If removed. The opinion of the Privy to give full explanations, not only to "The experience of the Lords of the Council, therefore, strongly corroborates the arguments stated in Sir F. Rogers' paper in favour of proceedings by the Governor, subject to a review by the Secretary of State or the Privy Council in England; and they have invariably found that with the local assemblies, the delay, uncertainty. in the cases in which proceedings have originated and expense have been greatly augmented. "At the same time, when the misconduct the subject. The pith of it is this, that it is the opinion of the Judicial Committee that some effectual means must exist for removing Colonial Judges who are guilty of grave misconduct. It is Memorandum. I am exceedingly anxious impossible to adopt as cumbrous a method as is adopted in cases of Judges at home; at the same time, it is necessary that they should have a hearing before a perfectly impartial tribunal. The Memorandum shows that it is the almost universal rule, both in the case of removals and suspensions, that there is a hearing before the Privy Council. In the case of removal of a Judge under Burke's Act it is necessary that the case should be brought, of absolute right, before the be brought, of absolute right, before the Privy Council. And so in cases of suspension, as my noble Friend says, in later times - except when the Privy Council refuses to hear, because no appeal is made by the person so suspended -they usually recommend that the matter be referred either to the General Council of the Committee or the Judicial Committee; and it is usually thought by the Lords of the Council, when the Judicial Committee meet on questions of this sort, that the President of the Council and the Colonial Secretary should attend the meetings of the Committee. The Memorandum goes on to state that when the charges are brought against a Judge at the instance of the Legislative Assembly, before the Privy Council, the aspect of affairs is somewhat changed, because, instead of the Judicial Com- That opinion, I apprehend, is perfectly mittee acting as a Court of appeal, it is in accordance with the wishes and deobliged to take on itself something of sires of the petitioners. There is also the character of a Court of primary an important Minute of my noble and jurisdiction. The difficulty of procedure, learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford); but the difficulty as to evidence, the diffi- it is rather long, and therefore I do not culty of getting the issues clearly put, read it at length; but I am glad of the whether with regard to law or fact, in opportunity of stating, in general terms, all these casess is found most onerous to that it is consistent with the views exthe plaintiff, and much less satisfactory pressed by the noble Earl. The opinion to the Lords of the Council. But the of Dr. Lushington on the matter is Memorandum goes on to state as given in very brief terms, and I think my noble Friend put it, with perfect I may trespass on your Lordships' time truth when a Governor of his own by reading what he says. Dr. Lushington accord suspends a Judge, he takes a step statesof the gravest responsibility. He is obliged to bring a specific charge, and the Judge is entitled to give a full answer. charged is purely judicial, and therefore not properly amenable to the decision of the Executive authority, acting on the advice of law officers or advisers of inferior rank, it would seem that the due maintenance of the independence of Judges requires that judicial acts should only be brought into question before some tribunal of weight and them; and this function appertains with peculiar wisdom enough to pronounce definitively upon fitness to the Privy Council, which, as a Court of Appeal, has to review the decisions of all the Colonial Courts." "I entertain no doubt in my own mind that the most efficacious means of proceeding, and productive of the least evil consequences, is that the It is the interest of the Go-intrusted with the power of investigating any alGovernors of the Colonies respectively should be vernor to bring the matter forward with leged charges against the Judges, and, if in their all the evidence in the clearest manner opinion need be, of suspending them; of course, for his own defence. In point of fact, all the proceedings, and the evidence upon which the Governor is placed almost equally on Colonial Office, and, if need be, Her Majesty will they act, should be remitted without delay to the his trial with the Judge whom he has be advised to remit the case to the consideration Earl Granville of the Privy Council. I apprehend that the Judicial Committee has no peculiar claim to take cognizance of such a case. I think that the propriety of the Colonial Governor being invested with this power, great as it is, would be more apparent if contrasted with any other mode of proceeding than that suggested." My Lords, being thus strengthened by these authorities, I am exceedingly glad that the subject has been brought before the House, as the discussion may prove satisfactory to those who thought themselves aggrieved by the results which have followed the placing of the Settlement under the control of the Colonial Office. With respect to the importance of selecting the best men not only for judicial employments, but for all other employments in the Colonies, that is a subject not at all new to me; and, in the situation I occupy, I feel that there is no one thing in respect to which I can be more useful than in attempting to select both for judicial and civil offices the very best men that can be obtained; and in overcoming the difficulties-which I own are not small, in respect of recommendations of persons who sometimes do not turn out so well, or do not entirely fulfil the character which zealous friends have given them. Petition ordered to lie on the Table. POOR RELIEF (METROPOLIS) BILL. (NO. 97.) SECOND READING. (The Lord Privy Seal.) Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that in 1867 a Bill was passed under the auspices of Mr. Hardy, who was then at the head of the Poor Law Department, the object of which was to produce a degree of equalization of rates in respect to the poor in the metropolis by placing certain charges on the Common Fund; and by the present Bill it was proposed to extend that principle still further. Before explaining the details of the Bill, he would state the result of the Act, known as Mr. Hardy's Act. The result of that Act was to put the cost of lunatics, education of children in district schools, fever hospitals, medicines, and drugs, and a large sum for the salaries of officers, and other items of expenditure on the Common Fund. The measure had now been in operation for three half years. For the first half-year the sum charged to the Common Fund for these purposes was £130,000; for the second half-year, £170,000, and for the last half-year the charge had increased to £200,000-an increase partly to be explained by the fact that at first the Act was not brought fully into operation. The various items might be shortly stated. For the year ending Lady Day, 1869, the maintenance of lunatics cost £160,000; the medicines and surgical appliances, £9,000; the salaries of officers, £103,000; the children in district schools, £91,000; the expenditure under the Houseless Poor Act was £12,000; and registration and vaccination fees amounted to £15,000. The consequence of the operation of the Act had been, besides the equalization of the rates, that children formerly maintained in the workhouses, where their education could not be attended to in the most desirable way, had to a great extent been removed to district schools. This was an object which Parliament had long desired to attain, but it was not effected in any satisfactory degree, until by Mr. Hardy's Act an inducement was held out to the local administrators of the Poor Law in the metropolis to erect district schools, whereby they obtained a contribution from the Common Fund. Another result of the Act had been an increase-and a desirable increase in the salaries of the officers. Various parishes had previously felt great reluctance to increase the salaries of the medical and relieving officers, even when such increase was required for the proper administration of the Poor Law; but now, when proper salaries were provided, the actual effect had been to decrease the expense of the administration of the law. The present Bill extended still further the principle of placing certain charges on the Common Fund. Owing to the construction of railways, and the changes brought about in the habits of the richer classes in the metropolis, the burden of the poor rate was not so equally distributed as formerly. The City of London was now almost exclusively occupied by warehouses and places of business, and by a very small number of dwelling-houses, so that a small number of persons only remained in the City during the night; the labouring men who worked there during the day slept in Bethnal Green and other distant places, and obtained relief than that should happen they would there when sick or out of work. But forego the advantages to be derived the poorer classes in those outer parishes formed part of the same population just as much as if they resided in the same Union, and it seemed fair to throw the rate over the whole district so as to produce a more equal distribution of the burden. On the other hand, he should be sorry to see a complete equalization of the rate, as that would take away from the different local authorities a strong incitement to local management and the exercise of economy. Therefore in this matter he desired that steps should be taken cautiously, and that he thought was done by the present Bill. The proposal was that a certain proportion of the expense of the maintenance of in-door paupers should be thrown on the Common Fund, the amount to be repaid to the local Guardians out of that fund to be limited to 5d. a day for each pauper. The total expenditure for the in-maintenance of the adult poor in workhouses-excluding lunatics and vagrants-was estimated to have been, during the year ended in Lady Day, 1869, £285,000. Taking £285,000 as the total cost of in-maintenance, under the clause of the Bill which provided that 28. 