Page images
PDF
EPUB

would do nothing but get these unfortunate people out of the country by emigration. Emigration and migration were both necessary. He was not an opponent of emigration; but as to accepting it as the sole remedy for the distress he should be ashamed to do so. He trusted that before to-morrow the Prime Minister would consider whether he could not make the experiment suggested. It was a mere question of a small amount of money, it was not necessary to provide a very large scheme; but if the Board of Works advanced money for so many purposes, why in the world should they not, with the authority of the Treasury, do so for this purpose, when the amount asked for was so small in quantity?

MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he agreed that the Emigration Clause and the Migration Clause went together. That the subject had not been discussed was no fault of his, and he had hoped that the Government would take it up, and thought he had good reason for the hope. But what had happened was this-the Chairman ruled his Amendment, which would have brought the subject forward in a prominent manner, out of Order. That judgment he had no right to question, and the matter, therefore, was only raised indirectly. It was, nevertheless, of the utmost magnitude, and it was quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of it. After every famine in Ireland, they had proposals for public works. Sir Robert Peel proposed them, Lord Russell, and so did Lord George Bentinck, as the Committee well knew. But after the proposals there came a good season, a good harvest or two, and the whole subject was dropped, and now things remain in a chaotic state, and we present this disgraceful spectacle to Europe, of a large portion of Her Majesty's Dominions in Ireland on which the people live more shockingly than in any part of Europe. Now the opportunity offered of dealing with this state of things, and the Government were going deliberately to shirk the question. If they did this, what would happen hereafter? In three or four years bad harvests would again come round, and the whole case would come again before Parliament with aggravated force. Let the Government remember that whatever there was of complaint on the part of many tenants, complaints that might seem to them unreasonable, they derived their force from the undoubted misery of the population in the West of Ireland. He only asked the right hon. Gentleman to make an experiment, and let him consider it between now and to-morrow. An advance of £500,000 to the Board of Works, to be expended under the direc-it out-then the State would offer half tion of the Treasury, would do an immense amount towards carrying out the views he had advocated. Half a million of money! Why, the Government did not hesitate to give £750,000 to Irish landlords last year, against the remonstrances of the Irish people; and they gave it out of Irish money. In the name of all that was wise, all that was just, let not the Government throw away this grand opportunity of refuting the charge that they

MR. GLADSTONE said, it was an unusual practice of which the hon. Gentleman had just given an example, and there had been several during the evening, to give a kind of instruction to the Government, and to desire that, whereas they had evidently paid no attention whatever down to the present to some subject that an hon. Member might think very important, and to subjects, in many cases, of extreme importance, that they would, between the current date and the next, or another day, give their mind to the subject. Such modes of denunciation or instruction were not complimentary, and seemed to assume some dereliction of duty on the part of the Government with regard to some particular portion of a subject. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said the Government were going to shirk the subject and not touch it; whereas, what the Government wished the House of Commons to say, but hon. Members would not permit it to say, was, that if any person in this great commercial country was will ing to prosecute this easy commercial enterprize-as the hon. Member pointed

of the capital required, and not limit it to the £500,000 the hon. Member proposed should be advanced. This was what the hon. Member thought it fair to describe as entirely shirking the subject, and refusing to touch it! This was not an equitable mode of procedure. The hon. Member knew quite well what were the views of former statesmen in former Parliaments, and he knew how greatly in advance of these they were

travelling on this occasion, and how they were straining their capacity and responsibility as Representatives of the people at large-he was not surprised that the hon. Member should think the interests of reclamation would be best promoted by his own plan-but he was very sorry that the hon. Member should think it fair and just to describe the efforts the Government were making as shirking the question.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he would accept the rebuke of the Prime Minister with shame and humiliation if he deserved it. But he did not deserve it. The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament had done this or failed to do that; and what he proposed was to trust to commercial enterprize to do that which all experience had shown commercial enterprize would not and could not do. He had lived in the midst of the district; the right hon. Gentleman had never been there. He knew the sympathy in the House was general and real on this subject. But when the right hon. Gentleman visited Ireland, he saw those portions of Ireland that exhibited the greatest degree of prosperity to be found in the Island; but neither he nor any great statesman, except the Chief Secretary for Ireland, visited the district for which he was speaking. Let the Chief Secretary now open his heart and his mind, and say what he thought, for he must know that unless something more was done than was proposed by the Government the condition of the West of Ireland would remain as it was-a disgrace to this country. He would accept the rebukes of the Prime Minister when he deserved them. His motives were not factious, nor to interrupt the Bill, and certainly not to cast reflection on the right hon. Gentleman; but he spoke with confidence in the interests of Ireland and of this country, and would again say that unless the Government reconsidered the matter this country would rue it.

MR. O'DONNELL hoped the Prime Minister would return to his first decision, and accept the Motion for reporting Progress, without the futility of forcing a division.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow at Two of the clock.

Mr. Gladstone

REGULATION OF THE FORCES BILL.-[BILL 193.]

(Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he should like to know what was in the Bill. The House had been so hard pressed with other matters that he had not had time to read it.

MR. CHILDERS said, he would be happy to give any explanation that might be wished; but, in point of fact, the Bill, except one clause, was a collection of extremely small Amendments which had accumulated during the last two years. The only clause of importance was the 5th, which related to the Reserves, and which enabled a second Reserve to be formed for four years of men who had completed their 12 years' engagement. The remainder of the Bill would not require much discussion.

MR. ONSLOW said, that the Bill appeared to deal with matters of detail, and it had not been circulated very long.

MR. CHILDERS: More than a week. MR. ONSLOW said, there was one point on which he wished to ask a question. It was to be found in the Schedule, and was for the removal of doubts in confirming sentences of courts martial in the East Indies. He did not know that this matter had been discussed before. What was the intention in repealing the Act 7 & 8 Vict. for Removing Doubts, &c. of Court Martial Sentences in the East Indies?

MR. CHILDERS said, this was a very small point, and the particular provision in the Schedule would be better explained in Committee. The repealed Acts were for the most part obsolete, including the one referred to by the hon. Member.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT hoped that the next stage would be fixed for a time that would allow of discussion.

MR. CHILDERS said, that would be done.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.-[BILL 1.]

(Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged."(Mr. Attorney General.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, of course it was quite necessary that at this period of the Session the Bill should be withdrawn; but he would like, if possible, to extract a pledge from the Government that the Bill would not be allowed to drop, but would be brought forward as early as possible next Session. The Bill was intended to remove what was a great scandal on our electoral system, and, so far, would receive a good deal of support; but there were parts of the Bill-he would not enter into them then-which he hoped the Attorney General would carefully consider during the Recess, for they would really constitute traps for the honest candidate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, the question should have been put to the Prime Minister; but, so far as he was aware, it was the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill next Session at an early date, with the hope of passing it. Motion agreed to.

Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.-[BILL 137.] (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Ashley.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Second Reading be deferred till Monday next."— (Mr. Chamberlain.)

MR. GORST hoped that by Monday the Government would make an announcement whether the Bill was to be proceeded with or not. There was scarcely a hope that the Government could pass it this Session; but it would be a great relief to those Members interested to have the Government determination announced.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, not whole commercial world, as was evident only so, but it would be a relief to the from the constant inquiries being made. Motion agreed to.

Second Reading deferred till Monday

next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES, REMISSIONS, AND AMENDMENT OF ACTS].

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise further advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of moneys in held on account of Savings Banks, of any sum the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, or sums of money not exceeding £4,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and not exceeding £1,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to make advances in promotion of Public Works.

to

(2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of interest, amounting £8,454 19s. 2d., due in respect of a Loan made by Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Tralee Harbour and Canal Commission.

(3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a claim by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland on certain proprietors in the Monivea Drainage District, in the county of Galway, for the repayment of a sum of £155 expended by the said Commissioners not on works of repair and maintenance, but on new works, and therefore not chargeable on the said proprietors.

(4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to transfer Loan Commissioners to the Wicklow Harbour a Loan of £6,000, made by the Public Works Commissioners, with arrears of interest thereon,

from the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, on payment by the last named Commissioners to the first named Commissioners of the amount of the said Loan and arrears; and to authorise the conversion of the Loan and arrears of interest so transferred into a terminable annuity, and also the postponement of such annuity to a new Loan if made by the Commissioners of Public Works.

(5.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Public Works Loans Acts, 1875 and 1878, "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880," "The Mulkear Drainage District Act, 1880," and the Act for the promotion and extension of Public Works in Ireland, 1831, and the Acts amending the same.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) [REMISSION OF LOANS].

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to

pre

remit certain advances made out of the Con- | of Appeal; that was following the solidated Fund, under the Tithe Composition cedent of the other Divisions. At the (Ireland) Act and the Tithe Relief (Ireland) time the Judicature Act passed this Acts, amounting respectively to £227,726 168. 1d. and to £900,000.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two

of the clock.

CUSTOMS (OFFICERS) BILL. On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to provide for the employment of certain Officers and Clerks by the Commissioners of Customs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 210.]

House adjourned at a quarter
before Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, 12th July, 1881.

*

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading
Industrial Schools* (158); Sale and Use of
Poisons (159).
Second Reading-Supreme Court of Judicature
(147).

[ocr errors]

Committee-Water Provisional Orders (102).
Report-Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amend-
ment (99-161); Local Government Provi-
sional Orders (Acton, &c.)* (121).

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
BILL.-(No. 147.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2." -(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD DENMAN mentioned some facts as to the patronage and salary of the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the pensions of retired Lord Chancellors August 16, 1832.

