them-"Bury in forgetfulness the recollection of those differences," and if that can only once be done there will, I am sure, be no competition between such men except the anxiety of both to do their duty to the public, my right hon. Friend exercising his rule with mildness, and Dr. Hooker doing his duty in subordination to my right hon. Friend. MR. COWPER-TEMPLE objected to MR. COWPER-TEMPLE expressed the measure that it contained the novel and the hope that no change might occur arbitrary principle that the jurisdiction in reference to Kew Gardens which would of the Law Courts was to be superseded deprive that place of its scientific charac- by the action of a Commission of Inquiry ter; that they might not lose that which formed for a totally different purpose. made it the centre of botanical knowledge When the Bill was first laid upon the for the whole world, nor the superin- Table it contained the provision that any tendence of the eminent Director who proceedings then being carried on either was foremost amongst the botanists of at law or in equity should be suspended, Europe. Of course, the First Commis- and the Commissioners were to dispose sioner had a right to defend himself with of the questions raised. The suits which force; but he certainly did show a de- had been instituted would ascertain the gree of bitterness against the scientific rights of commoners and lords of the men which alarmed him (Mr. Cowper- manor, and the decision would have had Temple) greatly for the future of the an important bearing upon the Report establishment. His sneers against scien- of the Commissioners. The Bill was tific men like Sir James Paget could withdrawn; but it was re-introduced in harm no one but himself. He did not the House of Lords, and altered so as think that a Minister of the Crown not to apply to any suit then pending in should allude to a scientific man under the Court of Chancery. This changed the figure of a slave. Throughout the it from a mischievous into an inconCorrespondence, Dr. Hooker was not sistent Bill. It also provided that the treated with that consideration and cour- Commissioners should have power to tesy which were generally shown to gen-issue orders to prevent the destruction tlemen. He was treated in a tone that of trees and herbage, and to abate any might be used to an under gardener; encroachment made upon the Forest. But but surely people did not cease to be the Bill contained no provision by which gentlemen because they were men of the orders of the Commissioners could be science. The Minute at the end of the enforced. The power, therefore, which Correspondence seemed upon the face of was given to the Commissioners was enit to be satisfactory; it was satisfactory tirely illusory. The Bill, in its present as an acknowledgment that Dr. Hooker shape, was hardly worth while placing had just cause of complaint, but by an upon the Statute-book, and, as a protest artificial distinction between two parts against the admission of a bad precedent, of the Gardens it prepared the way for he must move that it be read a third future annoyance, and withdrew from time that day month. the Director the management of the arboretum, or pleasure gardens. He did not think that it was well to divide the Garden into two parts in this way, and to destroy the unity of responsibility and superintendence. MR. AYRTON explained that the metaphor as to a "slave" had been misunderstood:-it was Dr. Hooker who put the slave upon him (Mr. Ayrton). MR. COWPER-TEMPLE said, if that were so he had made a mistake. the word "now, MR. AYRTON said, the explanation of the course which had been taken was that delay, by reason of the forms of the House, would have arisen from including in the Bill any proposal which could interfere with private rights. When the Bill was before the House last Session, he undertook to give in the vacation such Parliamentary notices as would make it possible in this Session to pass a Bill giving to the Commissioners the powers necessary to constitute them a Court for the purpose of dealing with private rights. At the beginning of the present Session he introduced a comprehensive measure, which would not have been forced upon individuals against their will, but would have given them an opportunity of expressing their desires and of arranging matters in such manner as other people had been able to arrange their affairs when dealing with joint-stock companies. His right hon. Friend thought proper to oppose that Bill on the ground, as he (Mr. Ayrton) understood, that it was so comprehensive; and as his right hon. Friend's obstruction endangered the passing of the Bill in any form he withdrew it, and it was immediately introduced in the other House of Parliament. The Bill gave somewhat diminished powers to the Commissioners, but it still enabled them to prohibit new inclosures. The Lords thought fit to amend the Bill in Committee. It was subsequently considered by a Select Committee of the Lords, and all parties had an opportunity of bringing their views under the consideration of that Select Committee. Her Majesty's Government had no personal interest in the matter. If he were speaking on behalf of his own constituents, he should regret that the Bill did not go further. The Bill would enable the Commissioners to