Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 107; their moral independence. Campbell, Noes 30 Majority 77. SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 36, after "heirs," to add Provided always, That when under the provisions of this Act, or at any time hereafter, a Judge of the High Court of Justice shall, while he is such Judge, be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, he shall not receive a less salary than he was entitled to receive while Judge of the High Court of Justice," posal of the Government they would | But his Amendment as to salaries had not be able to obtain men of the highest been objected to as offering promotion ability, such as had held the Great Seal, to Judges. He would remind the for these offices, and they would fail to Committee of several eminent names, improve the Appellate Jurisdiction of the where Judges holding highly honourHouse of Lords. He should therefore able but inferior posts, had been transpress his Amendment to a division. ferred to more exalted offices, with great advantage to the country, and without the slightest impeachment or sacrifice of Cranworth, Truro, Hatherley, were all Judges before they became Lords Chancellors, and no one found fault with their elevation because they had previously sat on the Judicial Bench. Say what men might, the hope of promotion in every station of life, the highest as well as the lowest, was a most powerful stimulus and incentive to increased exertion in the path of duty. Under the present provisions of the Bill, the two new Lords of Appeal would actually take social precedence of the Lord Chief Justice of England, and would continue to do so, in every case where he did not happen to be a Peer of the Realm. Even their eldest sons, as the Committee were at present advised, would take precedence of the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chief Baron, if Commoners. Influenced by these reasons, he appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who was then present and had introduced the Bill, to accept his Amendment. The Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature were eligible under the 2nd section after two years' holding of the judicial office, and the principle of promotion was directly sanctioned and recognized in their case, and why should a hard-and-fast rule be laid down directly opposite in principle, by which they would lose the advantage and opportunity of inviting such men as Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir FitzRoy Kelly, to add strength and lustre to the highest legal tribunal in the Kingdom? urged that in constituting a Supreme Court of Appeal it was most desirable that the highest judicial talent and the most matured judicial learning and experience should be imported into it. True it was that at the present time the House of Lords was exceedingly rich in legal ability, as they had there not only the Lord Chancellor, but other legal functionaries no longer in office, among whom might be recorded the very eminent names of Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, Lord Penzance, and Lord O'Hagan. Those distinguished men were admissible into the proposed Court of Appeal under the 2nd section of the Bill; but the time might come when the House of Lords would not be so gifted with judicial ability and authority, and in such a case it would be very desirable that the doors of the new Court should be open to the Chief Justices and Lord Chief Baron, whose presence would greatly enhance its dignity and weight. It was for that reason he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) proposed his present Amendment. With the salary of £6,000, as THE ATTORNEY GENERAL opat present proposed, it could not be exposed the Amendment, because he pected that the Chiefs would accept thought it would be undesirable to take appointments, their acceptance of which away either of the Chief Justices or would entail upon them a loss of salary, Chief Baron from the High Court of without corresponding other advantages. Justice, and because he thought it The question of the Judicial Peerage would be unwise to make such a differhad already been discussed under the ence of salary as that proposed. Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), and he should be out of Order in again adverting to it then. Amendment negatived. MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Mr. HEYGATE) moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 4, after "Privy Council," to add "Nothing in the Order of Council of the twentieth day of February, one thousand six hundred and twenty-seven, or in any other Order in Council, rule, or practice of the Privy Council, or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, shall, for the future, be construed to prevent any member or members of the said Judicial Committee, when sitting at the hearing of any appeal or petition, from delivering his or their separate opinion or judgment as to the report which should be made to Her Majesty upon the said appeal or petition." In the unfortunate absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) it had devolved upon him to move an Amendment, in which, however, he thoroughly agreed, providing that the Members of the Judicial Committee should deliver their judgments separately, instead of, as at present, settling a report in private, in which of course the majority prevailed, how ever narrow it might be. He assumed that the general object of the Acts for the reform of the judicial system, of which the present Bill was the concluding one, was to produce uniformity of procedure, if so, his Amendment came with the strongest recommendation, for the Judicial Committee was peculiar and unique in its present practice. This had nothing to recommend it in itself, for it was the sole creation of certain Orders of February 20, 1627. It was, in fact, the survival of the procedure of that byeword for tyranny-the Star Chamber, a fact not likely to recommend it now for continuance. These Orders laid down, among other matters, that "The Lords are, by questions or otherwise, to inform themselves of the truth of the matter of fact, but not to discover any opinions till all be fully heard;" and he put it to the Committee, if the Judicial Committee did not, in its several members contravene this order every time it sat. The practical result of this way of deciding, by a report in which the minority had to bend to the majority, was that the real minds of the jurists making up the Court was never reached. He appealed to the