EARL CAIRNS said, he was anxious to call attention to some clauses in the Bill which appeared to him to be of great importance, with reference to the administration of justice and the judicature of the country. There were many clauses to which he had no objectionthey were desirable, and some absolutely necessary. There was the proposal that the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division should become an ex officio member of the Court

could not have been done with the Probate Division, for at that time there was only one Judge. Then the Bill proposed, in regard to the Master of the Rolls, that he should cease to be a Primary Judge of the Chancery Division, and henceforward be a Judge of the Appellate Court; and if the Master of the Rolls was willing to make that alteration in his position, he could only say that he was sorry that the Division was about to lose him as a Primary Judge, for which he had unusual qualifications. At the same time, he was certain that the Master of the Rolls would do equally good service in the Court of Appeal. He quite agreed that if they confined his labours to the Court of Appeal, it was impossible to do otherwise than to secure to him the precedence he had at present, his remuneration in point of salary, and all his rights with regard to patronage. He should like to ask his noble and learned Friend and Chamber Clerks of the present what was to be done with the Chambers Master of the Rolls? Were they to be transferred to Mr. Justice Kay? There were other clauses in the Bill of a miscellaneous description, but he should not dwell on them. He now came to a part of the Bill which, it appeared to him, required the serious consideration of their Lordships. He referred to that part of the Bill which related to the future constitution of the Appellate Court, which had been regarded as the one case came before their Lordships for key-stone of the system. There was not Court of Appeal. It had been their every 20 that was decided finally by the object for several years past to strengthen in every way, and to give solidity to this Court of Appeal. They had tried to do this under various statutes-the Acts of 1873, 1875, 1876, and 1877. All those Acts more or less altered the arrangements from time to time, as experience suggested, with regard to the Court of Appeal. One object they had in view was to give to the Court of Appeal, in the first place, as great dignity as could be given by securing the services of the most eminent men that could be obtained for it. Another object was to insure that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should be, as far as possible, of

equal rank and dignity, and possess equal advantages in reference to their judicial office. But would not that object be frustrated by the provisions of the proposed Bill, which would enact that in future any person who might be made Master of the Rolls should never act as a Primary Judge, but should at once become a member of the Court of Appeal, and possess all the advantages hitherto enjoyed by Masters of the Rolls with reference to the questions of precedence, salary, and patronage? By this Bill a person quite inexperienced as a Judge might join the Appellate Court as Master of the Rolls, and ipso facto he would have precedence of tried Judges, like the late Lord Justice Knight Bruce, or Lord Blackburn, or Lord Justices Bramwell and Brett. The result of this arrangement would be that the Appellate Court would lose the respect of the public and the Profession. He might be told that a man could be made Lord Chancellor, and enjoy the precedence attached to that Office without ever having been a Judge before. That was true; but this state of things had never been considered advantageous, and was only accepted because it could not be avoided. If it was desirable that Masters of the Rolls should for the future become members of the Appellate Court and not be Primary Judges, he would raise no objection. What he insisted on was that the opportunity should be taken to do away with the artificial precedence of the Master of the Rolls, who should have in the Appellate Court no more than the precedence derived from the order of his appointment. Why, he asked, should future Masters of the Rolls have a higher salary than that allotted to other members of the Appellate Court? By giving this higher salary to the Master of the Rolls they would create unnecessarily an invidious distinction between one member of the Court and the other members. Then, again, with regard to patronage. The Bill proposed that future Masters of the Rolls should have all the patronage enjoyed by the Master of the Rolls at the present time. There would, therefore, be one Judge sitting in the Court of Appeal whose rights of patronage would be far more extensive than those of the other Judges in the same Court. To that provision he strongly objected. He hoped his noble and learned Friend

the Lord Chancellor would see the advisability of introducing Masters of the Rolls into the Appellate Court with precedence according to the dates of their appointments only, and upon an equal footing with the other members of the Court. He also disapproved the provision according to which three Judges of First Instance would be selected out of the number of Primary Judges once in every year for the purpose of sitting in the Court of Appeal. It was a proposition of a very grave character, and one which would be very injurious to the Court of Appeal. They had now nearly reached the end of the Session, and therefore but little time was left for discussing the measure. The public and the Bar would have no opportunity of understanding its provisions, and the Judges who were now on Circuit would not have time to devote themselves to the study of the Bill, so as to be in a position to express their opinion upon it. He thought the best thing to do would be to relieve the measure of the two provisions to which he had specially drawn attention. He referred to the clause regulating the position of future Masters of the Rolls in the Appellate Court, and to the provision for the annual selection of three Puisne Judges who should sit in the Court of Appeal. These provisions ought to stand over till another Session, when they could be considered by the public at large. They should not rashly mar the work which had been done under the Acts passed during the last eight years. As things were, the Judges were occupied up to the hilt. No doubt arrears were less than they had been; but that was owing to the state of business in the country. Speaking generally, he thought it was impossible that the Primary Judges. should have much time to sit in the Court of Appeal. Besides, the time when the Court of Appeal wanted most help was during the Circuits. But that was just the time when not a single Primary Judge could be had. He believed it was a delusion to suppose that any Primary Judges would have leisure to sit in the Court of Appeal. He had another objection, and that was the varying constitution of the Courts which necessarily followed. One day the Court would be constituted of certain Judges, all of whom would be unable to sit together again. And a Primary Judge

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »