Commons Sitting of 18 April 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Customs Duties (Isle of Man) [Harbour Dues].
First Reading—Harbour Loans* [112]. Second Reading—Public Companies [35]; Hop Trade [36]; Thames Navigation [59] Referred to Select Committee—Thames Navigation [59].
Committee—Prosecution Expenses [28]; Art [Lords]* [100]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland)* [89].
Report—Prosecution Expenses [28]; Art [Lords]* [100]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland)* [111].
Considered as amended—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* [88].
Third Reading—Postmaster General* [25], and passed.
Withdrawn—Bank Notes (Ireland) [29].

MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.
The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House that the state of Mr. Speaker's health was such as to prevent him from attending the House this day:—Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.
PUBLIC COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 35.]
(Mr. Darby Griffith, Mr. Robert Torrens.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Beading read.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that it was identical with the Bill upon the same subject introduced in the year 1864. That Bill passed the first and second readings, and was sifted in Committee to a single clause, but the third reading was not proceeded with through the Session being so near its close and other causes. There was a clerical error in the title of the present Bill, but that could be rectified in Committee if necessary. The object of the Bill was to correct a certain malversation in the mode of voting in public companies, by extending the powers of the shareholders, and enabling them to vote after they knew what they were voting about instead of before, and its operation was restricted to those companies formed under the Companies Consolidation Act of 1845. Under that Act, shareholders were enabled to vote in one of two ways—either by proxies sent in forty-eight hours previous to the time for the holding of the meeting, or by personally giving their votes. But the shareholders of some of the railway companies numbered many thousands, and there was no room in the country that would contain them if they were disposed to attend. It was obvious, however, that gentlemen conducting large mercantile operations in Manchester or Liverpool would rarely be able to be present at meetings held in the south of England, and it would also be impossible to expect that ladies, who formed a large proportion of railway shareholders, would attend and take part in the proceedings. The other mode of voting—namely, by proxy—was exceedingly reprehensible, seeing that it left the way open to the directors to resort to various artifices in order to secure the

1581
votes of the shareholders upon questions that might arise for consideration; and then when the time for holding the meeting arrived, the directors, by the number of the proxies received, knew precisely how the voting would terminate. Of course, the shareholder could cancel his vote afterwards by personally attending and giving it in accordance with his maturer consideration; but it was in vain to expect that such a course would be extensively adopted. The alteration proposed by this Bill was of the simplest character possible. The only fresh provision was that in case any person wished to know, through the press or in any other way, what the questions were which arose, that they should have the opportunity of voting then with a knowledge of the facts of the case instead of beforehand. As a railway director, he at once admitted that he desired to be more under the control of the shareholders than the existing law permitted him to be. Railway directors, like Members of that House, were but too likely to be carried off their legs, and to be coerced to vote upon questions from a party view. It frequently happened that they were obliged to sit by, although regarding the course pursued by their brother directors with the greatest mistrust through having no alternative before them but to resign their seats. In a remarkable speech lately made in the other House by a great authority (Lord Redesdale), the necessity for re form in railway matters was sufficiently demonstrated. Lord Redesdale gave some instances of the extraordinary mode in which the borrowing powers of railway companies were sometimes exercised under the existing state of the law. One of those cases was that of the Cork and Youghal Railway Company, which had power to raise about £500,000, but had actually raised £920,000. That was done under the management of a Mr. Leopold Lewis, who acted as the financier of the board of directors. He first issued £206,000 in Lloyd's bonds; he then proposed to call in £165,000 of these bonds, and to issue new ones in their place; but while he issued the latter he did not withdraw those that he had before put in circulation, so that the actual issue he had made of these bonds amount ed to £371,000, and he had besides is-sued £30,000 of new mortgage, bonds, making a total amount which he had raised beyond the borrowing powers of
1582
