MR. BUTT said, he had heard that | opinion as when the discussion took it had been ruled by the 12 Judges that place in Committee, and that was to it was illegal to employ a second attorney. retain the clause. It was in accordance How could it have come before the 12 with English practice, and he believed Judges as a question of law? No Chair- it would work advantageously for the man was bound by an informal opinion public. of the Judges. No person could be more strongly opposed to the breaking down of the barriers dividing the two Professions than himself, and he admitted that he entered the Select Committee with a strong prejudice against Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL. attorney-advocates. But, as a matter of (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General fact, an attorney did meet a barrister on perfectly equal terms upon questions of law and practice, and if this were amalgamation, it was already done. The question was simply this- if a man could employ one attorney, why should he not employ two? In the Committee he was struck with the arguments and evidence brought forward to show that it was the habit of the people to employ two attorneys, and he could not see there was ground for the Bar to contest it as matter of privilege. He favoured the principle of not restricting the rights of suitors, unless there was some public interest in doing so. In this case there would be an advantage; but, on the other hand, there would be a grievance to many people in Ireland. MR. MACARTNEY said, that at present there were no barristers who practised at these Courts, and if attorneys were not allowed to practise in them enormous expense would be entailed upon suitors. He should vote against the clause; but if it were agreed to, the Government ought to postpone its operation for a certain number of years, so that the Bar might attend these Courts. MR. MELDON expressed his surprise at the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, because on the Select Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman supported the clause, and assisted in carrying it. It had been laid down again and again in England that for an attorney to appear as an advocate was a direct violation of the law. The clause was almost identical with the clause in the English County Courts Act, and there was no reason why it should not be passed. for Ireland.) [BILLS 3-219.] CONSIDERATION. Bill, as amended, considered. MR. A. MOORE moved, in page 22, after Clause 49, to insert the following Clause : (Grand jury shall contribute to maintenance of children in reformatories.) "From and after the passing of this Act, the grand jury of each county in Ireland shall be bound to contribute towards the support of all children detained in reformatory or industrial schools who shall be natives of such county." The hon. Member said, that the present state of the law was this-that the Government allowed a capitation grant to every child detained in a reformatory or industrial school, and the Grand Juries were empowered to give a supplemental grant. He would submit that the Government grant was either enough, or it was not enough. If it was enough, their permission to Grand Juries to grant supplemental grants ought to be struck off, and if it was not enough, it should be compulsory on Grand Juries to grant this aid. There were three or four Grand Juries who persistently refused to give such grants. In his own county the Grand Jury refused to give this aid, and consequently destitute children had nowhere to go but the workhouse. The simple request of the ratepayers to the Grand Juries was that they should pay this rate of 2s. 6d. per head for the children in these industrial schools. By that means the child would be removed out of the workhouse, where he was costing about 3s. 10d. per week, to an industrial school, where he could be taught a trade, and thus be made a useful, selfsupporting member of society. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) said, the arguments had been advanced on both sides on previous discussions with great amplitude, and he remained of the same time. Clause brought up, and read the first a Motion made, and Question proposed, I call in additional medical assistance, and no "That the said Clause be now read serious operation shall be performed without previous consultation being held with another medical practitioner, except under cirumstances not admitting of delay, such circumstances to be recorded in his journal." second time." SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH said, he had been unable to ascertain in how many cases the Grand Jury had declined to exercise the power of giving a supplemental grant. It would be a very stringent measure to make the giving of such a grant compulsory, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having called attention to the subject, so that the Grand Juries might be induced to give the grant in cases where they did not do so at pre sent. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. MR. PARNELL moved, after Clause 52, to insert the following Clauses: (Surgeon shall visit sick prisoners.) "The surgeon shall visit the prison at least twice in every week, and oftener if necessary, and shall see every prisoner in the course of the week. He shall daily visit the prisoners, if any, confined in punishment cells, and he shall visit daily, and oftener if necessary, such of the prisoners as are sick, and, when necessary, shall direct any prisoners to be removed to the infirmary." (Surgeon shall keep journal of state of prisoners, and enter therein result of his inspection of prison.) "The surgeon shall enter day by day, in his journal to be kept in the prison, an account of the state of every such prisoner, the name of his disease, a description of the medicines and diet, and any other treatment which he may order for such prisoner. The surgeon shall, once at least in every three months, inspect every part of the prison, and enter in his journal the result of each inspection, recording therein any observations he may think fit to make on any want of cleanliness, drainage, warmth, or ventilation, any bad quality of the provisions, any insufficiency of clothing or bedding, any insufficiency in the quantity or defect in the quality of the water, or any cause which may affect the health of the prisoners." (As to prisoners of unsound mind.) "Whenever the surgeon has reason to believe that the mind of a prisoner is or is likely to be injuriously affected by the discipline or treatment, he shall report the case in writing to the gaoler, together with such directions as he may think proper, and he shall call the attention of the chaplain to any prisoner who appears to require his special notice." (Surgeon shall not perform serious operation without assistance.) "The surgeon may, in any case of danger