and certainly, therefore, the verdict of two juries, one after the other, must be exceedingly good.

said, he specially guarded himself by referring to new trials in small cases tried in the country.

could not see what was the principle involved in this distinction. A Metropolitan special or common jury was at least as competent as the juries in small cases tried in the country. It seemed generally admitted that there was a great want of power in the judicial body to grapple with the work that was to be done even in the present state of things. He believed, after all, the one thing they would have to come to, unsatisfactory as it was to the minds of some people, was that they must have more Judges. If they wanted more work to be done, they must have more men to do it. At present, an enormous amount of work which ought to be done by the Judges was taken from them because they had not time to do it. He could name a Queen's Counsel who, as arbitrator, disposed of larger amounts during the year, if all were put together, than were disposed of by the highest Judge in the land. For his own part, he would like to see more trials without juries. If every case was tried by a Judge without a jury, unless a jury were asked for, a far greater number of cases might be decided in a satisfactory way than could be otherwise done, the Judge, in such cases, acting rather in the capacity of arbitrator.

said, that in the course of this very interesting discussion some feeling of disappointment had been expressed by more than one speaker at the working of the Judicature Acts. Perhaps hon. Members who were too sanguine might feel disappointment; but it was well not to hope for too much, and those who did not hope for too much in this matter had no reason to be disappointed. The Judicature Acts, upon the whole, seemed to him to have worked as well as had been expected, and to have effected very considerable improvements in our judicial system. They had been in operation practically only since the end of 1875 or the beginning of 1876, and he could not help thinking that they had conferred a great benefit upon the community. They were very much indebted to them, in the first place, for having put an end to the scandal, which arose in consequence of the doctrine of the Courts at Lincoln's Inn being altogether contradictory to that of the Courts sitting at Westminster when applied to the same state of facts. They were also indebted to them for giving to the suitors a full measure of relief in the Courts in which they might sue or be sued, and saving them from being bandied about from pillar to post. We were indebted to them, too, for having introduced a uniform, reasonable, and simple procedure; for having done away with a highly technical and hardly intelligible system of pleading, and substituted a system founded upon plain, reasonable, and clear principles. And, again, the Courts of Chancery were indebted to them for having induced those Courts to adopt a reasonable means of arriving at the truth, instead of the ridiculous means formerly pursued. Lastly, they were indebted to those Acts for a most excellent High Court of Appeal and not less excellent Intermediate Courts of Appeal. But, though improvements had been effected in our Judicature, nevertheless it must be admitted the system was not altogether satisfactory. He thought the House was very much indebted to his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) for having moved this Resolution, and introduced the subject in so able and temperate a way. His hon. and learned Friend had endeavoured to point out certain matters in which our system was defective and might possibly be amended, and certain cases in which there was a waste of judicial power. Upon the question whether the number of Judges should be increased, he had listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy), who was of opinion that a large increase was needed. He had not come to the same conclusion. Hon. Gentlemen who had either heard or read the explanation given by the Lord Chancellor when he introduced the Bill for the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts and the statistics which he laid before the other House of Parliament, must have come to the conclusion that the arrears were rapidly lessening, and that the Judges now on the Bench were, or very shortly would be, able to cope with the business they would have to dispose of. The noble and learned Lord explained very clearly that the arrears were diminishing in almost all the Courts, and that though for some time two of the Judges had been taken from the service of the Courts; the remaining Judges had been able to grapple with the business. There was no occasion, therefore, for the alarm felt by some. Nevertheless, he could not say that the course of business had been altogether satisfactory. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that there was room for considerable improvement, and there might be cause for considerable complaint. He would now go through some of the complaints, and some of the remedies for the evils complained of. In the first place, his hon. and learned Friend said that the Common Law Divisions formed barriers injurious to the administration of justice. He did not quite gather from his hon. and learned Friend whether he desired that the Divisions of Queen's Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas should be done away with. If his hon. and learned Friend's observations were directed to that end, it did not seem to him that there would be any advantage in extinguishing those ancient Courts, because the Judges of one Court could assist those of another, and no delay seemed to be occasioned by the existence of those ancient Courts. If it was desirable that there should be some Chiefs over the Judges, it was also desirable to retain those three Chiefs—the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. These Chiefs could regulate the business of their Courts and make arrangements necessary for its conduct. The Judges sat two or three at a time, and sat also in a Divisional Court. This, the hon. and learned Member said, was a waste of judicial power. It was said each Judge should dispose wholly of the case which came before him. He should try it with a jury; decide all the points that arose in it; and, in short, dispose of it. But the hon. and learned Member for Penryn (Mr. Cole) most conclusively pointed out that such was, in fact, the practice of the present day. The only case in which there was a resort to what was called the Divisional Court was where there was an application for a new trial. It might be said, and it was a point open for consideration, that instead of being made to the Divisional Court, the application should be made immediately to the Court of Appeal. But what was the nature of the cases which the Divisional Court sat to decide? They were Crown cases reserved, cases of appeals from magistrates, from County Courts, and from inferior Courts generally. It might be said one Judge would be enough to hear those appeals; but very frequently there was no appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court. The