repress all injuries done to the Forest since the passing of the Act of 1871. They could make orders for that purpose, and he was assured that, in accordance with the general administration of the law and the provisions of the Bill, those orders could be enforced. If it should be found that the Bill did not go far enough, that would be a good reason for coming to the House to get a more comprehensive measure. If he were compelled hereafter to ask the House to pass a more comprehensive measure, he hoped his right hon. Friend would assist him in passing it. MR. LOCKE, presuming that the First Commissioner had good ground for saying that the orders of the Commissioners under the Bill could be enforced, was glad to hear that some fresh inclosures which had been made since 1871 would be annulled under the Bill. Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to (Queen's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed. GALWAY ELECTION PETITIONJUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [25th July], "That this House do resolve itself into a Com mittee of the whole House, to consider the Report of the Address delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh on the occasion of delivering Judgment on the Trial of the Election Petition for the County of of the partisan and political character of that Galway, and the complaints that have been made Judgment and Address,”—(Mr. Butt,)— And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'regrets that Mr. Justice Keogh, when delivering Judgment on the Trial of the Election Petition for the County of Galway, allowed himself to diverge into irrelevant topics, and to make use sistent with the dignity which ought to be mainof intemperate expressions and language incon. tained by a Judge, and therefore calculated to lower the character of the Courts of Justice in the estimation of the people of Ireland; but, on reviewing the whole circumstances, this House with the view to the removal of Mr. Justice Keogh does not think that the case calls for any action from the Judicial Bench,”—(Mr. Pim,) -instead thereof. words proposed to be left out stand part Question again proposed, "That the of the Question." SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, that before the debate was resumed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray)-who, he believed, was in possession of the Househe wished to take the opinion of the Speaker on a point of Order. On the last occasion when this debate was before the House, he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) moved the Adjournment of the debate, and the House divided upon it and resolved in the negative. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) then moved the Adjournment of the House, and that Motion also was negatived; but subsequently, at the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, the House consented to the Adjournment of the debate moved by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) | Beresford Hope) moved the Adjournment had been informed on high authority of the debate, the Motion being seconded that in consequence of his having un- by the hon. Member for Whitehaven successfully moved the Adjournment of (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), neither adthe debate, although he did not speak dressing any speech to the House. The upon the Main Question at all, both Motion being negatived, the hon. Memhimself and the hon. Gentleman who ber for the University of Cambridge rose seconded the Motion were supposed to to speak to the Main Question; but Mr. have spoken on the Main Question, and Speaker ruled that neither the hon. could not speak upon it again-which he Gentleman nor the hon. Member for confessed appeared to him to be an ex- Whitehaven, who had also risen, were traordinary rule. It was true that the entitled to address the House. On a rule was acted upon by the late Speaker, subsequent evening, the hon. Member Lord Ossington; but Lord Eversley, for Whitehaven having put a Question who preceded the noble Lord as Speaker, to the Speaker on the point of Order, acted upon a different rule. Under Mr. Speaker's reply was that though of these circumstances, he wished to ask- late years, partly for the convenience of first, whether he should be in Order in discussion, there had been a relaxation speaking upon the Main Question; se- of the rule with regard to seconding condly, if that was not in Order, whether Motions, the Mover and Seconder of the he should be in Order in speaking on Motion for the Adjournment of the dethe Main Question in the event of the bate were not entitled, by the practice of Amendment of the hon. Member for the House, to rise afterwards and speak Dublin (Mr. Pim) being withdrawn or on the Main Question or make another negatived; and, thirdly, whether he Motion. [3 Hansard, cxciv. 