said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman private Notice —namely, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. Messel, a gentleman well known in London and. Woolwich, where he had resided many years, was arrested on a totally futile and absurd charge of pocket-picking, and, although he gave a reference to a gentleman of high position, was shut up in a police cell with several persons of the lowest character, some of whom were intoxicated; and, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention has been called to the case, whether it does not call for an immediate and searching inquiry, with the view of preventing the infliction of similar indignities upon innocent persons in future?

, in reply, said, he had no knowledge of the facts of the case; but he would cause inquiry to be made into it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since eighteen keepers of publichouses and beershops in Oxford have been scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices at the Election of May 1880, it is possible for the Home Office to exert any influence which would tend to prevent a renewal of their licences at the approaching licensing sessions?

, in reply, said, he had never any great influence with the keepers of public-houses and beer-shops in Oxford, and what little influence he had had with them he had lost. With regard to his influence with magistrates, he had no official authority over them in this case. He expressed his personal opinion every day upon the subject; and as regarded the view of the Government on this matter, he thought his hon. Friend might obtain information by looking at the clauses of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on Bribery and Corrupt Practices at Elections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any fuller information can be given as to the contemplated rearrangement of Scotch Business; and, how it will affect the position of the Lord Advocate?

Sir, I am glad my hon. and learned Friend has asked this Question, which was placed on the Paper the other day, but not put, by another hon. Member (Mr. Dick-Peddie), because there seems to have been some misapprehension on the subject, which it is desirable to remove. I desire to state that the relations of the Lord Advocate with the Political Departments of the Government, through the Secretary of State, remain what they have always been. The Secretary of State is, as he always has been, responsible for the administration of Scotch affairs; and, in the discharge of that function, he necessarily requires the assistance of officials well versed in the Business of that part of the United Kingdom. That Business involves a variety of details, partly consisting of legal questions and partly of administrative matters, with which members of the Bar have no special acquaintance, such as county and borough business, highways, Poor Law, local taxation, asylums, fisheries, education, prisons, mines, factories, and many other subjects. It was found necessary to give the Secretary of State some further assistance in dealing with matters of this description by the appointment, in the Home Office, of someone who could have leisure to devote himself particularly to this class of Business. It is not to be considered that, in providing this additional aid for the Secretary of State, any political change has been made in the functions or authority belonging to the Office of Lord Advocate. I may mention to my hon. and learned Friend that the late Government were so strongly impressed with this view of the matter that, in 1878, they introduced a Bill of which the Preamble stated that it was necessary to make some additional provision for the conduct of Scotch Business, and by which it was proposed to create an additional Secretary of State. That Bill had on the back of it the names of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Advocate of the late Government (Lord Watson); and, therefore, I think that will show that the then Lord Advocate was not of opinion that such an arrangement would be derogatory to his Office. And I have no reason to believe that either the present or the last Lord Advocate have seen anything detrimental to the dignity of this high Office in the arrangements which have been made. The Lord Advocate will continue, I need not say, as he has always done, to take a principal part in the conduct of Scotch Business in the House of Commons.

The Secretary of State has entirely failed to give us information as to the channel of communication on Scotch Business. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and Order!"] I am entitled to ask a Question. What I would say is this—hitherto we have applied to the Lord Advocate in all cases when we had Business to transact. Are we in future to apply to the Secretary of State direct, or are we still to use the channel of the Lord Advocate in obtaining information or transacting Business? I think it is not at all creditable to the present Government to allow Scotch Business to be handed over as it has been.

I need not state that when I have very able assistants who can transact Business better than myself I am always glad that they should do it; and the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, having seats in this House, will always have a principal share in the conduct of Scotch Business, as they always have had. I only hope that they may be able to render me assistance in English Business also, of which I shall stand very much in need.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can inform the House what is the proposed reduction in the Royal Marines, and whether it will be by discharge or by discontinuance of recruiting; and, if he can further state what benefits the Officers of the Royal Marines are to receive by the proposed reduction?

, in reply, said, that Papers would very shortly be de- livered to Members stating the benefits which, not only all officers of the Royal Marines, but the non-commissioned officers and the men would obtain by the now proposals which the Admiralty had made. The exact course of these proposals it was impossible at present to ascertain, and the exact effect on the rank and file of the corps; but the proposed reduction would certainly not be made by what he might call the discharge, but by the retardation of recruiting. It would be brought about by raising the standard.

said, it was not intended to extend to captains of the Royal Marines who had already retired the privilege of returning to the Service under any circumstances. As to the retirement for age being limited to the rank of major, the circumstances and conditions of Marine service had enabled the Admiralty to fix no age for compulsory retirement of captains, and the Admiralty were gratified at being able to spare captains the anxiety of not being able to say whether or not they might be compulsorily retired as they approached the age of 40 or 42. There would be no compulsory retirement of majors until the age of 48.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has seen an announcement in the "National Reformer," to the effect that Science Schools, in connection with the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, are held at the Hall of Science, Old Street; that the next Winter Session of such Schools will begin in October 1881, and will end in May 1882; that they will include courses of instruction by Mrs. Besant, the Miss Brad-laughs, and Mr. E. B. Aveling; whether this is the same Mrs. Besant who was refused the custody of her own children by the Master of the Rolls; and, whether the instructions in the Schools by these teachers will receive the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?

Sir, this is practically the same Question as one asked by the hon. Gentleman yesterday, when I hoped I had given him a very full answer. I then stated that Dr. Aveling had taught science classes at the Hall of Science since 1879, and that he had re- ceived some assistance in teaching from Mrs. Besant and Miss H. Bradlaugh, but that it was gratuitously given, the only recognized teacher being Dr. Ave-ling. I stated to the House yesterday that the persons attending these classes were in the main skilled artizans. I find only one under 15 years of age. They range for the most part from 20 to 40. I never see The National Reformer, and consequently I have not seen the announcement in question; but I take it for granted that such an announcement has been made to the public, although it has not yet been communicated to the officials at South Kensington. Mrs. Besant is in no way recognized by the South Kensington Department. I may, perhaps, state the rules under which grants are made; and if the hon. Member had waited until he had heard them he might not have given the Notice he gave earlier in the Sitting. In order that a Science School may be recognized by the Science and Art Department and receive grants, it must be under a responsible Committee, approved by the Department. The teacher or teachers must be qualified according to certain conditions, which are detailed in the Science Directory. Grants, in the shape of payments on the results of examination, prizes, &c, are then made on account of the instruction of students of the industrial classes, who have received a certain minimum number of lessons at least. If the classes referred to come within these rules they will be recognized, and the grants duly made. The Committee of the Science Classes held in the Hall of Science, Old Street, E.C., consists of the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam, clergyman of the Church of England, Mr. Alsager Hay Hill, Mr. H. W. Lloyd Tanner, M.A., Mr. C. R. Drysdale (physician), Mr. W. Reynolds, Mr. R. O. Smith, Mr. G. Wells, Mr. E. G. Wells, Mr. W. J. Ramsay, &c. I presume that the hon. Member's objection to the teaching is that it might be of a secular tone. I do not know that it is so; but for all I know the teachers and the scholars also may be all secularists; but, even if it was so, that is no reason why South Kensington should refuse grants for the teaching of science. Her Majesty's Inspector reports that the instruction is exceedingly well given, that the classes are conducted with the greatest propriety, that the Committee is highly respectable, and the conditions on which the grants were made by the late Government have been fulfilled.

said, that, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, he should feel himself under the necessity of saying a few words on the subject; and to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"]

said, he must point out to the hon. Member that, having given Notice of a Motion on the subject, he was not in Order in bringing it forward now.

asked, as a point of Order, whether it was not competent for him, in replying to and commenting upon certain statements which had been officially made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) in answer to his Question, to make a Motion?

said, that the hon. Member was not entitled to reply to an answer given to a Question.

repeated his wish to discuss the subject.

again reminded the hon. Member that he had given Notice to bring the subject under the consideration of the House.

Not in reference to this particular case. ["Order!"] He wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that Dr. Aveling was a recognized teacher of the Science and Art Department.

said, that the hon. Member was clearly out of Order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to a report which appeared in the "Standard," to the effect that the Durham Bench of Magistrates had sentenced two boys, aged respectively 12 and 10 years, one to a month and the other to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for stealing three pennyworth of apples; and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will cause inquiry to be made into the case, and then, having ordered a good whipping to be administered to these boys, discharge them from custody, thereby preventing encouragement being given to a system of recruiting for the criminal classes?