decision was final; and if they made one Judge capable of deciding the questions that arose in these cases, they would almost be obliged to give an appeal. Besides these, there were special cases—applications for criminal informa- tions, writs of mandamus, and prohibitions; in the Exchequer, there were Revenue and Customs cases; and in the Common Pleas there were cases relating to elections and the franchise. All these cases involved questions of the greatest possible importance. They might be disposed of by a single Judge; but if tried before a tribunal consisting of one Judge, it must necessarily follow that there should be an appeal to the Appellate Court, and if they had an appeal in all these proceedings to the Appellate Court, the result would be, perhaps, to overwhelm that Court with business. He would say they should utilize their judicial strength by having those cases tried before a single Judge, if they could with convenience; but they could not do so in all cases without increasing appeals to an almost indefinite extent, which might overwhelm the Appellate Court. It could not be denied that the new system of pleading, which flowed from the Judicature Act, had given rise to a great number of interlocutory applications. It was quite appalling, some times, to consider the number of these interlocutory applications that might be made in the simplest case—for particulars, further particulars, interrogatories, leave to examine witnesses; all of which were entirely unnecessary. But it was the interest of those concerned in these proceedings to multiply these applications. If a stop could be put to them, great good would be done; but it was very difficult to know how to put a stop to them. The hon. and learned Member deplored the existence of all these interlocutory applications; but he did not succeed in pointing out a remedy. It was certainly a matter for serious consideration, and if the Government could invent the means of putting an end to the evil, they would be very glad to do so. Another matter was alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, for which he did suggest a remedy. He said there were appeals on interlocutory matters from Masters to Judges, and from Divisional Judges to the Appeal Court; and he was to a great extent right in his observations on that matter. But these questions sometimes involved a great deal. The titles to estates were often decided on such applications, and it certainly would be very detrimental to deprive parties to a suit of the right to appeal. But he did think the right to appeal might be somewhat limited. In practice, the necessity of appeal might be considerably lessened. The hon. and learned Member referred to the want of continuousness in the sittings for the trial of Nisi Prius cases. This was one of the greatest evils. As to how long the sittings would continue, and where and when the cases would be tried, they were left in a state of uncertainty; and great annoyance, inconvenience, and loss was the result. The inconvenience and loss that were now suffered could be prevented by reasonable arrangements, and this could be accomplished without resort to legislation. The Judges, and those who had the control of business, might, without difficulty, make such arrangements as would enable parties to ascertain when and where causes would come on for trial. He did not know how it was these difficulties had arisen, unless it were that the Courts had been working under exceptional circumstances, and that the new Judicature system was not in complete working order. If the Judges, when they determined to alter their arrangements, would make rules under which certain causes should be taken in certain Courts, the annoyance to which litigants were exposed would be removed. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton, that there was a loss of judicial power on the Circuits from the Judges visiting towns where there was little business; but he did not approve the remedy suggested. Few would advocate any considerable change in the holding of Assizes for the trial of prisoners. Unless they were absolutely obliged, it would not be wise to group counties for criminal trials, because it was very desirable that popular respect for the administration of justice should be fostered by bringing it under the observation of the people, and allowing them to realize the impartiality and certainty with which it was administered. It would be a misfortune to prevent trials being held in the counties in which offences were committed. The same reasons did not apply to the same extent with the trial of civil causes; and now that communication was easy and cheap there was the less justification for requiring that the trial should be in the county in which the cause of action had arisen, or in which one of the parties resided. If a Judge were to be told off to sit continuously at commercial centres like Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, &c., he must live for the time in the town at which the Court was held, for he could not keep travelling to and from London. Continuous residence would involve mixing in society and becoming more or less intimate with the inhabitants of the town; and there would arise, quite wrongly, in the minds of the humbler portion of the community a distrust of the Judge, and an idea that he could not be thoroughly impartial. There was another objection to his hon. and learned Friend's proposal. If the Judges were sent down to Manchester or Liverpool, or some other great centre for three months, they would, long before the expiry of that period, have exhausted their Cause List, and nothing would remain for them to do. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to have an exaggerated notion of the amount of judicial business arising in the great centres. It was large, no doubt, but not so large as to require the continuous presence of a Judge; and he could not help thinking that if the inhabitants of the great centres had three or four Assizes in the year they had no great reason to complain. One change, however, might be adopted with advantage. For the purpose of facilitating the trial of civil cases and husbanding the judicial strength, it might be well to group—say, two counties together, and hold the Assizes alternately in one and the other. The scheme would be easy to carry out, and it would save a great deal of delay and expense. The localizing of the Bar, to which the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had referred in his eloquent speech, was a consideration of the utmost importance. Nothing could well be more disastrous to the country than a judicial system which would tend to lower the dignity of the Bar and do away with its fearless independence. With the excellent remarks of the hon. and learned Member on the judicial systems of other countries where the Judges formed a distinct class from the Bar he could also agree; but the hon. and learned Member seemed to forget himself towards the end of his speech, when he proposed the appointment of a Minister of Justice in this country responsible to Parliament for all the Judges said and did and thought.