1450, 1467.] should be in Order in speaking on the The principle on which this decision is Main Question in the event of a Motion founded is clear, and it is this-no being made for the Adjournment of the Member is entitled to speak more than House? once while the same Question is before the House. While the present Question was under discussion on the 25th of July last, the right hon. and learned Gentleman rose in his place and moved the Adjournment of the debate, and according to the well-recognized rule of the House he must be held to have spoken on the Question which was before the House when he rose. Had his Motion been agreed to, he would have been entitled to pre-audience on the resumption of the debate-it being understood that on rising to speak he is in possession of the House; but if he moves the Adjournment of the debate it is agreed by the House, for the sake of convenience, that his remarks shall be reserved until another day. But, as it happened, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion was negatived, and therefore he has exhausted his right to speak until another Question is proposed from the Chair. This principle is the same as that applied to Motions of Adjournment. It is well known that a Member cannot move the Adjournment more than once in the same debate. This principle is well illustrated by a case which occurred on the 17th of June, 1870, when no fewer than 10 divisions were taken on the Question of Adjournment, in order MR. SPEAKER: I will endeavour to answer the Questions upon points of Order which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised, and as those questions all relate to the debate on which the House is just about to enter, I may say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite in order in bringing them forward. The first and most important question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, whether a Member having moved the Adjournment of the debate-and that Motion having been negatived by the House-he is entitled to speak on the Main Question? That point has already been conclusively determined by my predecessor, and is, in my judgment, governed by the general rules and practice of the House. It was brought under the notice of the House on the 16th of March, 1869, when the then Speaker gave a clear and deliberate decision, which, with the permission of the House, I will now quote; and in order to make that decision more clear, it is necessary that I should also quote the preliminary Question addressed to the Speaker. On the debate on the Second Reading of the University Tests Bill, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. to defeat the Clerical Disabilities Bill. | direction of that House, would not only On that occasion the rule which prevents every Irishman living in Ireland, but a Member who has already moved or every member of the Irish race, no seconded a Motion for Adjournment matter in what country he might live, from making another similar Motion whether he was a forced or voluntary was strictly enforced. That practice of exile, or still remained in the land of his the House has now for many years been fathers, judge of and estimate the reestablished, and until the House shall, solve of the Imperial Parliament with by direct Resolution, alter that practice, regard to the principles on which IreI conceive I am bound to its observance. land was to be governed in the future. With respect to the other two Questions That was a question with which he put to me, if the hon. Member for wished to deal calmly, and having reDublin should think proper to withdraw gard to the important issue raised, he his Amendment and the House ac- hoped hon. Members would not treat it quiesces, then the Question put to the lightly, but that they would each ask House would be under a new form, and, himself how the law should be adminisno doubt, the right hon. and learned tered in Ireland, and whether or not it Gentleman would be able to speak on was essential that the Irish people should that Question. As to the third Question have confidence not only in the equitof the right hon. and learned Member, able and impartial administration of the I have to say that if the Adjournment of law, but also in the conduct, manner, the debate were moved he would be at tone, and demeanour on the Bench of liberty to speak to that Question. The those who were appointed by the Crown practice of the House of late years has to dispense justice in that country. He been to allow much latitude on speaking (Sir John Gray) did not wish to place to Motions of Adjournment; and al- before the House his own definition of though I do not commend the practice the language, the tone, and the manner of speaking to the Main Question on which became a Judge. Fortunately Motions of Adjournment, I should not for him, that task had been performed feel at liberty in calling him to Order if by one far more able and more accomhe thought proper to do so. plished, and one whom the House would recognize as а man whose intimate knowledge of mankind, and whose acquaintance with the springs of human action, eminently fitted for the task-the Rev. Sydney Smith. In a sermon preached by that eminent divine and scholar before two of the Justices[Captain DAWSON - DAMER : In what year was that?]