Sir, I have seen the report in The Standard to which the hon. Member refers; but as no names were given, it is, of course, difficult for me to ascertain the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman wishes to call my attention; but he may rest satisfied on the subject, because every case of committal of a child less than 14 years of age comes immediately under my personal notice, and I cause inquiry to be made when I think it desirable to do so. When facts such as those mentioned by the hon. Member are communicated to me I send them to the magistrate who has tried the case, and ask him for an explanation. Therefore, if the facts have not been reported to me as yet, the hon. Member may feel assured that they will be brought under my notice.

But, in the meantime, will these boys remain in prison?

The practice I observe is this. The Governor of every prison is directed to report to me immediately after every case of committal of a child under 14 years of age; usually a statement of the facts reaches me as soon as possible, and thereupon, if the matter appears to me to require investigation, I forward the statement to the magistrate, accompanied with a request for an explanation. I am happy to say that such cases are not numerous now. When I have received the explanation of the magistrate I act accordingly. I could not release the children in question without first having before me the exact facts to justify me taking that step. In any case, there might be some difficulty in whipping these children on account of their age.

asked, Whether the Report of Mr. Snagge in regard to the traffic in English girls for immoral purposes on the Continent has been received; and, whether it will be laid on ' the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, that the Report in question was laid before the Committee of the 'House of Lords which conducted the inquiry into this subject; and he understood that it would form part of their proceedings, and would be communicated to the House.

I believe it will be for the convenience of the House, in view of what may remain to be done after the Business of the day, that the House should meet at 12 o'clock tomorrow, therefore I believe it will be quite in conformity with usage at this period of the Session that I should make a Motion that this House at its rising do adjourn till 12 o'clock to-morrow. I ought to mention that if the Business of the House to-morrow lasts till 4, or near 4 o'clock, there will be an intermission of the Sitting from 4 till 6; but there is very little likelihood that there will be Business to last till 4 o'clock. Should there be so, however, it will be desirable that the Standing Order requiring the interruption of the Sitting from 4 to 6 o'clock should be suspended.

I do not want to oppose the Motion; but I wish to ask the Government whether or not they will take effectual means to keep a House upon the Bill that is under my charge —the Whiteboy Acts Repeal Bill—or, at all events, that they will take no means to get rid of a House in order to get rid of the Bill?

Most certainly we shall take no means to prevent discussion by getting rid of the House.

complained that new offices in the many Law Courts were constantly being created and old ones abolished, which involved a very heavy charge upon the country for pensions, for the abolished officers and salaries for the new officers. He thought it was a perfect scandal that in England gentlemen, perfectly able and qualified to do the State good service, should be sent adrift in consequence of the abolition of their offices, and granted pensions and compensation allowances, instead of being retained in employment of some kind or other. He would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it was not possible to take steps in certain cases in which it was proposed to abolish offices for preventing pensions being paid to gentlemen who were well qualified by age and ability to continue in the employment of the State?

said, he would gladly answer the question of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour), if he could; but he did not know what the cases were to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred. He was totally ignorant of any case to which the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend would apply.

said, he was glad to hear that his hon. and learned Friend was ignorant of the cases to which he referred; but it was, nevertheless, the fact that certain offices had recently been created, and that it was now proposed to abolish them or old offices, and provide the officers whose services were dispensed with with pensions.

said, he proposed to move, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the word "any," and substitute the word "no;" secondly, to add, after "Master of the Rolls," in line 28, "or any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal; "and lastly, in page 2, line 1, after "1873," to strike out—

"In the same manner in all respects as he would have been under the last-mentioned Act, or any Acts or Act amending the same, if he had continued to be a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice."

He had mentioned the three Amendments together, because they were all dependent upon each other, and the effect of them was to provide that in future no Master of the Rolls nor any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal should be under an obligation to go Circuit and act as a Commissioner under Commissions of Assize or other Commissions authorized to be issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873. The Court of Appeal was composed of Judges of the very highest calibre, who would have higher salaries than the ordinary Puisne Judges, and it was most desirable that they should not be required to go Circuit. One reason was that upon Circuit they were required to preside at criminal trials; and, however much fun they might make of the fusion of Law and Equity, it was sometimes a ghastly spectacle to see a Chancery Judge displaying his entire ignorance of the Criminal Law in the course of the trial of a man on a charge of murder. He would not mention names; but he recollected a criminal trial in which the Judge who presided was an Equity Judge upon his first Circuit, in which the proceedings were positively revolting, owing to the ignorance displayed by the learned Judge, who was, nevertheless, trying a man for his life. Fortunately, the Judge had the able assistance of a clerk who was able, to some extent, to put him right. He had often known a Judge ask a brother Queen's Counsel to assist him in disposing of a few cases, and if the Counsel demurred on the ground of his want of experience, he would say at one—"Oh, you can have Avery." The natural retort, however, was—"What will your Lordship do without him?" It was very difficult to pick up experience merely by going Circuit. The present system was thoroughly unjust, as far as the adminis- tration of the Criminal Law was concerned, and it was inefficient as far as the Equity Law was concerned. His own opinion was that it was a retrograde step to confound together two different and distinct branches of legal training, instead of keeping men to the functions which they were well fitted to perform. Let the Chancery man do Chancery work, and let the Common Law man do Common Law work. Another reason why the exemption he proposed should be made was that it was the old and experienced Judges who constituted the Court of Appeal, and it was irksome and troublesome to the senior Judges to be required to go Circuit. He did not, therefore, see why they should inflict upon the Master of the Rolls and the Judges of the Court of Appeal—men generally of advanced age—the painful duty of attending on Circuit. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would give him all the support he could in the proposition he was making. The effect of adopting the three Amendments he proposed would be to make the clause read thus—

"Provided also, That no Master of the Rolls, or any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal to be hereafter appointed, shall he under an obligation to go Circuits, and to act as a Commissioner under Commissions of Assize or other Commissions authorised to he issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873."

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would do mischief rather than good. He understood that the effect of adopting it would be to prevent the Lords Justices of Appeal from going Circuit. Now, the Lords Justices, as a rule, were better men than the Puisne Judges, and the effect of the proposal to prevent them from going Circuit would be to deprive the Circuits of those Judges who were fittest to do the work. He therefore hoped the Committee would refuse to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). He felt bound to say, in regard to the Equity Judges, that there were no Judges who did the gene- ral work of a Circuit better; and, no matter how they had obtained their legal training, he was satisfied there were no Judges on the Bench who could discharge the work on Circuit better than one or two of the Equity men. He therefore trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not feel called upon to pay any attention to the Amendment.