said, he did not propose that the Minister of Justice should have the Judges under his control, but that he should deal with the whole question of judicial appointments.

accepted his hon. and learned Friend's correction; but, at the same time, he did not see how the Judges could remain absolutely free and independent when there was a Minister charged with their appointment, and also, he supposed, with their dismissal. It was one of the great glories of our system that our Judges were thoroughly independent and fearless, and for some time, at all events, they might, he thought, get on without a Minister of Justice. His hon. and learned Friend opposite would, he thought, see that he thoroughly appreciated his Motion, and the very able manner in which he had laid his proposals before the House, although he could not altogether acquiesce in all he proposed to do. Some, however, were worthy of acceptance, and all would be considered; and he trusted that, after the useful discussion that had taken place, his hon. and learned Friend would consent to withdraw his Amendment.

said, his object had been accomplished by the discussion which had taken place, and after the manner in which he had been met by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite deserved their thanks for the very interesting debate which his Amendment had elicited, and he had no doubt good results would follow. In supporting the proposal for its withdrawal, he desired to say that the discussion had confirmed his conviction that the holding of four Assizes each year for the administration of criminal justice could not be departed from. He was strongly of opinion that when a man was convicted and sent to gaol he ought to work out his term of imprisonment; but he did not want anyone to go to gaol except he was convicted of a crime. It had unfortunately happened that people had been committed and had, as was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, to remain in gaol awaiting their trial six, seven, and even eight and nine months, although some of them had on their trial been acquitted. The days for hardships of that sort being inflicted were, he hoped, gone by; and he trusted that magistrates would, in as many cases as possible, find themselves able to admit prisoners to bail. With respect to grouping, it would not be urged that they should have Assizes in every county in Wales for instance, as, in the majority of cases, there would be no prisoners to try. He would place in the hands of hon. Members a table, showing the system of grouping that was now adopted; and they would find that it was, in fact, a question of Bradshaw, and that no group was larger than a single county.

said, that in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Brise), who had put down on the Paper an Amendment to that clause, he would ask permission to move it in his place. He proposed, in page 2, line 19, after "guardians," to leave out "or with the sanction of the Local Government Board," and to insert the words? "if unable or unwilling to serve." He had no objection to the Amendment with that addition.

said, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board how far he intended to proceed with the Bill that evening? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), who took great interest in the measure, had left the House under the impression that the Bill would not be proceeded with that evening. He believed that other hon. Members had also left under similar circumstances.

said, that he saw no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with that evening.

said, that there were several Amendments on the Paper on clauses prior to that upon which the right hon. Member for the City of London proposed an Amendment. He did not wish to throw any unnecessary obstacles in the way; but he thought it must be evident to everyone in the House that the Bill was not expected to come on that evening. He had no doubt that many hon. Members would have been present had they had any idea that it was to be considered. He should therefore suggest to the Government the propriety of reporting Progress as early as possible.

said, it had been evident from the first meeting of the House that evening that this Bill was very likely to be reached. The first 16 clauses of the measure went through Committee last year, and he thought there could be no objection to their now being passed.