or difficulty, which appears to him to require it, (In case of death of prisoner surgeon shall enter particulars in his journal.) "The surgeon shall, forthwith on the death of any prisoner, enter in his journal the following particulars, videlicet: at what time the deceased was taken ill; when the illness was first communicated to the surgeon; the nature of the disease; when the prisoner died; and an account of the appearances after death; together with any special remarks that appear to him requisite." (Gaoler shall keep punishment book.) "The gaoler shall enter in a separate book called the punishment book a statement of the nature of any offence for which he has awarded punishment to be inflicted on any prisoner, with the addition of the name of the offender, the date of the offence, and the amount of punishment inflicted. "No prisoner shall be kept at labour for more than ten hours in each day (exclusive of meals)." (Gaoler shall report cases of insanity to Visiting Committee and call the attention of the surgeon to any prisoner who appears out of health.) "The gaolers shall, without delay, report to the Visiting Committee of Justices any case of insanity or apparent insanity occurring among the prisoners. He shall also, without delay, call the attention of the surgeon to any prisoner whose state of mind or body appears to require attention, and shall carry into effect the directions of the surgeon respecting alterations of the discipline or treatment of any such prisoner. "The gaoler shall notify to the surgeon without delay the illness of any prisoner, and shall deliver to him daily a list of such prisoners as complain of illness, or are removed to the infirmary, or confined to their cells by illness, and he shall deliver to the chaplain and surgeon lists of such prisoners as are confined in punish ment cells." After Clause 53, to insert the following Clause: (Coroner shall hold inquest on prisoner who has died in prison.) "It shall be the duty of the coroner having jurisdiction in the place to which the prison belongs, to hold an inquest on the body of every prisoner who may die within the prison. Where it is practicable sufficient time shall be allowed before the holding of the inquest to allow the attendance of the nearest relative of the deceased, and in no case shall any officer of the prison be a juror on such inquest." SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, that he believed that most, if not all, of these duties were now performed; but he did not object to these clauses, espe- | appointment of any person to act as procurator cially as they were part of the English statute law on the subject. Clauses verbally amended, and added to the Bill. Bill read the third time, and passed. SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selin-Ibbetson.) [BILL 209.] CONSIDERATION. Bill, as amended, considered. fiscal ad interim or in the absence of the procurator fiscal in any sheriff court shall cease and determine from and after the commencement of this Act." SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL thought that the settlement now proposed was, on the whole, the best settlement which could be suggested, and he, for one, hoped that it might be accepted by the House. Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. THE LORD ADVOCATE next moved, in place of Clause 6, omitted, the following clause : (Procurator fiscal may appoint depute with consent of Lord Advocate and Sheriff.) 66 GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, that when the Bill was in Committee he pointed out that, by transferring the salaries of the judicial officers of Scotland from the annual Votes of Parliament to the Consolidated Fund, the Except as herein before provided, no sheriff House of Commons would be deprived of to nominate or appoint any person to perform shall have power, after the passing of this Act, all control in reference to these Courts; the duties of procurator fiscal; but it shall be and he intimated his intention to bring lawful for a procurator fiscal, with the leave of up on the Report an Amendment which the Lord Advocate and Sheriff expressed in would give the House the means of pro- fit persons to be named in such writing, for writing, to grant a deputation to one or more nouncing an opinion as to the changes whose actings he shall be responsible, to sign which the Secretary of State might writs, to appear in Court, and to conduct prosemake. Accordingly, he had prepared a cutions and inquiries in his name and on his beclause which would, he thought, effect half. In the event of a vacancy in the office of the object he had in view. He sub-procurator fiscal, any depute or deputes apmitted, further, that the House of Commons should have the direct means of judging whether the money authorized to be spent under the Bill was a proper expenditure or not. pointed in terms of this section shall have and discharge all the powers, privileges, and duties of a procurator fiscal until such vacancy is filled up." Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. Amendment proposed, MR. SPEAKER pointed out to the hon. and gallant Baronet that the Question before the House was that the Bill, In page 1, line 14, at end of the Clause, to as amended, be considered. His Amend-insert the words " Provided always, That it ment would come more properly when shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to the House came to that part of the Bill lay before both Houses of Parliament copies of to which it was applicable. all orders or directions relating to sheriff Courts the residences, the salaries, the fees and remuof Scotland, or to the duties, the appointments, neration, or other matters affecting the officers and establishments of these Courts, which the Secretary of State may have issued, or may issue, in exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this or any previous Acts, with a view of enabling either House of Parliament to resolve thereon, as provided for in Clause fifty-four of the Act of the thirty-ninth and fortieth years of Victoria, chapter seventy."