11d. should be paid in respect of each pauper out of the Common Fund, the total charge on the Common Fund would be £170,000, and the charge upon the individual parishes would be £115,000. In round figures the result would be that about two thirds of the charge would be borne by the Common Fund and about one-third by the parishes. The aggregate sum at which the metropolis was rated yearly to the relief of the poor was £1,400,000; and of this £400,000 was now chargeable on the Common Fund under Mr. Hardy's Act; an additional sum of £170,000 would be so charged under this Bill. The result would be that under that Act and this Bill rather less than half the total charge would be thrown upon the Common Fund, and the remainder of the charge would be borne by the separate local funds, as at present. It might be objected that the Bill introduced a principle applicable to all England, and which would lead to a consolidated national rate. On behalf of himself and the present Poor Law Board, he wished to say it was not intended that this Bill should lead to any result so greatly to be deplored-rather from the operation of the Bill. One subsidiary advantage of the proposal was that Guardians would be encouraged so to administer relief as not to bring the poor into the workhouses--because the accommodation would be limited, as it was provided that each workhouse should be certified in respect of the number it would accommodate, and if that number were exceeded no claim on the Common Fund could be entertained. That would give the Poor Law Board a control over the numbers to be housed in each building, and, at the same time, the arrangement would deprive parishes of the inducement to build workhouses in order to put the poor in them. The total average cost of each pauper in the metropolitan workhouses was nearly 48. 10d. a week, and the total charge that would be thrown on the Common Fund was 28. 11d. a week. There was, therefore, left a considerable margin within which Guardians might save by good management, or lose by bad management. Another important provision under the Bill was the power given to the Poor Law Beard to enforce its requirements on any refractory Union by withdrawing the contribution upon the Common Fund, instead of, as at present, having to resort to the cumbrous remedy of a mandamus. An analogous power was possessed by the Home Office in reference to the management of prisons-if its requirements were not complied with, the contributions from the Consolidated Fund could be withheld. He trusted the Bill would receive the favourable consideration of the House. The Earl of Kimberley Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -(The Lord Privy Seal.) This THE DUKE OF RICHMOND concurred generally in what had been said by the noble Earl. When he (the Duke of Richmond) was at the Poor Law Board very great complaint was made that parishes which benefited by the labour of the poor who did not live in them escaped the burden of their relief. Bill would do something to remedy that state of things by, to some extent, equalizing the rates over the whole metropolis. He was glad to hear the noble Earl say that he thought the Bill went far enough in the direction of equalization and centralization, for equalization would be a dangerous principle to carry administration of the Poor Law relief, out over the whole country. He thought he could assure the noble Lord (Lord that 5d. a day was rather a large sum to Redesdale) that not only the Governbe repaid in respect of the maintenancement did not wish to commence such a of a pauper in a workhouse or asylum. system, but were entirely opposed to it. He did not know whether their Lord- He could only oppose the experience of ships had power to change the figure, the noble Lord as to the injurious effect but he would suggest to the Govern- of Union rating by his own; for as Chairment the propriety of considering whe- man of a Board of Guardians, he had obther the sum might not be reduced to served no falling off in the attentions 4d. in "another place." Altogether he paid to the poor. Things remained in was satisfied with the Bill. that respect much as they were. THE EARL OF DEVON hailed the Bill with great satisfaction, considering it to be founded on the best principle, and calculated to lead to approximate equalization of rates and their just and economical administration. He had always desired an approximation to equality in the rating of the metropolis, and therefore he would give the Bill his cordial support. LORD REDESDALE said, that at first sight the object of the Bill seemed to be extended centralization in the system of Poor Law relief. From his own experience in connection with a country Board of Guardians he could say that the system of common Union rating had had the most prejudicial effects in most of the rural districts. It had taken away from the inhabitants all interest in their own poor, and had thus thrown upon the rates a number of persons who used to be employed. He admitted that in the metropolis the same reasons did not apply, for in the metropolitan parishes people did not know their own poor; but in the counties the breaking down of the parochial system had had a most prejudicial effect. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY ex pressed his satisfaction that the principles of the Bill should have been approved of by two noble Lords of such experience in the administration of the Poor Law. As to the limit of 5d. to which some exception had been taken by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), it stood at 6d. in the Bill as originally framed; but that being thought too high it was reduced to 5d. At 5d. the amount cast upon the common fund would be £170,000, at 4d. it would be £135,000; but as the point had been carefully considered he could hold out no hope that the suggested reduction to 4d. would be made. As to the objection that the Bill was an approach towards a general system of centralization in the Steam Boiler Explosions, nominated; Conventual and Monastic Institutions, The O'Conor Don discharged, Mr. O'Reilly added. * PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First Reading-Metro- 1 * NAVY-SALE OF ADMIRALTY STEAM- MR. GOURLEY said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he is aware that he is disposing of the Admiralty Steamships at a period of depression in the value of shipping property, and when it can only be sold at a price much below its actual value; and, if he will state why the Government refused an offer for the vessels which have recently been sold of ten per cent over and above the highest price obtainable by public or private tenders, such offer having been made with a view of giving employment in the breaking up of the ships to the workmen who have been discharged from the Naval Dockyards? NAVY-ALLEGED MONOPOLY OF FREIGHT.-QUESTION. MR. GOURLEY, after observing that in his previous Question he had said nothing about mercantile ships, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state why and on what terms Messrs. Hogg and Robinson, the woolbag agents of Messrs. Baxter Brothers, have been favoured with the monopoly of engaging freight for the Admiralty. MR. BAXTER: Sir, the first part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman appears to be founded upon a complete misconception of the character of the MR. CHILDERS said: I think, conships that have been recently sold. They sidering that this subject is to be disare not adapted for mercantile purposes, cussed with Vote 17 of the Navy Estiand, with one or two exceptions, were mates, on the Motion of which my hon. disposed of for the value of the mate- Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. rials of which they were composed. So Norwood) gave Notice some time ago, it far from the actual value not having is to be regretted the debate should be been obtained, the House will be glad anticipated by this Question. The hon. to learn that all the vessels sold on the Member himself is also apparently of 13th and 14th of May brought consider- that opinion, as he suggested to me ably more than the joint valuations yesterday that he should postpone it. placed upon them by the professional But as the Question involves an insinuaofficers of the Admiralty and by Messrs. tion against my hon. Colleague the Bayley and Ridley, the well-known auc- Secretary of the Admiralty it should be tioneers who had charge of the sale. It answered at once, and I will now anis notorious that the ships have been swer it. Soon after we came into Office bringing excellent prices, and I think we had occasion to consider the question that the hon. Gentleman is very unfor- of the arrangements under which ships tunate in his information. The offer reare taken up and freight obtained by the ferred to in the second part of the Ques- Admiralty, and we were of opiniontion is likewise inaccurately stated. It and to some extent the efficient head of was not for "the vessels which have the Transport Department agreed with been recently sold," nor did it make any us-that it might be greatly reformed. reference to "private tenders," but was The Department had not the advantage confined to two ships, and was declined of any commercial assistance in the maton the ground that it was not advisable ter; many of the forms were unsuitable; that a private firm should have the use tenders were called for, and even adof portions of the Royal Dockyards for vertisements issued for small shipments; their work. I may mention that one of unnecessary surveys were made; and in the ships in question was the Casar, the many other respects the arrangements highest offer for which at the public could be made more businesslike. With sale was £8,300. She was afterwards the assistance of my hon. Friend and sold by private bargain for £9,000, my noble Friend the Member for Ripon, being only £130 less than would have we revised the system, and among other been obtained under an arrangement changes we arranged that the Departthat would have involved not only delay, ment should be able to consult an emibut the loan of a dock to a private firm. nent house in the City, not themselves It appears to me extremely desirable interested as shipowners, who would that all the vessels not required for the secure directly freight of smaller shippublic service should be disposed of as ments, and advise us as to larger matspeedily as possible, as the cost of main-ters, including the chartering of ships. taining them is very great. I may add that the offer referred to by the hon. Gentleman, although refused, has been of great service, and we feel much obliged to the firm who made it, for it has stimulated competition and raised the selling prices of the ships. Mr. Gourley This change has been made, and I am able to say works perfectly well. I now come to the personal Question, and I have to say that, in the first place, Messrs. Baxter, Brothers, & Co. are extensive spinners and manufacturers at Dundee, have no foreign business-or |