Committee, if the great value of a Court of Appeal, as of a Court sitting in Banco, was not this very circumstance of the various lights thrown upon a question by the acute but dissimilar adjudicating intellects. This in the Judicial Committee was replaced by a washed out compromise, an essay from which the spirit had evaporated, but which, from the form in which it was cast, had the false air of a sort of edict or institute of law when it was, after all, only a body of reasons for the real judgment which ambuscaded behind it. He begged to move the Amendment. MR. FARLEY LEITH believed that the present mode of delivering judgment was one of the best characteristics of the Court, which, it should be remembered, was one of Final Appeal. It mattered not therefore whether one Judge was dissentient or not, where there were four sitting, and could be of no avail to the suitor. He thought it undesirable that the Judges should give their opinions seriatim, as it was better that the Court should appear to be unanimous in giving a decision. He therefore opposed the Amendment. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that, properly speaking, no judgment at all was given in the Privy Council, but advice was given to Her Majesty. Besides, the procedure of the Privy Council was not a matter that was germane to the Bill. If any alteration were needed, it had better be made by means of an Order in Council. MR. BUTT thought that the first was being given, but he admitted that the a reason against any judgment at all Amendment was not germane to the subject of the Bill. MR. GREGORY said, his experience was that the judgments given in the Privy Council were most satisfactory; and he feared that if individual judgments were given on Indian appeals the Natives would not be satisfied whenever any difference of opinion amongst the Judges was apparent. Amendment negatived. MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS proposed to amend the clause by inserting a Proviso "That the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of this Act shall of Parliament as have held any of the high in no way affect or alter the duty of such Peers judicial offices aforesaid to attend at the hearing and determination of appeals in the House of Lords." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the Amendment, which he described as a statutory scarecrow. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL accepted the Amendment. MR. SERJEANT SIMON saw no necessity for the Amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Hearing and determination of appeals during dissolution). SIR GEORGE BOWYER observed that the clause was intended to enable appeals to be heard and determined during the dissolution of Parliament; but the wording of the clause seemed to him to create a new Court, and he thought it would be better for the House of Lords to hear and determine the appeals. He would, therefore, move the substitution of the words "House of Lords" for Lords of Appeal. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he would consider the matter before the Report was taken; but it was his opinion that the wording of the clause was MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Mr. HEYGATE) moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 21, to leave out all after "given to Her Majesty." This he had taken charge, for the hon. Memwas another Amendment, of which ber for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate), and in which also he cordially agreed. It was to omit words in Clause 12, perlations, to be hereafter named of Epismitting the presence under certain reguJudicial Committee when engaged upon copal assessors at the sittings of the ecclesiastical appeals. In moving this Amendment, he was only calling upon the Committee to confirm what the House had already concluded with a more complete and vehement unanimity than he had ever seen it employ on any question. The words which he called upon them to omit were in form to relieve the Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal It was, in from Episcopal assessors. substance, to declare that, being a Court of Law to define the legal meaning of certain documents, it ought to be composed of lawyers whose business it was to interpret such documents, and not partly of lawyers and partly of theologians, whose knowledge, coloured as it must be by conscientious convictions, was of course, of a partizan character. The name and pretence of their being only 66 assessors would deceive no one. They were meant to be Judges, and only more influential Judges because not having countable votes they would exercise illicit influence. They would be to the real Court what a masterful wife was to her husband. But why did he appeal to the former unanimity of the House? When the original Bill for the reform of our Judicature was before Parliament in 1873, it came down to this House with provisions for a Supreme Court of Appeal from which ecclesiastical causes excluded, for fear of overloading it as the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) owned. For these appeals, then, the Judicial Committee was retained. However, his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War moved the omission of this restriction-and why? -simply and solely because the Judicial Committee was a Court of a mixed legal and ecclesiastical composition. The debate took place on July 4, 1873; and among the arguments of the Secretary for War was found the remarkable statement that 2 C were 772 "The Judicial Committee gave an impression | Bishop-Judges, hampered the Court of that it was rather a Court of Heresy than a Appeal with Assessor Bishops. Не Court of Law, where there were ecclesiastical need not dwell on the influences which persons sitting upon the tribunal, and that It was too cases were decided rather by a theological bias than by a strict interpretation of the documents before it."[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1788.] He also took the opportunity of pointing out that the Lower House of Convocation had expressed the desire that the Court of Final Appeal should deal with ecclesiastical questions. His right hon. Friend was followed by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who very strongly supported the same view. So did that very acute lawyer, Dr. Ball, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). The hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire, now Home Secretary, followed, and he said it was "The birthright of every layman in this country, that the doctrines of the Church were laid down in certain documents which were binding upon the clergy, and the clergy were entitled to have these documents construed according to the strict rules of law."-[Ibid., 1791.] had brought this about. late in the Session to risk a conflict between the two Houses. But it was generally felt in this House that the Bill had been returned by them to the Lords in a much better shape than that in which it had for the second time come down for the consideration of the Commons. The House of Commons had, without distinction of Party, and by the voices of Leaders on both sides, emphatically declared against the principle of clerical Judges sitting upon appeals affecting matters which were really questions of law, and they had-though not quite completely-succeeded in stamping their conclusions on the Act of 1873. He now called upon the Committee to respect those conclusions, and by rejecting the words of which he moved the omission, to take care that the obnoxious principle did not again make for itself a clandestine lodgment within our judicial system. Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 21, to leave out from the word His own right hon. Colleague (Mr. Wal'Majesty," to the end of the Clause." pole), still speaking in the same sense,(Mr. Beresford Hope.) laid down that— "It was a matter of very great importance in reference to the welfare of the country, and of the Church itself-first, that the tribunal to decide on Appeal should be simply a judicial tribunal, and secondly, that the people of the country should know and feel that it was so."[Ibid., 1792.] 66 Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the Amendment. He said that the Archbishops and Bishops were part of the Judicial Committee, they were He passed over his own remarks, and among the Judges, and what was proneed only point out that the hon. Mem-posed was to repeal that provision of the ber for Salford (Mr. Cawley) also approved of the Motion. Finally, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), in assenting to the Motion, and after remarking on the extraordinary unanimity with which it had been received, observed "He thought that they should commit a great error if they were to attempt to secure even a shadow of religious conformity on the part of the Members of the Court, or to attempt anything in the nature of a test which would throw upon those Judges a character other than that of Judges."-Ibid., 1795.] There was, of course, no division upon a Clergy Discipline Act and substitute for it another which would give power to the Queen in Council to appoint the Archbishops and Bishops assessors. Even if it were approved of by the Commons, it would be certainly rescinded by the Lords. MR. J. G. HUBBARD said, it was most important that the decisions should be purely legal, and therefore he was strongly of opinion that there should be no Episcopal assessors. MR. MARTEN said, that the clause with regard to assessors was not germane to the main purpose of the Bill. Question put. the excision of the Judicial Commit- The Committee divided:- Ayes 45; tee, and, therefore, the abolition of Noes 45. And, the numbers being equal, the Chairman stated that, as the House would have another opportunity of considering the Question before the Committee, upon the Report of the Bill, he accordingly declared himself with the Ayes. On Question, "That the clause be agreed to? MR. CHARLEY moved its omission on account of a doubt as to its probable effect in the colonies. SIR GEORGE BOWYER supported the Amendment as likely to remove a difficulty in the case. MR. FARLEY LEITH considered the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Privy Council as at present constituted. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, there must be some statutory provision on the question, because if there were not, when one of the Judges died, no appointment of a successor could be made. By an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper power was provided to appoint an assessor in the case of the death or resignation of a Judge. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, the assessor was the man who understood the Mahomedan law, and the Judges were ignorant of it. The assessor should therefore turn the Judges out. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 14 struck out. Clauses 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. COMMONS BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Lords' Amendments considered. Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 22, line 33, read a second time, and agreed to. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE took objection to the Amendment, contending that all protection against illegal inclosure would by it be taken away and the Bill reduced to a nullity. He would move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The House divided:-Ayes 47; Noes 18: Majority 29. Subsequent Amendments agreed to. MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 39.] (Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Butt, Mr. Ronayne.) CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [5th August] proposed (on Consideration of the Bill, as amended), page 3, line 42, after the word "privilege," to insert the words "or to be selected to any corporate office." sented to the addition of certain words. MR. M. BROOKS said, he had asHe hoped it might now be read a third time. MR. SPEAKER: By the general assent of the House, at this period of the Session, it is not unusual for the House to take more than one stage of a Bill at a sitting. ["Hear, hear!"] Debate resumed. Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Another Amendment made. STANDING ORDERS REVISION. Select Committee to revise the Standing Orders:-Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. MONK, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. ANDERSON, Viscount GALWAY, Sir JOSEPH M KENNA, Colonel NORTH, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Page 22, line 33, after the word Sir HENRY WOLFF, Mr. BRISTOWE, and Mr. "situate," to insert the words "but the provisions of this section shall not apply to any commons or waste lands whereon the rights of common are vested solely in the lord of the manor," the next Amendment, read a second time. RAIKES:-Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the Quorum.-(The Chairman of Ways and Means.) CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to apply a sum, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the ser |