the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Estimates for Greenwich Hospital usually followed the Navy Estimates, and as an impression prevailed out-of-doors that a Bill was in preparation on the subject of the general arrangements of Greenwich Hospital, he wished to know whether the Estimates relating to it would be postponed till the House had an opportunity of considering the Bill?

MR. CHILDERS said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was an exceedingly proper one. They intended to introduce a Bill on the subject of Greenwich Hospital, which would take effect on the first of October; but they would only propose the Estimates for six months, so that the House would have an opportunity of considering the Bill before the Estimates for the remaining six months were taken.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER) BILL. (Mr. West, Mr. Bazley, Mr. Davison.) [BILL 26.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the

Chair."

This

MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he would move, "That this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee." Every piece of legislation that sought to set up anew, and revive such mediæval institutions as this court was likely to retard any comprehensive system of law reform. The curse of our system of judicature was the number and variety of our courts of law. was an ancient court, established when counties palatine were erected, with a view to protect the inhabitants from the incursions of the people of Scotland and Wales, but now there was no use for it, and why should this special jurisdiction be not only preserved but encouraged? In 1867 a similar measure was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at that time Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it was withdrawn on the ground that the Judicature Commission was about to issue. That Commission had just made its first Report,

which would be on the table in a few days; and considerable changes had been recommended. The object of the present Bill, which had been introduced and pressed forward with undue haste, was to defeat the measure proposed by the Commission. The Judges of this court were generally the Judges who attended the circuit, but the centre of the court was in Preston, and no attorney in Manchester and Liverpool would think of bringing an action there unless he expected to get a judgment by default, preferring to come to London, where he had the advantage of the best legal advice. In the last cause list at Liverpool out of seventythree cases only eleven were taken out of the Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of Lancaster. The Bill would establish prothonotaries at Liverpool and Manchester, for the purpose of saving agency fees for the attorneys in those towns. He would undertake to say that it would not confer the slightest benefit on suitors, or lessen in any appreciable degree their expenses. It would simply benefit a few attorneys in Liverpool and Manchester, who were promoting it. Why should not Bolton, Warrington, and other large towns in Lancashire be considered, as well as Liverpool and Manchester? These prothonotaries, considering the important powers they would have to exercise, must be paid large salaries. Why should this expense be put upon the country, and that, too, when we were on the eve of a great reform of our judicature? If they were once appointed, it would be impossible to get rid of them without heavily compensating them. There was no public ground whatever on which the Bill had been brought forward, and it ought to be rejected. There was not, he believed, a single Petition in its favour.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words

66

this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. WEST said, that the feeling in Lancashire was almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. He was surprised that it should be supposed that the Bill

would occasion any charge on the Consolidated Fund, for since the reign of Henry IV. the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster had been kept separate and distinct. The measure could hardly be said to have been brought on hastily, for legislation on the subject began in 1867, and this very Bill had been read three times in the House of Lords. In former days the Assizes for the county palatine were held in Lancaster, but by an Act passsed in the reign of William IV. the Crown was enabled to give Assizes to other places. The southern division of the county had now become more important than the northern, and in 1835 Assizes were given to Liverpool, and subsequently to Manchester. The prothonotary's office, however, still remained at Preston; and to this day all the solicitors in the county having to transact business similar to what was transacted by the Master of the Queen's Bench at Westminster, had to repair or send to Preston for the purpose. It was extremely important that prothonotaries should be appointed for these towns, in order that writs, &c., might be obtained there at once, without the necessity of employing agents at Preston. In fact, the opposition to this Bill proceeded from the attorneys of Preston, who were afraid of losing their fees for agency. It had not been deemed necessary that the office of prothonotary should be held by a lawyer. From the time of John of Gaunt, almost, it had been held by some one who was either a favourite of the King or a friend of the Chancellor of the Duchy for the time being. The last holder of this somewhat lucrative sinecure was the late Sir Charles Phipps, who probably never was at Preston in his life. He had, however, a deputy, a most excellent officer, to whom he paid a small salary, and by him the duties of the office were performed most efficiently. On the death of Sir Charles Phipps it was suggested to Her Majesty that the office ought not to be filled up; and Her Majesty, ever willing to subordinate her undoubted rights of patronage to the benefit of her people, acquiesced in the proposed surrender, so as to admit of the appointment of competent officers in the different districts. Before the arrangement, however, was completed, a change of Government occurred; but hon. Gentlemen opposite took the same view as their predecessors,