-(Sir George Balfour.) THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in place of Clause 5, omitted, the following clause: - (Appointment of procurators fiscal vested in sheriff's with approval of Secretary of State.) "From and after the passing of this Act the appointment of procurators fiscal shall be made by the sheriff with the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and any procurator fiscal so appointed, and any procurator fiscal holding office at the passing of this Act (save in so far as hereinafter expressly provided) shall not be removable from office except in the manner provided in the fifth section of this Act: Provided always, That no appoint-in ment of any procurator fiscal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall fall by reason of the sheriff ceasing to hold office by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise. The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. THE LORD ADVOCATE proposed, Clause 7, to leave out "forty," and insert "fifty." SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL congratulated the Lord Advocate on the small concession which he had seen his way to making, and hoped that next year he might be able to go further in the same direction. Amendment agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. House adjourned at half after Four HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 6th August, 1877. * METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVE- CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. Lords Amendment, page 3, line 15, at commencement of line 15, insert "Sub agreed to. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-ject to the provisions of this Act," Committee Report Saint Catherine's Harbour, Their Lordships met;-And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate Amendment, in page 4, line 28, to leave out from line 28 to line 9, in page 5, inclusive, the next Amendment read a second time. MR. FAWCETT, in moving that the House disagree to the Lords' Amendment, said, that the effect of the Amendment inserted by the Lords would be to postpone indefinitely a most important London improvement-namely, the construction of a new street, from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road; and the effect of his Motion, if carried, would be to send back the Bill to the House of Lords for re-consideration, and to give an opportunity of re-instating the most important improvement proposed by the Bill in exactly the same form in which that improvement had left this House. Happily, upon the present occasion, he was saved from inflicting a long speech upon the House, for, since he brought forward the subject on Tuesday last, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works-and he was supported by the unanimous opinion of the Board over which he presided-had come round to his views, and was now agreed that it would be most undesirable that the Bill should be passed with the clause inserted by the Lords, retained. It was thought by some that the success of his Motion would be that the Bill-which it was essential should be passed this Sessionwould be endangered. But he altogether disagreed with that view-all he desired was, that the Lords should have the opportunity of re-considering the decision objectionable and pernicious. He believed, and would continue to believe, until he was told on authority to the contrary, that this clause was inserted at the instance, not of Lord Salisbury, but of an unwise and too zealous agent. He did not think that the effect of disagreeing with this Amendment would be to imperil the passing of the Bill. If his Motion were carried, a Committee could be appointed for a conference with the House of Lords, and immediately that conference was over they would know whether this particular clause for the protection of Lord Salisbury was carefully considered, or whether it was introduced in a hurry and by a mistake. The House of Lords, in any case, would have an opportunity of re-considering the subject. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."(Mr. Fawcett.) to which they had come; and if this House should agree to strike out the clause, the promoters of the Bill would hold a consultation with the Committee of the Lords, and he had no doubt an amicable conclusion would be arrived at. When speaking on the subject last week, he had been led into a slight mistake which he now desired to correct. He found, however, that his case was really much stronger than he had presented it. The clause had been most carefully considered by the Select Committee of this House, and they came to the conclusion that it ought not to be inserted. The fact, therefore, was, that the clause was rejected in this House, and was inserted in that House, of which the owner of this property was a Member. As he had stated, the only precedent for the course taken OCcurred in 1868, when the Board had forced upon them a clause similar to that which they were now asked to consider at the instance of Lord Salisbury. This was the case of the Chelsea Embankment, when an Amendment precisely similar was inserted at the instance of Lord Cadogan. That clause was inserted in the Bill for the Chelsea Thames Embankment scheme; and the Metropolitan Board were in this position-that they must accept a clause which they regarded as unjust, or abandon a Bill, the loss of which for 12 months would seriously interfere with the main drainage works which they were then constructing. This clause for the protection of Lord Cadogan's property was also considered by a Select Committee of this House; it was rejected, and was afterwards inserted by the Peers to give protection to one of their own number. In this case, also, a similar clause proposed by Government for the protection of Lord Salisbury was rejected by this House and inserted in the House of Lords for the protection of one of their own body. He did not want to make any comment on these extraordinary coincidences, but they would not produce a very favourable impression out-of-doors. If such clauses were to be inserted in Metropolitan Improvement Bills, the proper course would MR. FAWCETT said, that he was be for both Houses to pass a general informed by the hon. Members for Plyclause, applicable to all owners of pro-mouth and Inverness (Mr. Bates and perty similarly circumstanced; but when Mr. Mackintosh), two Members of the the other House extended special pro- Committee, that such a clause was contection only to the property of a Member sidered and rejected by the Committee of that House, it appeared to be most of this House. VOL. CCXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. GORST desired to point out the extreme inconvenience of the course adopted on that occasion. The House was asked to revise and override the decisions, not of one of its own Committee, but of a Committee of the other House. That was not all. Not only did the promoters of the Bill make no appeal against the decision of the Committee of the other House, but they so far acquiesced in it, that they proposed the Amendment with which this House was now asked to disagree. The Bill before the House authorized the construction of a number of streets, among which was the one in question, from Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) stated that the clause which was inserted by the House of Lords, was proposed and rejected by a Committee of this House. No such clause could have been proposed in this House by those who represented Lord Salisbury, because if they had appeared on clauses in the lower House, they could not have appeared against the Preamble in the other House. Q |