the company of not less than £400,000. The result of these operations was that the line was at present about to be sold to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland for £315,000, or about one-third of the capital that had been expended upon it. Another remarkable case was that of the Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway Company, whom Parliament had authorized to raise £248,000, and who had actually raised £981,000. He thought it was manifest that a state of the law which permitted transactions of that description ought, if possible, to be amended. He was certain that many of the directors themselves disapproved of the proceedings of their colleagues on railway boards, but finding that they had no alternative except to sanction them or to resign their seats, adopted the course which best suited their own sense of interest or their convenience, and allowed the shareholders to be deluded, It should be remembered that lists of proxies were by rule to be sent in to the secretary forty-eight hours before the holding of the meeting at which they were to be used, and the directors were thus aware what would be the result of a division before the proceedings commenced. In the year 1864 there was an amalgamation proposed between the Great Western Company and the South Wales Company. Seven directors were then to be changed; the board wished that certain gentlemen should be appointed to the offices, while a committee of shareholders were desirous of making a different selection, but the directors received proxies in their own favour representing £8,000,000 of stock before the shareholders knew anything of the report that was to be issued. Last autumn another striking exemplification of the existing state of the law took place in the case of the Great Eastern Railway Company. Captain Jervis, one of the directors, and who was also a Member of that House, addressed a letter to the secretary, in which he stated that he understood the borrowing power of the company was then exceeded by £150,000, and had a short time previously been exceeded by £250,000, and that he would cause an inquiry to be instituted into the matter, as he would be no party to the continuance of such a state of things. A resolution was proposed at the next meeting of the board to the effect that Captain Jervis' name should be erased from the board, and all the officers of the company should be instructed not to give

1583
him any information. But as it was considered that the passing of such a resolution would be too strong a measure, there was issued instead of it a circular stating that the directors had resolved that no copies of any documents should be furnished to any director without the authority of the board. The subject then came before the next meeting of the company—at which the directors, relying on their proxies, refused all information. But the proxies, together with that meeting, proved to be informal. Therefore the directors, if they had confidence in their case, might have tested the opinion of the shareholders afresh. Instead of that, however, they did not venture to give the opinion of the shareholders, now that the latter could vote after they were duly informed of the merits of the case—and thus the directors thought it prudent to concede the committee they had before resisted. This is an ample illustration of the evils of the present system of voting. He believed, however, that the proposal embodied in the Bill would make directors much more independent, and would save the shareholders from the risk of their proxies being abused.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Darby Griffith.)
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he looked upon the principle of the measure as salutary and as tending to give shareholders greater power of controlling the proceedings of directors than was conferred under the existing system of proxies. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman proposed to leave the present law with respect to general proxies untouched, and it would, he thought, be expedient to secure that object, to alter the clauses of the Bill, so that those special proxies which, under its operation, would be introduced for the first time, should be subject to the same conditions as those by which the use of general proxies was now regulated. With that Amendment the Bill might very well, he thought, be accepted by the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

HOP TRADE BILL— [BILL 36.]
(Mr. Huddleston, Sir Brook Bridges, Sir Edward Dering.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Beading read.
MR. HUDDLESTON, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that as a new and inexperienced Member of the House, he almost wished that the measure had fallen under the care of an older Member; but as it interested materially the constituency which he represented, he had felt bound to give his best consideration to the question. He would shortly state to the House the object proposed to be attained by this Bill, in which no new principle was involved. The clauses of the Bill had been drawn up for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of the Legislature, and to adapt the regulations to the exigencies of the present day. The frauds it was sought to prevent were the substitution and sale of a poor quality of hops for those of a superior character, and to prevent the system well known in the trade of false packing, which consisted of inserting, along with hops of a good class, hops of an inferior and unmerchantable quality, as well as foreign substances which could not be described as hops. These practices had continued for a long time, and it had been found almost impossible to repress them. The temptation to resort to them was very great. It arose from the difference in the price which different qualities of hops would fetch in the market. The superior quality, for instance, grown in East Kent, where the soil was favourable to their cultivation, and where great attention was shown in rearing them, and the supply of which was sometimes scanty and varying, fetched £9 or £9 9s. per cwt., while the coarser quality of hops grown in the Weald of Kent or in East Sussex would fetch only £5 or £5 5s. per cwt. A great inducement was thus held out to the seller to impose upon his customer the inferior for the superior article; and, unfortunately, there were great facilities for the commission of the fraud afforded by the method in which hops were packed. In order to exclude the air from them as far as possible, they were carefully enclosed in a cloth or bag, and a sample was generally taken from the centre of the bags—for to examine any particular pocket in bulk, like barley or wheat, would be to render its contents almost un-saleable. But, beyond that, it was diffi-