said, he was sorry that he was unable to accept the Amendment. There were, however, several reasons why he was unable to do so. In the first place, the judicial strength was not sufficient to enable them to exempt the Judges of the Court of Appeal from the duty of going Circuit. If the House considered it right to agree to the arrangements proposed in the Bill, no doubt their tendency would be to work in the direction indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but he doubted whether it would be wise to give way to the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, even if that opportunity were afforded to them. It was very desirable that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should have experience of Circuit work. There were eases continually brought before them in which they had to review the decisions in Nisi Prius cases which occurred on Circuit; and it would be a matter to be much regretted if they were deprived of the opportunity of gaining the experience which they would obtain from going Circuit. As to the Judges of the Court of Appeal being unfit to try criminal cases, he entirely dissented from the hon. and learned Member, whose attack he thought was both groundless and unseemly. He could mention more than one Equity Judge who had been a very great success on Circuit; but, apart from that fact, if the contention of his hon. and learned Friend wore correct, he ought to carry the Amendment much further, and prohibit any member of the Equity Bar from going Circuit. Mr. Justice Kay, Mr. Justice Lindley, and others, ought not to be allowed to go Circuit at all; and it certainly could not be said that they were incompetent to discharge the duties of Judges of Assize. He trusted that the Committee would not accept the Amendment which had been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he should certainly support the Amend- ment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and for this reason—he felt that the objection made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in regard to the experience of the Judges of the Court of Appeal was not well founded. In point of fact, the reason why a Judge was elevated to the position of a Judge of the Court of Appeal was because the public had confidence in his experience. As a rule, they possessed great knowledge both of civil and criminal business; and he could not think that with their already acquired experience at the Bar and very frequently on the Bench, the practice of requiring them to transact Nisi Prius business on Circuit would strengthen their mental qualification for the disposal of business in the Court of Appeal. He knew that some dissatisfaction was felt by the Judges of the Court of Appeal, owing to the necessity of their going Circuit; they considered that they had quite enough to do in going through all the heavy list of appeals that came before them. They asserted that, almost before it was possible to get half through the business they had to transact in London, they were hurried away to a distant part of the country, like judicial bagmen, to do the legal business of the country, which other Judges would be able to do equally well. But he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was of opinion that all the difficulty arose from the exercise of a miserable and petty economy on the part of the country in regard to the strength of the Judicial Bench. He had very little doubt that the work had outgrown the capability of the Judges to overtake it. Several of the Judges had told him that the work they had to do was far more than they ought to be called upon to undertake. They had not only to sit constantly in Court, but they had to work up numerous cases and study the law for the purpose of giving important judgments which now-a-days every Judge was expected to give at great length. Notwithstanding the fact that there might be three or four Judges sitting, it was the custom for all of them to give elaborate judgments. The presiding Judge generally stated his opinion at great length, and the other Judges followed him as a matter of course, and the public expected that each Judge should give the reasons for his judgment; and, of course, it must be so, wherever there was a difference of opinion. But, at the same time, he thought the proper way of meeting the difficulty was not by shuffling one Judge from one Court to the other, which was done by the present Bill, but by providing the efficient and numerous staff of Judges which the j country really required. They had heard only yesterday from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that great dissatisfaction was felt in the Northern counties, and especially in the commercial centres, at the want of a Judge at their own doors. What he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would say was, let them pass this Bill if they liked, but let it be brought under the consideration of the Government whether the real way of meeting the difficulty was not to give these great commercial centres a sufficient number of Judges to provide for their own immediate wants without overburdening the Judges of the Court of Appeal by requiring them to go Circuit? It that were done, all the Judges of the Court of Judicature would be able to discharge the business satisfactorily which they were called upon to undertake. He strongly felt the objections which had been urged against requiring the Master of the Rolls and the Judges of the Court of Appeal to go Circuit; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. He felt that the objections which had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were unsound; and, so far as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport was concerned, if his hon. and learned Friend had not proposed it, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) certainly should have done so.

said, he was very much obliged to his hon. Friend the learned Attorney General for the remarks he had made, because in the beginning of his speech he practically admitted every point which he (Mr. Warton) had raised, and it was only with regard to the smallness of the staff of Judges that he was induced to oppose it. He would remind his hon. and learned Friend that the way to remedy this evil was to increase the staff.

said, he should support Her Majesty's Government in the opposition they gave to the Amendment. He would have every member of the Court of Appeal not only go Circuit, but sit to administer justice in his turn both in the Courts at Westminster and in London. He believed that if that were done, the appeals would be diminished one-half. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport.

said, he had an Amendment to move to the clause; but he would not dwell upon it, as it might not be admissible. The Amendment was, in page 2, line 5, after the word "Justice," at the end of the Clause, to add the following words: —

"And the salaries of the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal shall, from and after the passing of this Act, he the same in amount as the salary of the present or any future Master of the Rolls."

It is not competent for the hon. Member to move this Amendment as it would impose a burden upon the people.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "Court," to the end of the clause, and insert—

"The decision of the Court of Appeal on any question arising under the Acts relating to divorce and matrimonial causes or to the declaration of legitimacy shall be final, except where the decision either is upon the grant or refusal of a decree on a petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or is upon a question of law on which the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal; and save as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords under the said Acts.

"Subject to any order made by the House of Lords, in accordance with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, every appeal to the House of Lords against any such decision shall be brought within one month after the decision appealed against is pronounced by the Court of Appeal if the House of Lords is then sitting, or, if not, within fourteen days after the House of Lords next sits.

"This section, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the said Acts."

He would state very shortly the object of the Amendment. It related to appeals from the decision of the President of the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, that they should no longer be to the "full Court," but to the Court of Appeal as it now existed. Under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1878 appeals were given from the President of the Court called the full Court, which consisted of the Court in which the case was tried, and two other Judges. It was thought that it would be prejudicial to give the appeal from the full Court to the Court of Appeal as at present constituted, and, therefore, the appeal from the full Court went to the House of Lords. This was a very important question, because, under the Procedure Act, in all other matters the appeal went from the President to the Court of Appeal as now constituted. The object of the Amendment which he now proposed was to do away altogether with the full Court as a Court of Appeal, and to take the Court of Appeal as now constituted and make it the Appellate Court for all appeals. From this Court no appeal to the House of Lords would be made, except when the decision was upon the grant or refusal of a decree on petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or upon a question of law upon which the Appeal Court should give leave to appeal. It was further provided that every appeal to the House of Lords should be brought within one month of the decision of the Court of Appeal if the House of Lords was sitting, or, if not, within 14 days after the House of Lords should next sit. The matter was, in reality, a very small one. If an order were made by the President, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal, it was thought that the decision should be final, without a further appeal to the House of Lords. This view was carried out in the Amendment which he now asked the Committee to assent to, and which was rather more full now than when the Bill left the House of Lords. the Amendment had received the approval of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), who had had great experience, and also of the learned Judge who presided over the Court, and expressed the views which they wished to carry out. The Amendment also carried into effect the view which the Government entertained.

said, he proposed to move the omission of this clause, which would dispose of the Proviso which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had given Notice of his intention to move, prohibiting the appointment of any place not within the limits of the Principality of "Wales, for the holding of Assizes for any county situate within Wales.

asked for an explanation of the clause. Was it intended that the Lords Justices and the Master of the Rolls, or any of the Equity Judges, should or should not constitute part of the Court of Appeal?

was understood to say that the clause made no change in the law as it now existed.

said, he did not think he had made himself clearly understood. If the five Judges were not agreed, the practice was for the case to be heard by all the Judges, including the Lords Justices and also the Master of the Rolls. He wished to know whether the present clause made any change in that respect?

said, the circumstance mentioned by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Arthur Elliot) arose under the old law, which had the effect of substituting a shorter mode of appeal by the creation of the "Court of Crown Cases Reserved." In all cases previously, the appeals had gone before all the Common Law Judges, at first 12 in number, but afterwards increased This practice was abolished; and it was enacted that the appeals should go, in the first instance, before five Judges, and in case of difference among them, then to the full number; and he apprehended that procedure remained the same now.

said, he understood that the Government had given a promise to deal in the course of the Session with the question of patronage. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had made promises to that effect. There was enormous patronage vested, as he thought most improperly, in the hands of the Lord Chief Justices of England by the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. He wished to have a distinct pledge from the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) that if this clause were struck out, the Government would deal with the question of patronage next Session.

thought that as a pledge had already been given by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, it was not necessary that it should be repeated a third time by him (the Attorney General).

said, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary only pledged themselves as to the present Session, and said nothing about next Session.

said, it was not the fault of the Government that their pledge had not been redeemed, and that they were not allowed to proceed with the Bill. So far as he knew the promise the Government had made would be carried out in the course of another Session.

moved, in line 22, at the end of the clause, insert as a separate paragraph the following words:—

"A district registrar shall not, either by himself or his partner, be directly or indirectly engaged as solicitor or agent for a party to any proceeding whatsoever in the district registry of which he is registrar."