inquired how many clauses the right hon. Gentleman proposed to pass that evening?

said, that if the hon. Member had any objection, he could wait until the clause to which they applied came under discussion.

said, he had to move, in page 2, line 31, after "shall," to insert "annually." His object in doing so was simplythis—he thought that the plan proposed by the Bill for having a valuation of property in each county and borough made quinquennially, and then having a supplementary list annually, would in practice be wholly illusory, and would not secure that uniform valuation of property which it was the object of this Bill to establish. Although it might not appear so to hon. Members who had only been accustomed to the system in use in England at the present time, and who were without experience of the valuation system in Scotland, yet it was clear, from the results obtained in Scotland, that the valuation could not be uniform unless it was annual. Like many other hon. Members, he had been under the impression that this Bill would not come on that night, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having said that it would not be taken at an unreasonable hour. He would ask whether it was not then an unreasonable hour?

said, that he had stated it would be taken at a reasonable time.

was sure that if the subject of discussion had been one that the right hon. Gentleman felt strongly about, as many hon. Members did, he would not have considered that a reasonable hour to commence the discussion. It was an unreasonable thing, in his opinion, to commence a discussion at that time upon an Amendment which involved an important principle. His Amendment was to the effect that an annual valuation was necessary, and he should give figures to show that, in the county with which he was connected, during the 12 years preceding the introduction of the present annual system of valuation, the rental of that county had only increased by £ 11,000; but that, in the very first year after the Valuation Act came into operation in Scotland, the rental increased £34,000. There was no use in a system of valuation which practically made a valuation take place only once in 10 years. As evidence of the necessity of an annual valuation, he would adduce the case of Glasgow. There were 2,000 new houses erected there in the course of the year, and during the same period there were upwards of 30,000 changes of occupiers. Of what use, then, would a revised valuation list once in five years be? Unfortunately, he had not the figures with him relating to the county with which he was best acquainted, for he did not think that the Bill would come on that evening. From them he could have submitted to the Committee sufficient evidence to prove that unless a valuation was annual, uniformity and accuracy could never be secured. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition was that a valuation should only take place once every five years. He thought that system would be wholly useless to secure a uniform valuation. As he had already mentioned to the Committee, in the county to which he had referred the rental increased only by £11,000 during the 12 years preceding the operation of the Valuation Act in Scotland. But during the next 12 years, it increased by £100,000, and after 25 years' experience, by at least another £100,000. It would be seen that this great increase did not arise by reason of new buildings having been erected. The figures which he had prepared on this subject, but which he had not then with him, showed what part of the increase was due to an improved rental derived from house property, and what part of the increase was due to increase in rent by the improvement of land. Speaking entirely from recollection, he thought he was correct in saying that not one-third of the increase in the county arose from the improvement in the rental of house property; and if that were the case in the county to which he referred, there was not a county in England in which a similar process was not going on. If the right hon. Gentleman would do him the favour to look at the evidence which he had placed before him, he would find that the facts were as he had stated, although no impression seemed to have been produced upon the right hon. Gentleman by their consideration. He did not see how it was possible to have a uniform and ac- curate system of valuation, if the lists were only revised at the periods provided by the Bill. He did not think that an annual system of valuation would add greatly to the expense if once established. He therefore begged to move that the word "annually" be inserted in the clause.

could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had fully considered the statement of increased values, and entirely admitted the accuracy of the facts and figures to which he alluded. But something must be allowed for the difference between the system in this country and that in Scotland. They were adopting a new system in England, and there seemed no reason for an annual valuation, as a valuation once in five years was found to answer very well in the Metropolis. He had reasons for believing that a valuation every year would be considered a troublesome burden in England; and he could not, therefore, consistently with his duty, recommend the Committee to adopt it. The hon. Gentleman had said that the system worked very well in Scotland. That might be, although it was true there were objections to it even there; but still he did not think it right that it should be introduced into England. In the Metropolis, they had found the proposed system of valuation to work exceedingly well. Nothing could be more satisfactory than its working, and he did not think it left anything to be desired. If that were the case, therefore, there was no reason why the system should not be found to work equally well in the rest of the country. He would also draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact, that they provided by the Bill for an annual revision of the list, and they had a supplementary valuation. Under these circumstances, he was satisfied that the scheme proposed by the Bill would work well, and do substantial justice. He could therefore see no reason for altering it. It had not come to his knowledge that an annual valuation was desired in any part of England; and if there had been a necessity for such a thing, some hon. Member from England would probably have brought forward the matter.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman very truly said there had been no desire expressed in England for an annual system of valuation. If, however, his arguments were sufficient to show that no other system valuation could secure a uniform and equitable mode of valuation, he should have thought it desirable that the people of England should be made familiar with the system. It was also said that the increase in the Metropolis had been quite as great as could be reasonably expected. That statement seemed to assume that the increase had been commensurate with the improvement of the property. It did not follow that a valuation so conducted was either uniform, or kept pace with the increase in the value of property. The matter seemed to him to be of so great importance that he should divide upon the Amendment. He did not think that the clause should be allowed to stand as it was, and that the period provided by the Bill for making valuations was not a proper one.

