happen that the Attorney General and ❘ of the private practice of the Attorney or Solicitor General pass out of office together; but the Motion appears to be framed upon the supposition that they are political twins, born into the world at the same moment, and likewise passing out of it at the same moment. Supposing the ordinary state of things to prevail, and if it were the misfortune of the Government to lose the present Attorney General before they lost the Solicitor General, I will call the attention of the House to the singularity of the fate which will attend the destiny of the present Solicitor General. The present Solicitor General has the honour of being the first Law Officer who has come into office on the reduced scale. According to the Motion of the hon. Member, if the House passes it, the Treasury Minute will cease to exist; and, supposing the Government were thereupon to lose the Attorney General, the Solicitor General would be promoted to the post, and his successor would be appointed upon the old scale of remuneration. The present Solicitor General will then enjoy the new and accumulated honour of being the first low-paid Attorney General with a high-paid Solicitor General. That would be the practical result of the Motion as it stands upon the Paper. But I am anxious to call attention to a matter which is very imperfectly understood, but which should be made plain in justice to all Law Officers. An impression has gone abroad that it is only a limited portion of the time of the Attorney and Solicitor General that the Government secures. I am not surprised that the impression should exist, seeing how distinguished a part the Law Officers usually bear in conducting the business of the Courts; but, after a very long experience in many Governments and in association with many sets of Law Officers, I find it difficult to conceive of a misconception more complete. Enormous as are the powers of labour generally displayed by our distinguished lawyers, there is no question as to the relative nature of the claims upon their time. There is a limit to their powers of exertion and to their time; but upon that limited quantity the Government is authorized and entitled to draw and does draw habitually-without any stint whatever, except what is dictated by a regard for human strength. The Government pays no regard whatever to the demands Mr. Gladstone Solicitor General, and no Attorney or Solicitor General has power to obtain from the Government the slightest allowance on that account. My hon. Friend says we have not had the advice of the Attorney and Solicitor General in the matter of the Alabama negotiations. That is not a very good argument in support of his case, because Treaties cannot be dealt with as a matter in which legal advice is required at every turn; but we have had no difficulty in obtaining the advice of my hon. and learned Friends whenever we required it in connection with the negotiations between this country and the United States. I do not believe that the whole of our administrative history affords a single example of the Government being in a real difficulty from the want of legal assistance owing to the demands made upon the time of the Law Officers by their private practice. My hon. Friend thinks we have only the dregs and leavings of the time at the disposal of the Law Officers; but the fact that the Officers continue in private practice is a direct gain to the Government, because it is the means of preserving the freshness of their knowledge, and insuring that when we want their assistance it shall be not only complete as regards learning and ability, but in accord with the thought and feeling which prevails at the moment when their opinion is given. It is easy to criticize the distribution of the duties appertaining more or less to the law among the various Members of the Government. Let it, however, be remembered that the administrative system of this country and the construction of the Executive Government is just as much a peculiar and characteristic part of our institutions, although not as vital and fundamental a part as the legislative system itself. And it is utterly impossible that any good can be done by mere piecemeal attempts to amend that which, if it is considered at all, must be considered as a whole. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, indeed, has been careful to state that a Motion dealing with a portion only of this great question does not command his approval; he votes for the Motion as a protest against the existing state of things, and justifies himself by attaching a meaning to the Motion which it does not really convey. Many changes are required in our system of judicature which I hope will be seriously considered | dividual in this country, and since the before attempts are made to alter the Government had taken Tuesdays and position of our Law Officers. The posi- Fridays from private Members, it was tion of the Law Officers of this country notorious that private Members had only has been decided by their character from from 9 till 12 o'clock on Tuesdays and generation to generation, and the fame Fridays to bring forward grievances. which they have earned has been no Therefore, the position of a