He explained that these words appeared in the original County Court Act, and the object was to prevent the Registrars from practising in the Courts.

said, that a short time ago, when he raised a question with regard to the granting of pensions and compensation allowances for abolished offices in the Law Courts, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said he was ignorant of any cases to which his (Sir George Balfour's) remarks would refer, and that he was unable to give any explanation, because his attention had not been drawn to them. As this clause created some new appointments, he had come down now armed with information on the subject, and he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Estimates, which were full of charges for pensions and compensation allowances to legal officers, and particularly for compensation for the abolition of offices in the Law Courts. He found that in the Court of Chancery one of the Judges, who had only held office for a very short period, had quitted office and received compensation allowances of £750 a-year, and he could, if not invidious, point to names of parties whose services had been short but their pensions large. The custom was to appoint certain individuals to discharge a particular duty or hold a particular office, and then very soon afterwards to make a number of changes which involved the appointment of new officers and entitled the old ones who were got rid of to pensions. That course had been very frequently pursued in regard to all the Law Courts, especially in the Bankruptcy Court; and he could assure the Committee that the Estimates now in his hand showed that the operation was a very expensive one. In point of fact, whenever a change took place in connection with any of the Law Courts, persons would be found coming forward to claim compensation allowances, merely because the old name of the office to which they were appointed had been altered. The sum paid in the Chancery Division at that moment for compensation allowances amounted to £51,000 a-year, and he would respectfully call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the Estimates for the present year, in which all these claims were elaborately set out. In connection with the Court of Bankruptcy the expenses for compensation were very large indeed, amounting to about £8,652 a-year. His hon. and learned Friend would therefore see that the statement which he (Sir George Balfour) had made was perfectly correct; and although he was not prepared to have it challenged at the time, yet since it had been challenged he had gone through the Estimates, and he found that the allowances paid in that way far exceeded anything he had imagined. He would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to endeavour in future to prevent charges of this kind from falling upon the public in consequence of the passing of Acts of Parliament which, by abolishing existing offices, gave a large number of men a claim to compensation, many of them being quite young enough, and possessing sufficient ability, to be retained in the new offices without any necessity for abolishing them at all.

said, he would not dispute the accuracy of the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour); but the present clause applied to a very different set of offices indeed. It only applied to the appointment of persons to keep order in the Courts, such as ushers and under-ushers, and also to the appointment of persons charged with the care and cleaning of the Courts of Justice —he presumed a certain number of old ladies. Therefore, the observations of the hon. and gallant Member had no bearing on this particular section. He should like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General what it was that was likely to come under the 3rd sub-section of this clause—namely, "Any other matters necessary or incidental to the use or management of the Royal Courts of Justice?" They certainly appeared to him to be rather large words.

asked, whether these appointments had hitherto been in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or of the Judges of the different Courts in which the appointments were made?

said, the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) generally objected to any matter which he (Sir George Balfour) considered it his duty to bring forward. It so happened that the com- pensation for the abolition of offices was raised in this very clause, because the clause referred to the pensions of parties employed in the Law Courts, so that it was perfectly correct now to discuss the whole question of pensions to the Law Court persons. The words at the end of the clause were—"Any remuneration payable under this section shall be paid out of money voted by Parliament." Perhaps the hon. Member would take the trouble to explain in what other form he (Sir George Balfour) could have brought forward the question of pensions, seeing that this was the only part of the Bill which dealt with the kind of expenditure that might be incurred in consequence of the passing of the Bill? Therefore, the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst were not borne out by the facts of the case.

wished to say in explanation that he had distinctly stated that he did not dispute the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member.

said, the hon. Baronet had declared that the clause applied only to certain minor offices connected with the Courts of Justice.

said, he still adhered to that assertion.

thought the question he had raised on the subject of pensions generally was one of considerable importance, and he hoped to hear from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that the Government were prepared to do something in the matter to prevent officers and others, whose offices might be abolished, from being thrown on the Pension List.

said, he was quite prepared to admit that the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) was one that was deserving of the greatest possible attention. There was no doubt that of late years great alterations had been made in the administration of justice in this country. It had been found necessary to abolish many freehold offices and to make compensation to the holders of them—for instance, in connection with the County Courts and the Provincial Courts of Bankruptcy. It was not possible to send Registrars, and Commis- sioners, and others adrift without making them compensation. All he could say was that he was sure the Treasury used the greatest vigilance in preventing unnecessary pensions being granted, and he was sure that the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend would be an incentive to them to continue to exercise the closest supervision. He had only to thank his hon. and gallant Friend for having called attention to the matter. In regard to the present clause, however, he felt bound to confirm the observation of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that it dealt only with two classes of persons—ushers, who would have to keep order in the Courts of Justice, and persons who would have to attend to the cleaning of the Courts. The offices in question were very subsidiary offices indeed, but it was considered necessary to put them under proper regulation. The present clause referred to no other office whatever. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), he could only say his impression was that the ushers of the Courts were at the present moment appointed by the Chiefs of each Court. As to the words at the end of the clause—"Any other matters necessary or incidental to the use or management of the Royal Courts of Justice," they were mere general words.

said, that in consequence of the reply of his hon. and learned Friend, he would move, in page 8, line 23, to leave out the words, "The Lord Chancellor," and insert the words "The senior Judge of each Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice." Such an Amendment would un-mistakeably restore the patronage to the Chiefs of each Court, in whose hands it had hitherto been, and from whom he did not think it ought to be removed.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. It was one which really affected the question of patronage, and whenever that question was brought on for discussion would be the proper time for raising a minor matter of this kind. It formed a very small portion of a very large subject.

said, that the question was already raised practically by the clause, and the patronage was taken away from the quarter in which it had hitherto been exercised, notwithstanding the understanding that the whole question of patronage was to stand over for consideration in another Session. The effect of passing the clause in the shape in which it now stood would be to transfer the patronage from those who had hitherto exercised it, and hand it over to the Lord Chancellor, and he considered that such a proposition was most unfair.

said, that, as a matter of fact, there was no interference with the mode in which the patronage was at present exercised. He could not help feeling that there was a great deal in what his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had said. The Government, in deference to the general feeling of the House, had postponed the consideration of the question of patronage until another Session, and he thought that the mode of dealing with these particular offices should be treated in the same manner. He understood that the pledge which had been given by the Government would apply to these offices as well as to all others. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would withdraw the Amendment.

said, that, under the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.

said, that, in deference to the views of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he intended to propose that the Solicitors' Act of 1860 and the Solicitors' Act of 1877 should be included in the clause. The clause vested the powers of the Act for consolidating and amending the laws re- lating to attornies and solicitors practising in England and Wales, heretofore vested in the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer should henceforth be vested in the Master of the Rolls, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England, or, in case of difference, of any one of them. The Amendments which his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex had proposed on behalf of the Law Institute, he (the Attorney General) had adopted, as they appeared to be well-founded. He would move now to insert in line 37, after the word "powers," the word "which."

said, there were standing in his name upon the Paper four new clauses. With respect to the first, he did not propose to move it. A Committee was now sitting to inquire into the best mode of improving the procedure of the Supreme Court, and that Committee was taking into consideration the constitution of the Divisional Courts, and also the extension of the one Judge system; he therefore thought it would be improper for that House, at the present time of the year, to do anything that might prejudice the decision of that Committee. He would, however, like to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General when the Report of the Committee was to be laid on the Table of the House? As he had explained, he did not propose to move his first clause, and the second, which related to the sittings for the trial of causes directed to be held in Middlesex and London, had reference to a subject which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) called attention to last night. The clause proposed that sittings for the trial of causes directed to be held in Middlesex and London by the 30th section of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act," should be held as far as was reasonably practicable concurrently both in Middlesex and in London. The evil now experienced must sooner or later be dealt with; but he did not propose to trouble the Committee with that clause at present. With regard to the third clause, he should be compelled to place it before the Committee. It proposed that—

"The sittings of the Court of Appeal and the sittings in London and Middlesex of the High. Court of Justice shall be four in every year, viss.:— the Michaelmas Sittings, the Hilary Sittings, the Easter Sittings, and the Trinity Sittings. The Michaelmas Sittings shall commence on the eighteenth day of October and terminate on the twenty-first day of December; the Hilary Sittings shall commence on the eleventh day of January and terminate on the Wednesday before Easter; the Easter Sittings shall commence on the Tuesday after Easter week and terminate on the Friday before Whit Sunday; the Trinity Sittings shall commence on the Tuesday after Whitsun week and terminate on the eighth day of August."