1585
cult even for skilled persons to recognize the different varieties of hops, and, under all the circumstances of the case, the Legislature had by repeated Acts of Parliament sought to protect the public against imposition. The Acts which had been passed on the subject were five in number, one of which had been repealed, the other four being still on the statute-book, and it might be convenient to know what marks Parliament deemed it desirable to require for the purpose of preventing fraud in the trade. It was declared to be necessary that a pocket of hops should bear the name and the place of abode of the grower of the hops, of the parish and county in which they had been raised, as well as the year of the growth, and the true weight of the hops which the package contained. All that precaution had been rendered imperative by Acts of Parliament, the first of which had been passed in 1710, in the reign of Queen Anne, and the remaining four in the reign of George III.; and the object of such legislation was, no doubt, in the main, to protect the reputation and brand of a grower, and also of enabling the public to select from among the number of growers those whose hops they had by experience found to be peculiarly good. The year was required to be affixed to the pocket, in order that the public might know the age of the hops, for they became deteriorated as they grew older. But the mark which was found by experience to be the most essential was that which gave the weight, which was originally required to be affixed to the pocket by the statute of Anne. By its means the purchaser was easily enabled to compare the weight as given on the pocket and that which his own scales showed it to be, and would thus have his suspicions roused if the weight was either very much above or below that which the mark indicated. The check was also found to be of great advantage in preventing the use of a bag with the weight marked on it a second time, which might have fallen into the hands of a dishonest trader. If the purchaser found that there was great excess of weight over that marked, there would at once arise a suspicion that some foreign substance had been introduced to increase the weight, and he might remark that frauds of this kind were committed in various ways. Sometimes a crowbar was inserted into the top of the pocket, a great hole was made, and the cavity filled with substances to increase the weight. Sometimes in-
1586
ferior hops were inserted, and sometimes clay, dirt, and even metal was found to have been put in to increase the weight. If, on the other hand, the scale weights were much below the marked weight, the purchaser would know that the hops were of bad quality, or that they had been slack dried. The weight being marked caused also this advantage, that this fact might prevent the bag being used a second time for hops. In practice it was found that the pocket was so very much strained by packing the hops, that it was commercially useless for the packing of hops a second time; but sometimes the bags got into the hands of dishonest persons, who filled them with inferior hops, and thus committed a fraud, because they passed under a good brand. If, however, the weight of the first filling had been marked, it would be impossible to re-fill the bag so that it should weigh the weight originally marked. That being so, the marking of the weight was of very considerable importance. It was important that the House should know by whom these marks of the year and the weight were in the first instance required to be made on the bags. Originally they were all to be made by the Excise officers, but the 39 & 40 Geo. III. provided that the owner, planter, or grower should put his name, place of abode, parish, and county upon the pocket, and a subsequent statute said that this should be done in letters of a particular size. The putting of the year and the weight was left still in the hands of the Excise officers, and this state of things continued down to 1862, when the duty was taken off hops. When the duty was taken off there remained no person upon whom the obligation was imposed to mark the year and weight; and the practice, therefore, fell into disuse, and the public were deprived of the advantage of two of the most essential marks which had existed for their protection. This was a state of things which seemed to have escaped the attention of the Legislature, and he submitted that it was desirable that it should be remedied. The principal object of this Bill was to require that owners, planters, and growers of hops should mark upon the bags the year and weight; that they should perform the duty which previous to 1862 devolved upon the Excise officers. Now, there could be no hardship in this provision, for the grower had already in his possession the means by which this could be accomplished, for by the Act 39 & 40 Geo. III. he was called

1587