private scandal, but an honour and credit to the Member who desired to bring forward a country. Who are the distinguished men question which might take up some that, as lawyers, have earned a name time, and which he wished to be fully and place in the history of their country, discussed and reported, was an embarand have lived to us through fame as a rassing one. Circumstanced as he was, portion of our national patrimony? I he was obliged to discover whether there do not know whether nine-tenths of was any possibility, according to the them, but certainly very nearly the Rules of the House, of his obtaining a whole of them have been Law Officers proper opportunity of stating the grievof the Crown. I do not wish at all to ance which he wished to bring before enter into the particulars of this ques- the House. He believed the natural tion; but I think it is a pity that the opportunity for stating that grievance efforts of my right hon. Friend the was not on the Motion for going into Chancellor of the Exchequer, with refer- Committee of Supply, but in Committee ence to the remuneration of the Law of Supply itself, and therefore it was Officers, should have been disparaged, his intention, when the Army Estimates and that attempts should have been were brought forward next Monday, to made to thwart those efforts by Motions state the case of Lieutenant Tribe on such as that now before the House. the Vote for the Administration of the The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Army, it being a question of discipline; Fawcett) has given Notice that he will and in order to give point to that stateinvite the House to deliver judgment ment, he would move the reduction of upon the terms of his Motion. I be- the salary of the Secretary of State for lieve that he will find no large propor- War by £2,000, and his reason for doing tion disposed to accompany him upon so would be that that sum would only those terms; but if he should, it is not be a fair and legitimate penalty to immerely in our interest as a Government, pose upon the right hon. Gentleman for not merely in the interest of all those who committing an act of very great indiswill vote with us on this occasion, but it cretion in answering a question of the is in the interest of law reform that I hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) feel bound to utter an emphatic protest on a matter relating to the discipline of against the assumption that those who the Army. are unwilling to adopt this crude, most impolitic, and most mischievous proposition are therefore hostile or indifferent or lukewarm in the matter of an amend ment of the law. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 101; Noes 24: Majority 77. ARMY-CASE OF LIEUTENANT TRIBE. NOTICE OF MOTION. LORD ELCHO, who had given Notice to move an Address for Papers relating to the case of Lieutenant Tribe, 9th Lancers, said, since the House, on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by a majority of 26, had given up its right to bring forward on going into Committee of Supply any grievance affecting any in Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. SUPPLY-considered in Committee. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next. COLONIAL GOVERNORS PENSIONS (Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that an Act was passed in 1865 enabling the Secretary of State to grant pensions to colonial Governors who should have reached the | these pensions were to be given, he would Motion made, and Question proposed, | Majesty's assent, I may treat it as "That it be an Instruction to the Committee already passed. My Lords, I was abthat they have power to extend the protection sent from the discussions on the Bill for age of 60 years. The full rate of pension was to be given to persons who had served for 18 years as Governors, or for 10 years as Governors and 25 years altogether in the Civil Service. The reduced rate of pension was to be given to persons who, after having attained the age of 40, had served 12 years as Governors, or for 8 years as Governors and 20 years altogether in the Civil Service. One effect of that Act had been found to be that persons who had finished their service at some period between 12 and 18 years were most anxious to be employed again, so as to complete that longer period which would entitle them to the larger pension. They might be very near the 18 years-they might have been good public servants-but yet it might be undesirable to employ them at an advanced age; whilst, on the other hand, it seemed hard to refuse them employment, and to dismiss them with a 12 years' reduced pension when they had served 15, 16, or 17 years. The Colonial Office had therefore deemed it much better that the Secretary of State should have the power of giving to such persons a fractional yearly increment above the lower rate. That, in the interest of the service, would enable them to get rid of persons from whom the State had received the best part of their life's work, without hardship to them; whilst, in the interest of economy, it would enable them to dismiss them with a less amount of pension than if they had been reemployed and had completed their 18 years. The Treasury, however, would not allow such a measure to be passed unless it was secured that there should be no additional charge upon the public revenues. That eminent actuary, Mr. Finlaison, was therefore employed to draw the schedules of this Bill, and upon his figures the Treasury were satisfied that no such additional charge could be created, whilst the position of those Governors would be much more satisfactory. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.) MR. DICKINSON said, he was of opinion that the Bill would considerably increase the present pension list, and as he condemned the principle upon which Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." - (Mr. Dickinson.) MR. R. N. FOWLER said, he was of a different opinion. The scale of rewarding colonial Governors was far too low. He should like to see them far more liberally rewarded. MR. RYLANDS said, the Bill was intended to allow the Secretary of State to give pensions for infirmity of mind or body at an earlier age than 60, and at an increased rate. The present pension list contained the names of persons who had been pensioned for infirmities of mind or body, and it was a well-known fact that many of them had since recovered and were capable of discharging public duties. MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in answer to the remarks which had been made, must say that in all his experience he had never known of any appointment from that House or elsewhere unless the gentlemen nominated were perfectly qualified for their duties. Looking over the whole range of our colonies, it must be admitted that the salaries of the Governors and other officials were not excessive. Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next. WILD FOWL PROTECTION BILL. [BILL 46.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. MR. AUBERON HERBERT moved an Instruction to the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill during the breeding season to other wild birds. In support of his Motion the hon. Member exhibited a piece of the bark of a tree in Kensington Gardens, which he said had been destroyed by a species of beetle which was known to have destroyed many of the finest elms in the country, and the natural enemies of those beetles were the birds whom he sought to protect. given under the Bill to Wildfowl during the breeding season, to other wild birds."--(Mr. Auberon Herbert.) HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 24th June, 1872. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS Second Reading Customs and Inland Revenue* (162). Committee - Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) and Act (No. 2, 1864) Amendment, now Local Government Supplemental (No.2)* (130). Committee Report - Appointment of Commissioners for taking Affidavits* (133); Prisons (Ireland)* (108); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (156); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * (142); Elementary Education (Provisional Order Confirmation)* (148); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation * (147). THE FIJI ISLANDS. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, the question which I have to put to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies applies to a law as yet incomplete; but as it only awaits the final and formal stage of receiving Her the protection of the Pacific Islanders; but I have made myself acquainted with what passed on those occasions, and I see that in introducing the Bill the noble Earl gave a narrative of the events which led up to it. In the remarks, therefore, with which I shall preface my Question, I shall confine myself to the past and future-I may almost say the present state of the law in relation to this matter, and to the means necessary to enforce it. Four years ago the Legislature of Queensland passed an Act regulating the labour traffic with a view of insuring the good treatment of the natives who had agreed to become labourers for a certain time. In this respect Queensland stands alone. As regards Fiji, Tahiti, and other places, the trade is not regulated by British law at all; further than that, British masters are subject to the common law and to the Act of 9 Geo. IV., c. 83, known as the New South Wales Act. As regards Queensland, abuses no doubt formerly prevailed, and recently the master of a ship called the Jason has been prosecuted by the Government for breaches of the law on the subject, and having been convicted-although there were doubts in some quarters as to his guilt-he was severely punished. Still, I believe that in that colony the law is honestly enforced. The Marquess of Normanby, the present Governor, who has taken especial pains to render himself fully acquainted with this subject, writes thus to the Earl of Kimberley on the 24th November, 1871. Referring to his visit to the schooner Lyttona, recently arrived from the Islands, he says "From the conversation I had with Mr. Gadsden (the Government agent on board), and from other circumstances that have come to my knowledge of late, I think there can be no doubt that the state of things among the Islands is at present very bad, and that gross atrocities are being committed against the natives. At the same time, I have every reason for hoping that