He wanted now to call the attention of the Committee to a circumstance of which he did not think the public were generally aware—namely, the very long suspension which took place in the sittings of the Courts of Justice in this country. There were four vacations in the year. The Christmas Vacation lasted for 20 days, the Easter Vacation for 12 days, the Whitsun Vacation for 10 days, and what was called, with a singular accuracy of expression, the Long Vacation, lasted for 85 days. That made a total of 127 days, or 18 weeks and 1 day, on which the Courts of Justice in this country were practically shut. The Treasury Bench was very bare that afternoon. He did not make any complaint on that head; but he should like to call the attention of the Committee to the words of the Minister who was responsible for the administration of justice in this country—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). The last time this question was before the House was when the right hon. Gentleman sat below the Gangway; and the right hon. Gentleman then made these remarks—

"One of the greatest difficulties of getting the law administered in that country was the block of business, and the loss of judicial power consequent upon the fact that with reference to a great proportion of the business it was altogether suspended for a third or a fourth of the whole year. The judicial and administrative staff of the country was more expensive than all the Public Departments of the State put together, and yet they kept all that plant and capital doing nothing for the period he had mentioned. When last he called attention to this subject his table was covered with letters from solicitors stating the hardships produced to individuals by the suspension of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery during the Long Vacation. These were some of the evils of the law which the Bill, in its present form, did nothing whatever to remedy, and he could not reconcile his mind to allowing it to pass without asking the House of Commons not to spend £1,500,000 on one of the most costly judicial systems in the world, and yet, practically speaking, to close the Courts against the public for so large a portion of the year. Therefore his Amendment was to leave out those words which made the alteration of the vacation dependent on the will of the Judges. He could see no fair excuse for the present system; and he thought it would be for the advantage of the public if it were put an end to. If there was to be no alteration in the vacation, except upon the report or recommendation of the Judges, it would never be shortened by a single day or hour."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1801–2.]

The right hon. Gentleman had been ac- curate in his prediction. Not only were vacations not shortened by the Judges, but they had actually been lengethened. He did not propose to interfere with the Christmas Vacation of three weeks, or the Easter Vacation of 12 days, or the Whitsun Vacation of 10 days; but he asked the House to dock 14 days from the Long Vacation. He thought that 70 days, or 10 weeks, was as long a vacation as any Department in the Public Service ought to enjoy in this country. He was sure that no Minister of the Crown had 70 days for a vacation, and no other Department of the State gave its servants 70 days. When they reflected on the evils which were inflicted on suitors by the great delay in getting their cases heard, he was sure they ought not to turn a deaf ear to this appeal. His proposal was to shorten the vacation by 14 days; and, as there were 22 Judges, it would practically add another Court sitting all the year round. He hoped the Government would not meet his Amendment with a non possumus. They had had very little reform this year. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport cheered that remark; but his hon. and learned Friend did not look upon the matter in the same way; because he (Mr. Fowler) was satisfied that the Government were desirous of undertaking the work of reform, and had only been prevented by circumstances from doing that which they were anxious to do. They had now reached the last days of the Session, and they had the power, by their own simple act, without the slightest trouble whatever, of reforming one of the greatest abuses of the administration of justice in this country, and of conferring a great benefit upon the suitors who appealed for justice to the Courts of Law. He therefore hoped that in what would, perhaps, be the last division of the Session, he should not find a Liberal Government arraying all its force against so moderate, so useful, and so necessary a reform.

said, the clause proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would introduce a change of a very beneficial character, and he should cordially support it. He had already given his reasons for doing so at an earlier stage of the debate upon the Bill.

said, he should have much pleasure in voting for the clause proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

said, at that season of the year it was customary with gentlemen of the Legal Profession to be absent from town, and they were to be found scattered, so to speak, all over the world—in Scotland, Italy, and Switzerland. Although the Long Vacation, terminating on the 18th of October, constituted, as he thought, a long holiday, still he did not think it fair to his Colleagues to introduce so great a change on almost the last day of the Session. Moreover, the Judges had never been consulted in this matter, and this was an additional reason why he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler)" should not press his Amendment. No doubt, a great deal might be said in favour of the clause proposed to be introduced by his bon. Friend; but, notwithstanding that, having regard to the time at which it was brought forward, he should be unable to give it his support on the present occasion.

reminded hon. Members that, besides the convenience of the Legal Profession and that of the Judges, there were the interests of the suitors to be considered by the House of Commons when it was proposed to make alterations in connection with the administration of justice. The Courts of Judicature were established for the purpose of carrying on the business of the country, and, as that business ought to be carried on in an efficient manner, the greatest possible amount of time ought to be devoted to that purpose for the benefit of the persons who were most concerned in it. He could assure the Committee that the great majority of the Profession of which he was a member would most heartily approve the provisions of the clause proposed to be added by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He should have been better pleased if the hon. Member had proposed to make the Long Vacation end on the 8th instead of the 18th of October, which would allow two months. However, he did not propose to modify the clause in any way. On the contrary, he gave it his entire support, and if his hon. Friend went to a division, he should vote with him.

said, amongst the many calamitous consequences of the Judicature Act was the abridgment of the number of days for the trial of causes. He remembered that when he was upon the Northern Circuit, before the passing of that Act, the Judges sat for the purpose of trying causes until the end of August or the beginning of September. But since the passing of the Act, which he should always deplore, the Judges ceased from their duties much earlier, and it was frequently the case that causes were referred and arrangements made to which counsel were admitted for the purpose of getting through the business on a certain day. In consequence of this interpretation of the Judicature Act, suitors were deprived of 20 or 30 days of term. He had himself been on Circuit as late as the 29th of August; but the Courts adjourned now on the 8th of August, and it was sometimes the case that when the adjournment took place something like 500 or 600 causes were outstanding. There could be no doubt that the suitors suffered very considerably in consequence of the postponement of their causes, and that something should be done to remedy the state of things to which he had referred. He suggested that 10 or 12 days should be added to the sittings after the 8th of August, or that the sittings on Circuit should continue until the causes down for trial were disposed of. If that plan were adopted, there would be no need for any alteration with regard to the termination of the Long Vacation; and he should be glad if the hon. and learned Attorney General would take the present opportunity of adding to Trinity Term as many days as had been lost in consequence of the passing of the Judicature Act. The matter was one of grave importance to suitors, and he trusted it would receive the serious attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he should feel that the Profession to which he had the honour to belong would be open to the charge of pursuing rather a selfish course if they decided for themselves against what was the true interests of the suitors. He was, therefore, in favour of some alteration of the kind contained in the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). A curtailment of the Long Vacation would, no doubt, facilitate the dispatch of business, and it might be effected either by bringing the vacation to an end sooner in the month of October, or by paring down the earlier part of it. He thought members of the Profession would join him in making this protest on behalf of the great body of lawyers, that they were not selfishly inclined.

said, he felt sure the Committee would believe him when he said that no one regretted more than he did the inconvenience caused to the public by the postponement of causes. He had already, on several occasions, given expression to his opinions upon that subject, and he was ready to do anything in his power to remedy the inconvenience complained of. But the Committee would understand that he was bound to deal with this matter not only in accordance with his own wishes and individual opinion, but also in accordance with the wishes of others who were interested likewise in any changes of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. II. Fowler). The hon. Member proposed that the Michaelmas Sittings of the High Court of Justice in London and Middlesex should commence on the 18th of October and determine on the 21st of December. But that alteration could not be made without altering all the arrangements of the Circuit which had been in existence for years, and which were made for some time forward. The Government were therefore unable to accept the clause, inasmuch as it would constitute an interference with arrangements that had hitherto been left to the discretion of the Judges. But, although his hon. Friend had simply moved the clause then before the Committee, he had adduced arguments in favour of shortening the Long Vacation. He (the Attorney General) must remind the Committee that Her Majesty's Judges accepted their positions upon certain terms, amongst which was the Long Vacation as it at that time existed. That being the case, he did not think the Committee ought, without consulting the Judges, proceed to alter the original terms of the agreement. They ought not to subject such a body of men to an attack of public criticism, nor, by making the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton without consulting them, treat Her Majesty's Judges, for whom everyone ought to have the most sensitive regard, without the slightest consideration. Therefore, he appealed to his hon. Friend, whose object he entirely shared, not to press his Motion to a division; and, although he was unable to give any pledge as to the course that would be taken, he would promise to bring that which appeared to be the unanimous opinion of hon. Members present under the attention of Her Majesty's Judges, and, with due respect to them, he would support that opinion as far as he could. Seeing that Her Majesty's Judges had not been consulted in this matter, he felt sure the Committee would not wish to act with anything like discourtesy towards that body, who were, under all circumstances, entitled to the highest respect and consideration. If, after the appeal he had made to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he still felt it his duty to press the Committee to divide upon his Motion, he should be compelled to give him his reluctant opposition.