upon to have weights and scales on his premises under a penalty of £50, and was, indeed, accustomed to weigh his hops to protect his own interest as against the factor. Nor did he believe there would be found any practical objection to mark the weight on the part of the honest trader. Certainly no such objection had reached his ears, though he had been for the greater part of his life connected with the counties of Worcester and Hereford, and had in connection with this Bill been in communication with many hop growers and brewers. In the county of Kent he believed that there were objections from two quarters; one of those who objected being a highly-respectable person who was interested in the question, and the other quarter from which objection came was the Farmers' Club at Maid stone where the question had been discussed. He would refer to a letter from a gentleman who had had half a century of experience in the hop trade, and he wrote to the Farmers' Club that one fraud practised by unprincipled dealers was this—that, having sold hops by a good] sample, they rammed into the pocket a large quantity of inferior hops. Now, if the planters' marks were required to be upon the hops this would tend to the detection of the fraud. He (Mr. Huddleston) believed that that was the feeling of the majority of hopgrowers upon the subject. Before he left that branch of the question he might, perhaps, be permitted to remind the House that a Committee upon the Hop Duty sat in 1857, and examined a great number of witnesses, thirteen of whom spoke in reference to the marking of hops, and all of whom agreed in this, that the marking of hops was a very great protection to the consumer, though two differed in some matters from the others—one of them thinking that the practice, if enforced, would be a little hard upon the growers of inferior hops in Sussex. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire summed up the evidence in this way:—"The whole evidence shows that the marks on hops are valuable to the consumer, and ought to be maintained. The object of those who wish to abolish the practice can only be to sell to unskilled persons hops of good colour and appearance, but of poor quality as first-rate hops, they not being readily distinguished by unskilled persons." He (Mr. Huddleston) hoped that after this it might not be thought to be out of the scope of proper legislation, even at the present
1588
day, to remedy this evil. He did not think it necessary to call the attention of the House to more than three out of the twenty-one clauses in the Bill. The first of those was Clause 5. Clause 2 of 54 Geo. III., to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, was to be found in the second page of the Bill, about the thirtieth line. That clause which had been in existence since 1814, inflicted a penalty upon any owner, planter, or grower who should knowingly put, or suffer to be put, hops of different qualities or of value into the same bag or pocket. The object of that clause was, no doubt, to prevent false packing. But, on consideration, that clause would be found to affect a number of gentlemen who had been in the habit of dealing in a manner perfectly honest and fair with the consumer. He believed that there was scarcely a grower in Kent who had not many more varieties of hops than one, and who was not liable to the accident of those varieties getting mixed up in the packing. Sometimes the proprietor of the hop garden in order to protect his hops of a superior and delicate quality from the effects of the weather, grew a coarser description of hops outside the former. Other growers, again, thought it sometimes necessary to use the long poles, which were applied to the better class of hops. Those poles becoming rotten at the bottom in the course of time, they cut the rotten parts off, and used the rest of the poles for the inferior hopes. It had then become the practice, without any intention to commit a fraud, to mix up in the bag or pocket the inferior with the superior hops; and when they were sold they were sold by sample which accurately described the bulk. In such cases it was ridiculous to say that any fraud had been intended or was committed by the owner. Nevertheless, this old section to which he referred would render a person liable to a penalty who had thus mixed hops of one quality with those of another. Now, he did not think it was ever intended that such persons should be held to be liable to a penalty for the commission of a fraud. He was bound to say that the 5th clause as drawn certainly did not afford that remedy which he thought so essential, and at the same time did not exempt from liability the honest dealer who had no intention whatever to commit a fraud in the packing of his hops, which of necessity was of a mixed quality. Having con-

1589
sulted with gentlemen of practical experience in the matter he was prepared to offer a suggestion in the framing of the clause which, if the House thought fit, might be carried out when the Bill was in Committee. There seemed to be a strange anomaly in the present law whereby the owner, planter, or grower was subject to the penalty for the offence of mixing hops, whilst there was nothing of the kind attaching to any other person who might be guilty of it. It appeared that very few frauds of this kind were committed by the planter or grower. They were chiefly committed by persons into whose hands the hops came after they had left the custody of the owner, planter, or grower, and yet the penalty under the old law would not reach them. It was suggested, in order to meet this difficulty, that the section should run thus—
"That any person who shall fraudulently pack, or suffer to be packed, hops of different qualities or value in the same bag or pocket shall be liable to a penalty."