and a measure was introduced which was only defeated by the pressure upon the time of Parliament occasioned by the Reform measure. Now that this difficulty was removed, the Bill, which had obtained the sanction of two Governments, ought surely to be passed.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the hon. Member who opposed this Bill (Mr. Serjeant Simon) must be aware that the court to be affected by it was to all intents and purposes a Superior Court. That the number of cases tried in this court at present was comparatively small was, he thought, an argument in favour of the Bill. If a man was to send out of his town for a writ for the purpose of trying his cause, he might as well send up to London for one at once. There was another court as ancient as the one in question - namely, the Court of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancashire, and they were only now asked to do with reference to the court in question what had been done with reference to that court. The offices in connection with that Court of Chancery were formerly in Preston alone, but by an Act, which was passed a few years ago, they were extended to Liverpool and Manchester. Since that was done the business of the court had increased in an untold degree, and he was convinced that a similar benefit would result from the passing of the present Bill.

MR. CRAUFURD said, that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. West) had shown himself very oblivious of the objections that had been urged against it. He should like to know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was in favour of the scheme. His hon. and learned Friend had entirely evaded the question, whether this court should be continued or not. There could be no necessity whatever for hurrying through this Bill when the Report of the Judicature Commission, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty was a Member, would be presented within a few days. He hoped the House would not go into Committee on this Bill.

VISCOUNT SANDON said, the legal profession in Liverpool were decidedly of opinion that considerable advantage would result from the Bill, and the Bill was generally approved of there. The whole course of legal reform had been to bring justice to the door of the populations of the large towns, and, in ac

cordance with that policy, he hoped that the House would agree to the passing of the present Bill.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN said, that last Session reasons were given why this Bill should not be proceeded with before the Report of the Judicature Commission was presented, and he had found it desirable to yield to those representations. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. West) to postpone the Bill for a short time, until the Report appeared.

MR. CARDWELL said, that on the remonstrance as to the Judicature Commission the Bill had been hung up for two years, and yet its promoters were now taunted with acting in indecent haste. If the Report of the Commission should prove to be in favour of this court being done away with, by all means let it be abolished, but meanwhile it was only fair that the inhabitants of Lancashire should enjoy the benefits which would be conferred by the Bill. He hoped the House would now allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, in order that Progress might be reported, if his hon. Friend would not proceed further with the measure for a reasonable time, but wait in order to see whether the Report of the Judicature Commission would be in the meantime presented.

MR. BAZLEY said, that in Liverpool and Manchester the inhabitants were generally strong supporters of the Bill, as a measure for the extension of legal conveniences to the whole county, which were now in a great measure confined to Preston.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.

House resumed.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, 6th April, 1869.

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Second ReadingLord Napier's Salary *(37); Mutiny*; Marine Mutiny *.

Reported with Amendments-East India Irrigation and Canal Company* (31). Report-Habitual Criminals (32-41).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMEND

MENT BILL, 1867.-NOTICE.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that in consequence of certain Questions that had been put to him by his noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords, he had to state that he intended to proceed with the Bill introduced by Sir Stafford Northcote on behalf of the late Government, in the last Session of Parliament, relative to the constitution of the Council of India; and that he would make a statement with respect to it on Thursday week next. THE MARQUESS SALISBURY asked if it would contain any new clauses relating to the financial control of the Council of India?

OF

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL replied that it would not.

HABITUAL CRIMINALS BILL.-(No. 32.) (The Lord Privy Seal.)

REPORT.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 4 (Power to apprehend holders. of license on suspicion).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that in the law as it stood there was no provision authorizing the temporary committal of a ticket-of-leave man to any county or borough prison. He therefore proposed to insert in Clause 4 words enabling a magistrate to commit such a man to any prison within his

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

could conveniently be removed.

Amendment moved in Clause 4, line 6, after ("to") insert ("any prison within his jurisdiction, there to remain until he can conveniently be removed to").

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment moved in line 7, after ("confined") to insert

said Penal Servitude Acts or some of them."

Amendment agreed to.

ditions of license).

Amendment moved, to add as separate paragraph at end of clause

"There shall be repealed so much of the fourth section of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864, as requires the holder of a licence to report himself personally once in each month."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 (Person twice guilty of felony and not punished with penal servitude to be subject to the supervision of the police).