said, he must trouble the Committee with one or two words in reply to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He held in his hand an exact copy of the wording of the Order which was in force for the regulation of the sittings of the Courts, and the only alteration proposed by the clause before the Committee, so far as that Order was concerned, was the substitution of the 18th of October for the 2nd of November. That being the case, the remark of the hon. and learned Attorney General, with reference to seven Judges only out of 22 having to go on the Winter Circuit, would be equally applicable to the latter date as to the former. He was surprised at the extraordinary position taken up by his hon. and learned Friend, that the Judges had accepted their offices upon a bargain that Parliament should not alter the judical time for the benefit of suitors. He should be bound to take a division. upon his Motion, as a protest against a proposition so dangerous to the Privileges of Parliament and to the interests of the country. To argue that the Judges had a right not to sit for more than 30 weeks in the course of the year, when Parliament had again and again interfered in these matters, and when the Rules now in force were made by Parliament, and by Parliament alone, was an absurdity. He repudiated anything like disrespect to the Judges; but hon. Members had a duty to perform to the public, and he did not think he should be wrong in putting on record the division which he felt bound to take, as a protest against a doctrine so dangerous to the public interest in the administration of justice.

said, as a member of the commercial community, he should give his support to the proposed alteration. The inconvenience and expense caused to the mercantile public by the delay in the hearing of causes was of a most serious character, and he hoped the whole subject would receive the fullest consideration at the hands of the Government.

pointed out that the date proposed for the commencement of the Michaelmas Sittings—namely, the 18th of October, would clash with the holding of Quarter Sessions throughout the country, which were attended by a large number of gentlemen belonging to the Common Law Bar.

thought there was a good deal of what he trusted he might be allowed, without giving offence, to call clap-trap in the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that the Privileges of the House were endangered by the doctrine put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that Her Majesty's Judges should be consulted with reference to the great changes proposed to be made in the duration of the Michaelmas Sittings. He did not believe there was any fear of the Privileges of Parliament being interfered with by Her Majesty's Judges or any other limited body of men. The Privileges of Parliament were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The Committee had listened to a great deal about the convenience of the suitors, but he had heard nothing of the convenience of the Bar, although there was much to be said from their point of view also. It was well known that the members of the Bar were, in many cases, greatly overworked; and, for his part, he should very much regret that a change calculated to diminish, to so large an extent, their well-earned and necessary relaxation, should be decided upon in so thin a House. For these reasons, he should certainly not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.

said, he should now move the next clause standing in his name. The Committee had just decided against his last proposal to lengthen the Michaelmas Sittings, and in the course of the discussion which had taken place upon that proposal a powerful argument had been used with reference to the Judges and the impropriety of deciding upon a change without their being consulted. But the Amendment he was about to move affected the Departmental administration only; and, therefore, the argument he had referred to did not apply in the present case. He hoped the Government would not object to curtail the enormous length of the Long Vacation, which now extended over a period of 95 days, or 13 weeks and 4 Says, and which he proposed to cut down to 12 weeks.

said, he felt it his duty to ask the Committee not to agree to this Amendment. The vote just given he regarded as very expressive, and he understood it to mean that they ought not to deal in any way with the position of the Judges without consultation with them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, in proposing a clause for the purpose of curtailing the Long Vacation, was now proceeding to deal with the position of an entirely different class of persons—namely, the clerks in the various offices of the Department, upon whom he was asking in effect that a greater amount of work should be imposed than they now had to perform. Now, it appeared to him (the Attorney General), that if the argument he had employed with reference to the Judges upon the last Motion of the hon. Member was entitled to carry with it any weight, the same argument ought to have even greater effect as applied to the present Motion. He thought his hon. Friend's Amendment did not go far enough, inasmuch as he would still keep the offices closed until the 10th October; and, looking at the present state of business, he considered the proper course he ought to have taken was to propose that these offices should not be closed at all, and that there should be shifts of the clerks to undertake the duties of the Department. That certainly seemed to him the direction which his hon. Friend's Amendment should have followed if it was intended to be of advantage to the public. He reminded the Committee that if the present clause were accepted, a hard-and-fast line would be drawn at the 10th of October. He trusted the Motion would not be pressed to a division, and that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the assurance that the whole subject should be considered and brought before the House next year.

said, he agreed with the remark of the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the expressive character of the Vote just given; but he would point to the very expressive nature of the debate which preceded it. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was the only Gentleman who had not approved the clause. However, he accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General that he would initiate a reform which would be acceptable alike to the Profession and the public, and, with the permission of the Committee, would withdraw the clause.

said, that the greatest possible inconvenience resulted to the public from the existing arrangements, and he expressed the earnest hope that if the Amendment were withdrawn, the whole matter would be investigated, and a beneficial change effected.

expressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General would state exactly what was the nature of the alterations which had been made in this Bill. He made that request, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the day before that certain gaps had been filled up by the draftsman. There was, of course, no objection upon that ground, so long as the draftsman's alterations did not in any way touch the Acts passed in that House; but if they went beyond, and introduced now matter, he should feel it his duty to oppose the further progress of the Bill on that occasion. He had not the least doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give a complete and satisfactory explanation. While he admitted the necessity that existed for consolidating the law relating to the Army, in the interest of the Army itself, he held that they would not be doing their duty to the Service if alterations were made in the present Bill, about which nothing was previously known. Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state at once whether any change had been made that touched the vital interests of the Army.

said, he was obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex for affording him the opportunity of making a statement with reference to the alterations made in the wording of this Bill. He had caused it to be printed with italics, in order that the additions and omissions might be seen at a glance. Practically, the Bill was only a consolidation of the existing law; but there were one or two Amendments, of which he would furnish the Committee with instances, that did not come under that category. They were, in fact, alterations which he believed the Committee would at once consent to, inasmuch as they involved no kind of principle whatsoever, and, in any case, they were made in the interest of the soldier. Take, for instance, the Amendment in page 3, section 6. Under the existing law, certain offences committed on active service were punishable with death, amongst them the making known of the countersign to persons not entitled to receive it. Then the old Act went on to say— "Or without good or sufficient cause giving a parole or watchword different to that which he receives." That was, on active service, also punishable with death. Now, it might be quite possible that a man should give a wrong parole or watchword by mistake; and it would, he thought, be very unjust that he should, under such circumstances, be sentenced to death. Therefore, he felt sure that the alteration which proposed to do away with that punishment in the case mentioned was one to which no hon. Member would object. There was another alteration, which went, perhaps, a little beyond the principle of consolidation. There could be no doubt that, in the section of the old Act referred to in the margin, the words "non-commissioned officer" were omitted by mistake, and it was now proposed to add them, thereby extending to that class the protection given by the clause. Then it was proposed further on to add the words "or countersign" after "watchword." All these alterations simply put into words what he believed, to be a correct interpretation of the Act of 1879. There were some slight alterations of a purely technical character that were rendered necessary by the wording of the Bill, and which, he believed, would be at once agreed to. The proposal to make the offence a second offence "when tried by court mar- tial," was not an alteration of the law; it was merely a carrying out of the rule that prevailed in Civil Courts, and ought to prevail in Military Courts. There was only one thing that could be said to be really new, and that was one so manifestly in favour of the soldier that he thought the Committee would assent to it. At present, it was the duty of anyone in charge of a prisoner to make his case within 48 hours, and that it was now proposed, in page 10, clause 21, to reduce to 24 hours.

observed, that the course he had taken was, perhaps, irregular; but he thought it well to give an opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, in order that it might be on record that there was nothing in the Bill prejudicial to the Army.

said, he had not found any real Amendments to the existing Acts in the Bill, which was not covered by the amending Act authorizing the change; and he must add that he was very much pleased with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had done. A Military Code was greatly needed, and he thought the Committee could not be too grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the good work he had done in trying to simplify and make clear the previously complicated and obscure clauses. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would next year bring in a Bill to get rid of the remaining difficulties and verbiage of the existing Act. A Military Code should be concise, decided, and clear to the soldiers who had to obey the law. The present Code, even as amended, was still far too long.

thought the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General was mistaken in what he had said about Clause 13. The 2nd sub-section of that clause provided that a soldier, if convicted of more than one offence, should be subjected to the higher punishment. With regard to the punishment for fraudulent enlistment—

We are now getting to specific matter with regard to particular parts of the Bill. I allowed a somewhat irregular discussion merely on the general scope of the Bill.

explained that he had wished to avoid raising his point at a later stage; but he would postpone his remarks to the proper time, when he would be obliged to make them.

said, that sub-section 2 of this clause provided that when a soldier had fraudulently enlisted, he might be deemed to belong to one or more corps, and that it should be lawful to charge him with any number of offences, and he might be convicted and punished. But this was new matter, and they had been assured that no novelty was to be introduced. The clause proceeded—

"And, further, it shall be lawful, on conviction of a person for two or more such offences, to award him the higher punishment allowed by this section for a second offence, as if he had been convicted by a previous court martial of one of such offences."