For such a provision as that would have the effect of exempting the honest trader, whilst it would reach the fraudulent one. In reference to the other clauses of this Bill, it appeared to him strange that whilst penalties were inflicted upon the forgers of marks, or upon those who omitted marks, there was no penalty whatever enacted against the aider or abettor who should assist a party in the perpetration of a fraud. It was therefore proposed to inflict a penalty upon any person who should knowingly sell hops that had not been properly marked or marked at all. Clause 9 required the vendor of hops improperly marked, upon demand being-made on him, to give up the name of the party from whom he had obtained them, with the view that the fraud might be traced to its source. There was one great difficulty in the detection of fraud—namely, the utter inefficiency of the machinery of the law to enable the authorities to enter the dwelling-houses of fraudulent persons, and thus to afford the opportunity to the police of capturing them in flagrante delicto. He had heard of cases in which, through the disaffection of servants, an entrance had been thus effected, and the very implements of fraud had been captured and produced subsequently in the Courts of Law. But as the law stood the only legal means of obtaining an entrance into the house of a man supposed to be
1590
guilty of fraud of this kind was by a bill of discovery obtained upon application to the Court of Chancery; such application, however, might be defeated even then, if the party accused were to deny upon oath the truth of the allegations made against him. It was therefore proposed by the present Bill, by an express provision, to enable a Justice of the Peace, on information being laid before him that there was good reason to believe there were on the premises of a certain party bags or pockets of hops improperly marked, to issue his warrant to enable the constabulary to enter the premises of the accused to search them, and if such bags or pockets were found therein, to take them in charge and detain them, with a view to instituting a prosecution against the guilty party. That was not a new suggestion. A similar provision was to be found in the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 82, relating to marks on gold and silver ware, and also in the Salmon Fishery Act in reference to the use of nets of an improper size. This was a question which did not particularly affect the grower, brewer, or consumer, but the public generally; consequently, petitions from all parties interested in the question had been presented to that House praying the enactment of the Bill of which he had then the honour to move the second reading.
SIR BROOK BRIDGESseconded the Motion, and thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for the able and lucid manner in which he had introduced the question to the House. All who had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion would no doubt join with him (Sir Brook Bridges) in expressing a desire that he would turn his attention to other subjects as well as that which he had handled in so able a manner that day. Living in a district where the best hops were produced, he (Sir Brook Bridges) felt himself fully justified in placing his name on the back of that Bill. He believed that all persons would be anxious to prevent such frauds, and the question was, were they such as to justify exceptional legislation. He was aware that there were those who would say, leave it to the buyers, and the expression caveat emptor was often used in reference to matters of this kind; but there were several occasions on which the House had thought fit to pass express laws to protect the public from fraud, and he thought that such a case had been made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman

1591
who preceded him as would justify that course with reference to hops. He would only add that all parties came forward with a desire that legislation should pass the House on this subject. Both the growers and the brewers had sent petitions to the House; and if they combined in asking for legislation, surely the public must be interested also who drank the beer in which the hops were used. For his own part, he might say (and he thought he might say on the part of the other hon. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the Bill), if there was anything in the details of the measure that was considered objectionable, there would be the fullest desire to consider it carefully in Committee. Former experience had proved that the growers could do without inconvenience all that the Bill called on them to do, and as it would lead to the prevention of fraud he hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Huddleston.)
MR. BERESEORD HOPEsaid, he must join the hon. Member for East Kent in the commendation he had passed on the very able argument which the hon. and learned Member for Canterbury had used in support of this Bill. The only objection he could make to that argument was that it was one that might carry the House away with it, when the entire case had not been put before it. The case that had been brought forward was that certain frauds existed in the hop trade—frauds in quality, frauds in weight, and frauds of a grosser description—which the buyer, the brewer, and the drinker had a right to arm themselves against. That was, no doubt, true, but while it was very desirable to suppress fraud wherever it existed, it was at the same time necessary to be careful not to inflict or to perpetuate an injury upon any class. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to restore an antiquated penal enactment, while professing to deal with principles borrowed from the commercial legislation of late years. Did he lay down a new system—did he propose a new code of hop commerce suitable to the principles of modern commerce and free trade, which happily now prevailed in hops as in other articles? In this Bill were recited certain antiquated Acts of Parliament which were passed at a period when it
1592