said, there were great objections in that House to copying any good thing from Scotland. He had no doubt that the annual system of valuation was the best, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to adopt it, for the result of the system would certainly be to put the finances of the country in a much better condition. He was sure that the system which had been found to work so well in Scotland would work equally well in England, and the result arrived at would be that there would be uniformity of valuation between Scotland and England. As the matter stood, it was unfair to Scotland to have an annual valuation, while it did not take place in England, for, by means of it, she bore an unfair share in the taxation of the Empire. He believed that the Amendment of his hon. Friend ought to be adopted.

thought the difficulty into which the Committee had been put by this Bill coming on unexpectedly was quite apparent. It was only necessary to look at both sides of the House, to show that Members who took great interest in these matters did not expect the Bill to come on that evening, and were not in their places. The hon. Member spoke with a great deal of authority as to the practice in Scotland; but the Committee ought to know what was the opinion of hon. Members from England as to the de- sirability of an annual system of valuation. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read),and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), would certainly have been present if they had had the slightest expectation that the Bill would be taken. He was sure that the Committee would have been glad to have known their opinions on the subject. If the Government persisted in going on with the Bill at that hour, he thought they should be satisfied with its having got into Committee, and look upon it as an unexpected piece of good fortune that the hon. Member for South Norfolk did not move his Amendment. He should suggest that the Government should postpone the consideration of the Bill until it could be properly discussed.

denied that the Bill had been taken unexpectedly. So far as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was concerned, he had already arranged with him what should be done as regarded his Amendment, and it had been agreed that the Amendment should be brought on at another stage. With regard to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), he had had every opportunity of knowing that the Bill might be taken that evening. He could not consent to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), and he thought the Committee would not consent to have such an annual valuation as he proposed. If the hon. Member were determined to raise the question which he had next upon the Paper, he was willing that the Bill should be postponed till another time. All he wanted to do then was to pass the clauses which had gone through Committee last year. With respect to the observation of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he could only say that he had no wish to press the matter, or to hurry discussion in the absence of hon. Members.

said, that one good reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with that night was that it was not in the hands of hon. Members. As it was not expected to come on copies had not been furnished them, and they could not be procured. He thought, however, that the proposal of the Government was reasonable— namely, to take only on that occasion the clauses which were agreed to last year.

said, that the suggestions of hon. Members from Scotland, as well as from other parts of the United Kingdom, were always listened to with great attention in the discussion of English affairs. Still they would not know so well as English Members what measures would be precisely suited to this country. With regard to the question of an annual valuation, he might, from his personal knowledge, say that he was sure that in the populous districts of England an annual valuation would be found intolerable.

observed, that the arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire alone; but the question raised by him affected not only other hon. Members, but the whole country, and they were entitled to be considered before his proposal was withdrawn.

pointed out that the Question under consideration was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk.

said, that he was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Bradford thought the Government had had sufficient good fortune in bringing the Bill into Committee. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman did not wish the Government to have any good fortune at all. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that it was not reasonable to bring the Bill on at this hour. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated was that the Bill should not be taken at an unreasonable hour. He would challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show that either he or his Government would have considered half-past 11 an unreasonable hour to enter upon the discussion of such a measure as this. It must be admitted that this was a most important question, and no doubt many hon. Members had been taken by surprise by reason of its now coming on; but the House of Commons was itself a House of surprises, and it could not be told one day from another what would come on, and if hon. Members who took a particular interest in a Bill were not present when it came on, surely it was most unjust to blame the Government for their absence.