LORD ROMILLY proposed the omission of that portion of the clause which authorized imprisonment for twelve months, with or without hard labour, upon mere suspicion. Common justice dictated this Amendment; for, as the clause stood, a man who had done nothing, but whom a policeman suspected, and as a magistrate thought justly, might be consigned to prison over and over again, and this might go on during the whole of a man's existence. If the magistrate were bound to have evidence of a single fact of any description he should not complain, nor did he object to the commital of persons found in any place under circumstances justifying the belief that they were about to commit or aid in the commission of a felony; but he could not approve the imprisonment of persons on a mere suspicion that they were getting a livelihood by dishonest means. It was true that such persons must have previously committed two offences, and that the object was to punish them when about to commit a third. If all police constables and magistrates were exempt from the passions of human nature he should offer no objection to the proposal; but if they had any feeling of dislike towards a man who had been twice convicted it would enable them to inflict a punishment which should only be inflicted when there was evidence of his intention of committing a felony. He did not believe the people of this country would tolerate such an arbitrary power, which would practically operate as one law for the rich and another for the poor; it being obvious that no magistrate would commit on mere suspicion a rich man

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY. said, he could not accept the Amendment, since it struck at the very root and principle of the Bill. The object of the Bill was two-fold. First, it made certain provisions binding on persons under license; and the object of the second part of the Bill, which included this clause, was to place men who had been twice convicted of serious offences, but had been sentenced by the Judges to the alternative sentence of imprisonment instead of penal servitude, in the same position as those who had been so sentenced, and who held a license under the Penal Servitude Acts. Persons against whom there had been repeated convictions were frequently sentenced at sessions and Assizes to imprisonment for six months or two years, and it was only right that such persons, having committed more than one felony, should be put in the same position as licenses with respect to police supervision. The object of the Bill was to strike at the "habitual criminal" class, men who formed notorious gangs and were well known to the police, but against whom no actual proof of crime might for a long period be established. The clause would empower their arrest under certain safeguards, and the magistrate would then call upon them to show that they were not getting a livelihood by dishonest means. His noble and learned Friend feared that magistrates might, from corrupt motives, oppress these men and imprison them without just cause; but for his own part he had more confidence in the administrators of justice, and it must be borne in mind that these proceedings would be public, and would be reported in the newspapers, and that the persons arrested might be defended by counsel. The chief officer of police, as a responsible man, would be very careful in giving authority for an arrest, and the magistrate would have to be satisfied that the prisoner was pursuing dishonest courses. He thought, therefore, that the clause was sufficiently guarded.

LORD CAIRNS begged to make a suggestion that the wording of this clause should be assimilated to that of

offered, so that it should stand that a person being brought before a magistrate must make it appear, to the satisfaction of the magistrate, that he is not getting his living by dishonest means.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY thought this would aggravate rather than relax the stringency of the clause. In its present shape the magistrate must have reasonable grounds for believing that a person was getting his livelihood by dishonest means, and he believed the class on whose behalf the noble and learned Lord opposite objected would prefer this to the form suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns). He regretted that the framers of the Bill, in providing such large and exceptional powers as those provided by the Bill, had not employed words having meanings better known to the law. He doubted whether there was any legal definition of "dishonesty," and he feared that magistrates in country districts, little accustomed to the administration of the law, might construe anything opposed to their own views of morality as "dishonest." He should prefer the word illegal." The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had proposed as a security that the chief officer of police must authorize the apprehension of suspected persons; but suppose that suspected person had been already apprehended. Suppose that a police constable had arrested a man upon a charge that was not sustained, the intervention of the chief officer of police would thus be set aside, and the constable and the magistrate between them might send the man to prison for a year, with hard labour, because he could not prove that he was not getting his living by dishonest means. He thought that it would have been more satisfactory if the sanction of the chief officer had been required as an element in the conviction of the man. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), but he had no wish to make the clause more stringent than it was already.

EARL GREY thought there was serious objection to punishing a man on the mere suspicion of a police-constable and magistrate.

LORD CAIRNS urged that the 4th and 10th clauses, having the same object, should be couched in the same terms.

VOL. CXCV. [THIRD SERIES.]

He preferred the language of the 4th clause, for it was rather anomalous to inflict punishment in case it appeared to the magistrate that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the prisoner was getting his livelihood by dishonest means, whereas it was quite consistent with Parliamentary usage to do so in case a suspected person failed to make it appear to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he was not getting his livelihood by dishonest means. He would propose, therefore, that the latter form be substituted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that as the clause now stood the prisoner was to prove that he was not getting "a livelihood"-not "his livelihood"by dishonest means. How was a man to prove that he was earning no money by dishonest means? He might, indeed, repel any allegation to the contrary; but how could he rebut it? Could any Member of their Lordships' House prove that he was not getting a livelihood by dishonest means? It seemed to be hoped that magistrates would put a lax construction on the clause; but if they happened to be logicians the provision was one under which not only every man who was listening to him, but every man in the three kingdoms, might be sent to prison.

LORD ROMILLY suggested that a greater security would be given by substituting "magistrates" for "a magistrate," so that no magistrate singly was armed with this power.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought that words to the effect that the prisoner must prove that he was not getting his livelihood by dishonest means would meet the justice of the case.

Amendment withdrawn.