was thought proper to place any restriction on commerce for the benefit of the Excise. The high duties on hops, after a long and arduous fight to get rid of them, were abolished; and the opposition to their abolition came almost entirely from the growers in East Kent, where the high-priced hops were grown, they desiring to keep their hops up at an artificial price in the market. One of the restrictions that had existed before the abolition of the duty was that the hops should be marked with the county and parish from which they came, so that the samples from the counties where the high-priced hops were grown obtained an artificial money value, whilst those from other counties went into the market with a prejudice against them. Was that meant for the protection of the consumer? On the contrary, it was really meant to maintain the reputation of East and of Mid-Kent, by the fictitious value which the brand might give. The present Bill did not try to remedy, it tried to continue that state of things, as by Clause 2 it was enacted that the pockets should have marked upon them the weight—which was very proper—and also the name of the parish and county in which the hops were grown. He said it was quite clear that there were two intentions in that clause—the ostensibly one to avoid fraud, and the other—the covert design—which he hoped the House would not endorse, to keep up a forced protection for certain growers to run their hops up to an artificial price. They were all anxious to avoid fraud in the hop or any other trade, and if the present laws were insufficient for that purpose, by all means let the House pass others; hut in doing so they should not ask the House to do something else that was sedulously kept out of its sight. Suppose a man had a hop garden one-half in West Kent and the other half in Sussex, under this Bill he would be compelled to mark one-half his hops as coming from Kent, and the other from Sussex. Well, that was just what he did not want, and it was a significant fact that the three hon. Gentlemen whose names appeared on the back of the Bill were East Kent representatives; there was not a single one of them from Worcester, West Kent, or Sussex. If the hon. Gentlemen promoting the Bill would consent to strike out the clause rendering it necessary that the place where the

1593
hops were grown should be placed on the pocket, so that the hops of certain places might not go to market with a prejudice stamped upon them, he would support the Bill; if not, he should be compelled to oppose it, and he would put the Mover and Seconder in order that they might state their intentions on this point, by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the provision to which he referred, he, on his part, would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Beresford Rope.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LOCKEsaid, that he represented an interest different from that represented by the Mover and Seconder of the second reading of the Bill. He stood there as the representative of hop merchants and brewers in the Borough, from whom he had presented a petition strongly in favour of the Bill. Hops did not come within the category of other articles of trade, and the principle of caveat emptor did not apply to them. He had been assured by some of his constituents that not even a person in the habit of buying hops could discover their quality until they were actually put into the copper, and it was only then that he could discover whether he had not bought a wrong article, and on that ground legislation not necessary in other cases was required in the matter of hops in order to prevent fraud. The numerous Acts which had been referred to on this subject had not been passed exclusively for Excise purposes, but for the very object contemplated by this Bill. The title of 54 Geo. III. c. 23, was—
"An Act to amend Acts 39th and 40th of the reign of His Majesty to prevent Fraud and Abuses in the Trade of Hops."
Originally, the marks of the weight and year of growth on the pocket were Excise marks merely, but it was afterwards found that they were beneficial to the hop trade. It enabled dealers to tell what description of hops were offered for sale at a subsequent period by the change that had taken place in the weight. He believed his hon. Friend opposite did not object to these two branches of the weight and year of growth. The objection he raised was the old one made in 1857 to the provision, that the
1594
grower should not be entitled to sell bad hops as good hops. That really was the whole struggle in the Committee which inquired into the subject. The hon. Member opposite was quiet then, but he supposed the Weald of Kent had stirred him up. He was not aware that the evidence taken went to show that these marks were not beneficial. The witnesses stated as a reason why the duty should not be taken off that it would remove the supervision of the Excise, and that the trade would therefore be left open to every kind of fraud. They were in favour of retaining the duty, thinking that if they did not do that the marking would be got rid of. The Excise man was, under the circumstances, their great protector. The hon. Member opposite did not go the length of saying that no man should mark his hops, but he wished to do away with the marks as to the locality of their growth. Now, all that was asked for by the Bill was that, the old system should be continued, and that there should be no false marks. His hon. Friend's proposal was that he should have the power, supposing he had two fields, one in Sussex and one in Kent, of putting en the pockets marks denoting that both were grown in Kent. What was to be done with the unfortunate Sussex pocket? If it were to be sent to market with no mark upon it at all no doubt it might have some value; but the fame of East Kent and some other places where a better kind of hop was grown was so great, that the growers in other districts could not restrain themselves from placing the marks of East Kent and the other favoured districts on their pockets. This was to be prevented by preserving the old system, which was found to answer, of providing that all hops should be marked. The Exciseman at the time formerly superintended that, and there was no necessity then for a Bill of this kind, because the man who did not mark his hops properly was liable to an information, and to punishment by the Inland Revenue. But what had happened since the duty on hops had been taken off? Frauds innumerable had been committed, and they had not been detected. His hon. Friend had inserted clauses in the Bill providing that every person who had hops improperly marked in his possession, and could not give a satisfactory account of them, should be punished. Formerly, all that was necessary could be done through the Exciseman, who knew that he had the inte-