-In 1824, when preaching before two Judges of the English Court of Queen's Bench, who were then on circuit at York. His language on that occasion was so appropriate, and his description of a model English Judge differed so much from what they had recently experienced from the Judge at Galway-whose conduct, tone, and language was, he understood, to be that night declared by the Government and the House good enough for Ireland-that he would ask permission to read it to the House Debate resumed. SIR JOHN GRAY said, * he wished to remind the House of the question on which it would have to pronounce its decision that night. No matter what collateral issues might be raised -no matter what importance might be attached to those issues-the real question which, in substance and in fact, the House had to decide and to vote yes" or "no" upon was thisWas it, or was it not, of importance to the well-being of Ireland, the honour of the Crown, and the safety of the Empire, that the Irish people should have a well-grounded confidence in the administration of the law and in the impartiality of those who might be appointed by the Sovereign to dispense justice in the Irish Courts? Upon that question the House must that night vote aye or "no." There could be no evasion, no postponement; and upon the decision to which that House might come; upon the judgment of that House with regard to the manner in which Ireland was henceforth to be legislated for, dealt with, and governed, under the "May I add the great importance in a Judge of courtesy to all men, and that he should, on all occasions, abstain from unnecessary bitterness and asperity of speech. A Judge always speaks with impunity and speaks with effect. His words should be weighed, because they entail no evil upon himself, and much evil upon others. The language of passion, the language of sarcasm, the This was the description of a Judge given before English Judges by an English divine-from the Cathedral pulpit -that place in which they were told things divine only were to be spoken of. Was the language of Mr. Justice Keogh at Galway free from "bitterness," English Judges were admonished theirs as should be? Was it not rather full of language of satire is not, on such occasions, Chris- | judge of the performance of Mr. Justice tian language. It is not the language of a Judge. Keogh in Galway. He would ask-Did There is a propriety of rebuke and condemnation, the justice of which is felt even by him who Mr. Justice Keogh so conduct himself suffers under it; but when magistrates, under the at Galway as to inflict pain on indimask of law, aim at the offender more than at viduals, not to correct offences? He the offence, and are more studious of inflicting would ask any hon. Member who had pain than repressing error, the office suffers as read the Galway Judgment, was it not much as the Judge: the respect for justice is the realization of the words he had just lessened, and the school of pure reason becomes the hated theatre of mischievous passions." read which described an un-English Judge? The Irish people felt deeply desirous to ask that House-Was Mr. on this question, and they, too, were Justice Keogh's conduct at Galway that of the "neutral' or that of the "partial" Judge? Had he so conducted himself as to manifest to the people that it was the cool judgment of a Judge, and not the passion of a partizan that was bitterness? Was it not the language Justice? Did he so demean himself as speaking to them from the Bench of of " sarcasm " and of "satire? To to satisfy those who heard him that the use the language of Sydney Smith, it was neither "the language of a Chris-conduct? Did he satisfy them that the ermine of justice was not spotted by his tian," nor "the language of a Judge." balance of justice was evenly poised, Did not the Judge who was deemed and that he was not, under the mask of good enough for Ireland aim at the sup; the law, sitting as if to judge under the posed offender and not the offence, and law, but smiting contrary to the law. use the mask of the law to inflict pain It was in this spirit that he wished to on those against whom he railed? But criticize the Judgment of Mr. Justice the Rev. Sydney Smith did not stop Keogh, and in that spirit he wished there. He knew that Judges were men of human passions like other men. Mr. Justice Keogh was a man "Irish born," as the Attorney General for England said, and, therefore, allowance was to be made for him, as he spoke to Irishmen and of Irishmen. But hear what was said of English Judges in an Eng lish Cathedral by an English divine "I admit," said the reverend preacher, "it to be extremely difficult to live amidst the agitations, contests, and discussions of a free people, and to remain in that state of cool, passionless Christian candour which society expects from their great magistrates; but it is the pledge the magistrate has given, it is the life he has taken up, it is the class of qualities which he has promised us, and for which he has rendered himself responcourage would be in some men, and want of moral regularity in others- it runs counter to those very purposes, and sins against those utilities for which the very office was created-when, without these qualities, he who ought to be cool is heated, he who ought to be neutral is partial; the ermine of justice is spotted, the balance of justice is unpoised, the fillet of justice is torn off, and he who sits to judge after the law smites contrary to the sible. It is the same fault in him which want of law." By that English standard of what the deliverance of a Judge ought to be, and of what the Judge was always supposed to be, he (Sir John Gray) desired to The por the House to consider it. that the law should be administered |