observed, that as the hon. Gentleman opposite had appealed to him, he would state his opinion that this was not a reasonable time for bringing on the Bill. A very important question was involved, and by bringing on the matter at that hour the injury was felt, perhaps, more upon the Government than upon the Opposition side of the House. A great many Members on the Government side of the House took an interest in the matter, and were not there because they did not understand that the Bill would be reached. He ventured again to urge upon the Government to be satisfied with passing the Bill into Committee, without pressing it on in the absence of the hon. Members for South Norfolk and South Leicestershire, and of many other hon. Members who took a great interest in the question. He might add that he did not make these remarks out of any wish to obstruct the action of the Government.

repeated that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, whose Amendment related to Clause 8, was willing to take the discussion upon it at another time. With reference to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, if he wished to raise any discussion upon the matter, he should be afforded facilities for so doing.

said, that after the expression of opinion from his right hon. Friend, he did not feel disposed to divide the Committee upon the Amendment. At first, he thought that it was so important a question that he should not have felt satisfied without taking the opinion of the Committee upon it; but after the desire expressed by English Members to adopt anything good from the law of Scotland, he did not feel disposed to press the matter upon them at this time. For many years past it had been the endeavour of Englishmen to bring the law of England into harmony with that of Scotland, and this was one point upon which he had been desirous that the law of England should be assimilated as nearly as possible to that of Scotland. At the same time, he had no desire to ignore the sentiments of the people of England, and he would now ask leave to withdraw the Motion he had made. He would take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to report Progress, as the next Amendment standing in his name was one upon which considerable discussion would ensue.

remarked, that it was an injustice to Scotland that there should be an annual system of valuation there and not in England. A large portion of the revenue raised under the valuation roll was applied for Imperial purposes. It was therefore clear that, considering the yearly increase on heritages in England was very great, and if the valuation was only made every five years, Scotland would suffer injustice by throwing into the Imperial purse the increase every year, while England valued only once in five years.

said, he would like to point out what he considered to be a great defect in this Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill said that

"Any person who shall be the owner, or lessee, or in possession or occupation of any open or enclosed land or space for which a licence for horse-racing is required under this Act, and upon which any horse-race shall be held, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

It was absurd, in his opinion, to say that the owner, or any person in possession or occupation, should be treated in this way.

The Question before the House is that the Bill shall be considered, and the hon. Member is out of Order in discussing at this stage a clause in the Bill. I understand the hon. Member to be objecting to a particular clause.

said, that he objected to a Bill by which it was provided that the owner, or occupier, or person in possession of any land within the limits of the Bill, upon which any horse-racing took place, was guilty of a misdemeanor. That was, even if the horse-racing were without the cognizance of such a person, yet he was made liable to be fined and treated as a misdemeanant. It appeared to him to be rather a curious state of things, that in any place near the Metropolis the owner of a piece of land upon which a horse-race should take place, without his cognizance, was to be liable to be fined as for a misdemeanor. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would consider this matter?

rose to Order. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussing a clause of the Bill after the Speaker had ruled that he was not in Order.

I understood the hon. Member to be stating his reason why the Bill should not be now considered; but the discussion of a particular clause is certainly out of Order.

explained that he was stating his reasons why the Bill should not be considered. Supposing a prizefight took place upon a piece of land, the owner of which knew nothing whatever about it, it would be very hard that the owner or lessee of that land should be fined and punished in the matter. In his opinion, the Bill would act very hardly upon the owners of land near the Metropolis, and, at any moment, persons might come upon land, and, without the knowledge of its owner, commit offences against this Bill for which the owner would be liable. He would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the provisions of the Bill, and whether he would sanction such a state of things as, unquestionably, it would give rise to?

said, that under the ruling of the Speaker, with which he entirely agreed, he could not discuss any particular clause of the Bill. He might say, however, that it seemed to him that the proper course for the hon. Member to take, if he objected to the Bill, was to put down an Amendment at the proper time, and thus raise the question.

said, that he proposed the Bill should be read a third time that evening.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that no other Bills were to be taken that day.

said, it was quite understood that what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant was that no other Government Bills were to be taken. But he would like to ask Mr. Speaker if the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bore the meaning which the hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary attached to it?

understood his right hon. Friend to be speaking generally, and he appealed to hon. Members present as to whether it was not a general understanding that no other Business should take place that night?

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the third reading being taken at that time?

said, he could not assent to that course.

What does the hon. Member propose to do?

To take the third reading now.

On occasions of urgency two stages of a Bill are sometimes taken at the same Sitting; but, except in such cases, it is not usual to take two stages of a Bill at the same time.