1595
rests of Government and of the revenue of the country to protect, and he protected the public as the buyers of hops at the same time that he protected the Excise. What objection could the Weald of Kent have to put on an honest mark? for that was the real question involved. Was it because his hon. Friend happened to live in a district that was not to be called upon to "brand" itself that he was to act as a person who had been already branded, not for the virtue of the place which he represented, but for its vices? The Bill really appeared to him (Mr. Locke) to be a simple continuation Bill. There was scarcely anything new in it, with the exception that two marks of the weight and the year, which were formerly put on by the Exciseman, should in future be put on by the grower, in addition to the other marks which he was required to stamp upon the pocket. At present, they could not compel the owner or the grower to put on marks without a roundabout and expensive action for penalties. That course was to be discontinued, and instead of actions for penalties, which were very har-rassing frequently to extremely hone3t persons, an information before a magistrate was to be introduced. If a fraudulent mark were put on, or if a person did not mark his hops at all, he might be brought before a magistrate and fined. That was undoubtedly new; but, at the same time, it was strictly in accordance with all recent legislation, which had got rid of the cumbrous, frequently unjust, and very dangerous system of leaving the matter in the hands of common informers. The Committee which sat upon the subject were unanimously of opinion that the marking of hops was absolutely necessary, and he could not therefore see what objection there could be to this measure, which merely continued that system in an efficient instead of an inefficient manner. In the Weald of Kent and in Sussex they might grow similar hops so far as name was concerned, but the produce would not be the same in reality. They might grow golding hops in Sussex, but they were not the same things as the goldings grown in East Kent. Was it fair, then, that the man who grew the inferior hops should compete on the same terms, and perhaps fraudulently, with the man who grew the superior quality? [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: I should make that penal.] His object was to prevent them from getting into these scrapes. They should all start by marking
1596
honestly, and by declining to be led into temptation; for in opposing the clauses of this Bill they would only create temptation for others. If these clauses were not passed he ventured to say that there would be a temptation held out to all the "branded districts," as his hon. Friend called them, which he was satisfied none of them would ever be able to resist.
MR. GREENEfelt that there was not much sympathy for the brewers in that House, but he thought they had a strong claim on the consideration of the House, inasmuch as they were the payers of the hop duty, which had been transferred by the legislation of the House from the hop-growers to the brewers. A man who understood hops might be able to tell one kind of hop from another; but, at the same time, it was impossible for him to tell on what soil those hops were grown, and that formed the whole gist of the question. Golding hops, for instance, which were grown in Sussex, would not, from the nature of the soil, impart those peculiar qualities either of flavour or of keeping which were essential to the ale for which they were used. None but those engaged in the business knew the disappointment and the loss, both in a pecuniary sense and in credit, which was sustained when brewers sent out a large quantity of beer for summer use, and were deceived in the hops they had used. It was also, in his opinion, due to the grower of the hops, as well as to the buyer and consumer, that they should be marked, for it was not right that a man paying a high rent in East Kent should be liable to competition with the growers of Sussex or the Weald of Kent, who would palm their hops off upon the public in unfair competition with his. The goldings and finer sorts of hops were more delicate and difficult to grow than the coarser qualities, and the grower was more liable to blight and short crops, and that also was a matter which should be taken into consideration. A good deal had been said about another Bill now in the course of discussion being an honest Bill. It might be so, or it might not; but he thought this Bill was essential to make men honest. He had no doubt that in the hop trade there were men engaged who were as honourable as any others in the world, but there were also a vast number who lived by trickery and fraud. The protection of this Bill was needed especially for the small brewers, on whom inferior hops were palmed off,

1597
greatly to the injury of their trade. With these views he certainly hoped the Bill would pass.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwas sorry at any time to differ from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark, but he should like to know why hops should not stand on their own merits just like any other article of merchandise. Suppose he went into Mincing Lane to buy tea, did he find that article branded by the Government? No; he was left to judge for himself. And why should there be special legislation in a case of this sort? Why ask the Government to brand hops in any particular way? Why not leave the trade to stand on its own merits? and, if a buyer had not sufficient capacity to understand the trade, let him give place to some one else who had. This was a kind of retrograde legislation, which he could not approve. What was wanted was a good supply of hops. Let a fair chance be given to every county. Let them produce a good article. Let that article stand on its own merits in the market, and there would be no occasion for any brand.