How would that act? If a man was convicted of two offences before the same court martial, he would be liable to punishment of imprisonment only, though for each offence; but this proviso enacted that as to the second of these offences the Court, if it chose, might give him penal servitude, treating the latter as if it was an offence committed after a previous conviction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that was the same in the Civil Courts; but in those it was necessary by the law that the previous convictions should be expressly charged in the indictment. It was evident this could not be done in respect of a conviction which only preceded the second by a few minutes, or in the course of the same trial. Therefore, this provision was the introduction of an alteration which was not known to the Civil Criminal Law. It was a distinct change, and he should propose that this part of the Bill, from "and, further," should be left out.

said, he could not see the force of his hon. and learned Friend's (Mr. Hopwood's) observations. The cases for which this clause was intended were cases in which a man had committed two distinct acts of desertion—first one, and then the other. If these charges were tried by separate court martials, on the man being found guilty of offence A, he could be tried by the other court martial for offence B. It constantly happened that a man was guilty of the two offences, but they were only discovered at the same time; and what was now proposed was that in such a case the man should be tried for both offences without the court martial being dismissed, and then re-constituted. If a man stole a pocket-handkerchief on one day, and a purse on the next day, and being tried and convicted of the first offence, was then tried for the second offence, that was a second offence for a higher punishment. In the court martials this clause made no change whatever; for, in substance, the second offence, even when tried by the same court martial, constituted a second or subsequent offence. It clearly was so as a matter of fact; and it was useless to go through the formality of dismissing the court martial, and re-constituting it.

said, it appeared to him to be very clear that the principle in their Criminal Law was that where a man had been convicted once, if he then got a second conviction, he was liable to a heavier punishment. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would agree to the clause.

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) fully appreciated the difficulty in regard to these cases. There were two offences —desertion, and fraudulent enlistment. Now that soldiers were not marked, it was much easier for them to enlist and desert several times, and these cases were becoming more frequent every year. By this clause, a man who did that could be tried for the two offences —desertion from one regiment, and fraudulent enlistment in another—at once and severely punished; and, in his judgment, such a man deserved severe punishment, for, of all things, fraudulent enlistment was the most difficult to detect. When such a man was detected, the punishment now proposed was not too severe.

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would not now press his Motion, but allow the clause to pass as it stood. He thought the entries of offences in the regimental book ought to stand against a soldier, and that the word "convicted" ought to be taken in the wide sense that the man had been convicted by another court on duly constituted authority, and, being properly convicted, was thereby liable to the additional punishment for reiterated offences.

said, his difficulty was that he found a change proposed. The House was taking the Bill on the understanding that there were no changes; and it was no use saying that this was done to put down offences in the Army. He would put down offences as much as any other man; but he objected to its being done in this way. There must be a first conviction to carry this higher punishment; and he contended that it was wrong to inflict penal servitude, simply because two offences were proved, each of which by itself would incur only a lighter punishment. This Bill was forced upon the House at the last end of the Session, and the House having taken it on trust, he found in it words which he maintained supported what he had said.

said, he had no sympathy with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood), and would support the clause.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had been led into a mistake with regard to the Bill by the Index of the Statutes in the Library. On looking at the Schedule, he found there were six Acts down as forming the Schedule of the Bill. He was informed on high authority, however, that only two of these Acts regulated criminal procedure in Ireland. These were the 15 & 16 Geo. III., and the 1 & 2 Will. IV. He would now move that these Acts cease to be employed in Ireland. On looking over these Acts, one was able to recall some of the very darkest features of the agrarian struggle in Ireland, and which helped towards an appreciation of a struggle not yet concluded. What struck one with astonishment and horror, in looking over these Acts, was the number of offences which a century ago were made the subject of the death penalty. For example, if a man were one of a party of 12 who did not disperse on being summoned to do so by a Justice of the Peace, he was liable to capital punishment. The same penalty was presented for sending a single threatening letter; for assaulting a man in a house; for assaulting a horse, mare, mule, or gelding; for stealing a gun, sword, or pistol; for maiming cattle, or obstructing the exportation of cattle; or, if a man were a Catholic priest, for marrying a Protestant to a Papist, or a reported Papist. The death penalty was also imposed for what he might now call attending a public meeting. It was quite true that some of these offences were liable to similar punishment in England; but in this case there were two distinctions. In the first place, in England the punishment for these offences was made general. That is to say, the statutes were directed against all classes of society; whereas, in Ireland, they were directed always against the peasantry in contradistinction to the landlords. Again, public opinion had insisted on the repeal of all those Acts in England; whereas, in Ireland, they existed at the present moment, and were sometimes actually employed. In England, one of the arguments which had been put forward for the repeal of these statutes was that the very severity of the punishment compelled their repeal, as juries refused to convict. He would recommend that to the House, whether convictions were not sought by the Crown Prosecutors under statutes against which the public conscience revolted. By the provisions of the 15 & 16 Geo. III.—which he would remark was passed by the Irish Parliament, then composed exclusively of Protestants and the members of the landlord class—any person who appeared at night armed with any offensive weapon, or disguised in any unusual garb, was subject to transportation for life; and if anyone shot at, maimed, or disfigured another, he was deemed guilty of felony, and was liable to the punishment of death. The same penalty was applicable to anyone participating in these offences. If a letter were written to a farmer recommending him to give up a certain farm, or a letter written by one workman to another recommending him to quit his employer, the writer of the letter was liable to the penalty of death. Again, if from sunset to sunrise, or before the hour of 6 in the forenoon— although the sun should not have risen by that time, so that no one could possibly escape—any person should maliciously break into a barn or house, or maliciously cause any door to be opened, or forcibly carry away any property, he would be judged to have committed a felony, and, consequently, must suffer death. On the other hand, it was provided, for the protection of the magistracy, that persons supposed to be guilty of any of these offences might be pursued by a magistrate and maimed, and even killed; but in this case the magistrate was indemnified from all punishment. The rescue or attempted rescue of a prisoner guilty of any of these acts was also punishable by death. The Act of Will. IV. was not quite so barbarous, although its clauses of indictment were peculiarly specific. By this Act punishment was incurred by "directing or requiring any person to do or not to do any act." While many of these offences were attempted to be mitigated by subsequent enactments, he (Mr. O'Connor) found that new offences had actually been created. Now, the House would naturally ask whether he was not wasting his time in bringing the obsolete Acts forward? He would ask the House, however, to repeal these Acts, because, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was tried under this very Act, and his hon. Friend, if he had been convicted, would have been liable to 7 or 15 years' penal servitude, 3 years' imprisonment, and to be whipped once, twice, or thrice, if the Court should think fit to order such additional punishment. The third Act to which he called attention was the 5 & 6 Vict., and that was also a mitigated measure. In the recent agitation in Ireland it would be remembered that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) advised the farmers, in certain circumstances, to plough up their lands. Now, according to recent legislation, the farm was made to some extent the property of the tenant; yet, according to that Act, the tenant who dug up his farm or dug up a ditch would be liable in those times to a term of 7 or 14 years' transportation for doing that which the law now said he had a right to do. He (Mr. O'Connor) would only remind the House that not long since it was rumoured that a prosecution was about being instituted under this Act. He saw that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was taking a note of that assertion; and, no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and deny it, so that he might get away from the actual facts of the case. In order to avoid that, he (Mr. O'Connor) would not press the observation, which was meant generally. The hon. and learned Gentleman might consider the observation as unspoken. Under 5 & 6 Vict., the punishment inflicted for the offences were still very severe, as, for example, prescribing transportation for life for obstructing the export of corn. For taking part in tumultuous risings and assemblies the penalty was 15 years' transportation, a similar punishment being enacted for impeding the collection of rates and taxes. He put it to the House whether it was right these Acts should be on the Statute Book? The Government might say it was absolutely necessary to have these Acts in order to preserve law and order. He contended there was no necessity for these obsolete Acts, which no civilized country would now permit to disgrace its Statute Book. If law and order could not be preserved in Ireland without the application of antiquated and obsolete statutes, such as would not be tolerated in any civilized country for a single day, then surely Government had abnegated all the principles of government. It was not very long since a man was sentenced in Belfast, where Party animosity used to run very high, to 10 or 15 years' transportation for assaulting a horse, whereas his punishment now would be so many months. In a Return recently laid before the House, it was shown that a person had been convicted and sentenced under one of the Whiteboy Acts. These Acts could be used even with a well-intentioned Government in an oppressive manner. Now that the Government had sent a "message of peace" to Ireland, which he hoped would prove of large benefit to the Irish tenants, he thought it was absolutely necessary to accompany that message with the announcement that the Government would sweep away all that bad and bitter past by which the lives and properties of the people were placed at the disposal of the landlord class. The hon. Member concluded by formally moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, he quite agreed in what the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said with regard to the hope that the Land Act would in reality be a message of peace, and be a means of restoring peace, order, and prosperity to Ireland. With reference to the present state of the country, he was sure no one would be more ready to acknowledge than his hon. Friend that it would be impossible for the Government to give up what were really not obsolete and antiquated statutes, as the hon. Member had described them, but statutes which had been on the Statute Book for a much shorter period than the Riot Act, which was the analogous statute in England. It would be as absurd and unreasonable for the Government to give up certain Acts that might be found necessary for the preservation of life and property in Ireland—for instance, the Riot Act—as it would be unreasonable to give up the Unlawful Oaths Act in England. He thought that the hon. Member had pushed the matter further than the facts warranted. Part of the Act was found necessary for assimilating the law in England and Ireland, when Lord Romilly succeeded in abolishing Capital Punishment, that noble Lord having succeeded in inducing public opinion to abolish that barbarous punishment for such offences as sheep-stealing. By repealing the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 28, they would only be restoring the barbarous punish- ments which were liable to be inflicted for those offences before Lord Romilly's Act was extended to Ireland, and if the hon. Member succeeded, he would reiterate the death penalty.