the vessels belonging to this colony are in no way implicated. Every precaution is taken, not only by placing an agent on board each vessel, but also by strict investigation on her arrival in port, and I feel sure that not only my government but the employers of labour themselves, would be most anxious to check any irregularities, and to bring the perpetrators to justice." And further on he continues "I would, therefore, venture to suggest to your Lordship whether the time has not arrived when it would be desirable for Her Majesty's Government to take steps to put a stop to any illegal practices which may be perpetrated, whether by Fiji or Queensland vessels. These Islands are so numerous, and the area they cover is so great, that I fear the presence of one man-of-war would be of little use; but as no resistance need be anticipated, the service might very well be performed by gunboats, or even by three or four small fast sailing vessels, the expense of which would be less than that of one man-of-war." I will now refer to statements made to me by two clergymen connected with the London Missionary Society, and who have lately returned to this country. One of them, the Rev. S. M—, (I have not his permission to mention his name) told me that he knows of no kidnapping from his -the Loyalty-islands. Fast young men go willingly enough. Natives have come back from Queensland with property. He knows that planters in Queensland have interposed to prevent natives from being imposed upon. Natives have imposed upon a magistrate in Queensland, saying that they had only engaged for one year, when they knew very well it was for three, preferring to work for weekly wages. He says that natives, even nominal Christians, are very unreliable. The Rev. W. G. L- told me that some time ago about 20 natives of his island were engaged at Samoa to go to Queensland. All but two, who died, returned. They did not understand the questions put to them on their arrival in Queensland. They were not well treated on board ship; but were so after their arrival. Nine died within a year of their return to his (Mr. L▬▬'s) island, perhaps in consequence of variety of climate. Young men would be willing enough to emigrate, but the native authorities object. So much for Queensland. I now come to the past state of the law elsewherewhether British or French colonies, or independent places-and I can best explain this by illustrating it with the cases of the Daphné and the Challenge schooners, which were tried in Sydney in 1869 and 1871 respectively. The Daphné was a schooner which had a licence under the Queensland Act to recruit 50 labourers for that colony, and she was found by Captain Palmer, the then Commander of Her Majesty's ship Rosario, at Levuka, Fiji, a place in a totally opposite direction, with, I think, 101 natives on board. Captain Palmer thought the circumstances justified him in seizing her, and he sent her with a The Earl of Belmore prize crew, not to Brisbane, the nearest Australian port, and where she could have been prosecuted under the Queensland Act, but to Sydney;—I presume because it was the head-quarters of the station, and because his own orders were to return there when he had finished his cruize;-to be prosecuted for a breach of the laws relating to the slave trade. The Crown took up the case, and the master was brought before the magistrates and acquitted, for a reason which I will mention presently. The Attorney General afterwards prosecuted the vessel on behalf of Captain Palmer in the Vice-Admiralty Court, and she was ordered to be released; because it is, as I understand it, required, to constitute a breach of the laws relating to the slave trade, to be shown not merely that the persons on board the vessel have been brought there by force or fraud, but that it was intended to take them to a country "where slavery was a recognized legal institution." Now, it could not be shown that Fiji was such a place, nor indeed had it at that time any recognized Government at all. As regards the Challenge, she was seized last year by Mr. March, the British Consul, at Levuka, under suspicious circumstances, and at his request Captain Montgomerie, of Her Majesty's ship Blanche, took possession of her, and sent her with a prize crew to Sydney, to be tried on a like charge as the Daphné, in 1869. On the way she met with bad weather and was dismasted, and with some difficulty reached Newcastle, a port about 75 miles from Sydney to the north. On her arrival there the Commodore requested me to send a Government steamer to tow her to Sydney. I referred the matter to my legal adviser, the Attorney General of the colony, and by his advice declined to do so. He held that no breach of the slave trade laws had been committed, and that by towing her to Sydney we the New South Wales Governmentmight make ourselves parties to an illegal seizure. He (the Attorney General), however, directed the master to be prosecuted for an assault, he having fastened the hatches down on the natives, who had been induced to come on board the vessel. The master was committed for trial at the Supreme Court, was found guilty on two counts, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in all. Acting on the Attorney |