explained that he would not, of course, wish to repeal that part of the Act.

said, with regard to the other statutes, they were only applicable when it could be established to the satisfaction of the Court that the same condition of things which existed when the Act was passed existed in the place where the alleged offences were committed; it would, therefore, be quite impossible for the Government to surrender now the statutable powers which for 50 years had stood upon the Statute Book. In order to show that the barbarous offences against which the statutes were directed were still committed, he would refer to a case reported in the newspapers on Saturday, which occurred on Friday night at the Half-way House between Mallow and Cork, where a man was dragged out of his bed by 17 armed men with blackened faces, and taken in a semi-nude condition to a field which he had taken, and there compelled, by having shots fired over his head, to swear that he would give up the field.

said, he should like to know the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the statement?

said, that the report of the outrage appeared in the London papers a few weeks ago, and the connection of the hon. Member for Roscommon with the Press should teach him that published statements were generally accurate. ["Oh, oh!"] However, the fact that the statement was published showed the possibility of such outrages occurring, and so long as they were possible, the power to deal with them by law should be retained; and, as he said before, the Government could not be expected to give up their powers of elementary protection for person and property in Ireland. The Act could not be put in force unless the necessity for it arose, and no prosecution under it had taken place since 1832. He only hoped that the necessity for putting it in force should not arise in the future, and he would repeat an appeal which he had already made, most sincerely, that the Irish Members would now bury the hatchet, if he might say so, and do away with the necessity for every description of exceptional legislation, and that they might all pull in the same boat, with the one object of bringing peace and prosperity to the country in which many of them lived and hoped to die.

said, he asked for the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he thought he was perfectly justified in doing so, seeing that he had often known that manufactured outrages in Ireland had found their way into the London Press. He would give, as an instance, the report which had been similarly circulated with regard to the alleged outrage on Lord Dunsandle's son. He supported the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor).

said, it was quite impossible that the Bill repealing these particular statutes could become law during the present Session, and the question before the House was the principle involved in it. The Acts referred to were not passed in relation to the present state of things in Ireland. They were part of the legislation of a time when similar disturbances prevailed; but since then there had been periods of comparative quiet, in which he regretted that no attempt had been made to repeal them. He was one of those who wished to preserve and would strive to maintain the Union between England and Ireland; but his hope of the best success in that endeavour was dependent upon a steady and laborious effort to assimilate the laws of the two countries, for Ireland had a right to demand either separation from this country, or else a perfect equality of government. The principle of such equality between the laws of England and Ireland was always embodied in the great speeches of Sir Robert Peel connected with Ireland. That principle was the same to-day, and if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) went to a division, he would vote with him. He hoped the day was not far distant when those old statutes would disappear altogether. As his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland had pointed out, it was impossible to wipe them away at present. At the same time, he (Mr. Arnold) hoped hon. Members behind him would by their votes give every encouragement to the Government to efface these unequal laws at the earliest possible moment from the Statute Book.

said, he regretted exceedingly that hitherto, during the present Session, it had not been possible for him to say a word or give a vote in favour of Ireland. He hoped, however, that on the present question he should be able to do so. If he were an Irishman his blood would boil with indignation that such measures as these two Whiteboy Acts were allowed to remain on the Statute Book. At the same time, it must be recognized that it was necessary to inflict some punishments for many of the crimes specified in them. The question really arose as to whether these Acts were now needed. The Solicitor General for Ireland admitted that one of the two Acts was obsolete, and that many of the crimes and punishments in the other Act were now disregarded. Also, the same Acts passed for England provided for several of the cases in the two Irish Acts. Under this explanation, if the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would bring forward a measure to modify the abominable and disgraceful punishments enacted in these old Irish Acts, he should be glad to support him. No one was more anxious than he to do justice to Ireland, and if the hon. Member went to a division on the present occasion he would vote with him. As the Bill, however, could not, in any case, be passed that Session, he hoped an arrangement might be come to whereby the Bill should be allowed to drop until next Session. In that case he would support the Bill next year.

said, he regretted that the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was not of a more satisfactory character. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would go to a division on the question. The same offence punishable under the Whiteboy Act with transportation for seven years was, if committed in England, a penalty of only £20 or three months' imprisonment.

said, he had never known a case where the law had been administered with so much severity.

said, the law was absurd and monstrous, and should not be allowed to remain on the Statute Book. As to false reports appearing in the newspapers, it was not so long ago that it was published that a man in Ireland had been placed naked on a fire and slowly burnt to death. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied the statement twice over; but, nevertheless, it was repeated afterwards in the Press, the name and town where the imaginary crime took place being given; although on the strictest official inquiry it had been found that there was no truth whatever in the story, and that no one had been burnt to death.

said, he felt the strongest sympathy with the object of the Bill; but advised that it should not now be pressed to a division, as a little time would be required to separate such portions of these statutes as would be unobjectionable as part of the Criminal Code of Ireland from those barbarous and severe punishments which ought no longer to be preserved. He found in the official speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland an indication of a desire to get rid of exceptional legislation; and though, if the Bill were taken to a division, he should vote for it, he trusted it would not be pressed so far.

said, it was clear from the state of the House that if he went to a division he should beat the Government; and rather than subject his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, who alone represented the Government, to that humiliation, he would undertake, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the second reading of the Bill, not to attempt to carry it further this Session.

said, he had no authority to enter into any such arrangement. He was only a subordinate Member of the Government, and did not know why he had been left in charge of Business which it was the duty of the first Law Officer of the Crown to attend to. It was quite impossible for him to assent to such a step as the hon. Member desired being taken. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, in that case, he must press for a division, and regretted that in such a small House he might be the means of defeating the Government.