MR. KNIGHTsaid, that hops were unlike any other article in this respect, that their comparative value depended on a certain aroma which they derived from the particular place in which they were grown, but which could only be discovered by the taste when they were manufactured into beer. The Sussex growers wished to force their hops upon the market as the best hops, but the growers in all the other districts in England wore opposed to that pretention, and that was the origin of all the contention that had arisen upon the subject.
Mr. PIMsaid, it appeared to him that a clear case had been made out for the passing of some such Bill as that under the consideration of the House. He considered the case of hops very similar to the case of the trade-marks which a manufacturer had a right to place on his goods. It was manifestly desirable to know the soil in which the hops were grown, for their quality varied very much in certain districts. The quality could not be known till the article was used. At present great facility was given to fraud, and there was a corresponding necessity for guarding against it. All the security required would be given by the provisions of this Bill.
MR. CUBITTmust express the cordial approval of his constituents with
1598
respect to this measure. He must, however, disclaim the plea of protection which his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had brought forward with regard to this Bill. All that was asked was that the necessary securities should be given which would prevent the frauds which were now so frequently practiced. By losing the Excise mark one of the great securities which the trade possessed had been removed. The legislation had been most successful; but there was a residuum of grievance which this Bill would remedy.
MR. MILNER GIBSONwas not competent to enter into the controversy between the hopgrowers of Kent and Sussex, but would consider this solely as a question of general policy. For his own part, he must say there was considerable force in the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), in regard to the compulsory branding or marking of any description of produce or manufacture. Certainly recent legislation had gone in the opposite direction. They had now before them a very able Report from the Fishery Commissioners, recommending the abolition of the branding of herrings. But then his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) said the hop trade was an exceptional one, there was something about hops so peculiar, and the buyer was in such difficulties as to the equality of the article he wished to purchase, that it was necessary for his protection to enact some compulsory system of marking. If that were so, it was a very peculiar case, and he should be the last not to defer to the unanimous opinion of a Committee which was no doubt competent to form a judgment on the question. The Bill contained the provision, that persons should be required to put on marks indicating the place where the hops had been grown, and that if these marks were false there should be a summary mode of enforcing the penalties against persons so deceiving the public. There was no doubt that if the marks were to be compulsory there must be some provisions of that kind to prevent purchasers being misled, and growers being deprived of advantages to which they were entitled. It might be said that the Merchandise Marks Bill already afforded a sufficient remedy, but he found that was not so; and in respect to the necessity of preventing fraud by spurious marks, further legislation would appear in the case of hops to

1599
be requisite. As lie understood, the place where the hops were grown was a very important indication of their quality, but the indications required by the Merchandise Marks Bill were limited to number, quality, measure, or weight, and there was nothing in it to restrain the false indication of place. He repeated, his own views and inclinations were against a system of compulsory marking of any merchandise; but as the buyers and growers of hops and others interested seemed, as it were, united in favour of compulsory marking, he did not want to set up his principle against their general wish. He would not, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill, thinking that they might fairly discuss in Committee the Amendments which had been suggested. Undoubtedly, the proposal was not new; the Bill was but an amendment of existing laws: but he had heard it whispered that it was rather an oversight, when the Excise duty on hops was abolished, that the laws which imposed the compulsory marking of the bags were allowed to remain upon the statute-books. Those laws were, however, upon the statute-book; and if there was a general desire that they should remain, there could be no doubt that they should be made effectual.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. O'Beirne.)

[BILL 29.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, observed, that although it was not a large and comprehensive measure it was one which to some extent affected the prosperity of the country. The banking interest in Ireland was subject to very improper and unfair restrictions, and this fact supplied one mode of explaining why the resources of Ireland had not been properly developed. It was calculated that in England, with a population of about 20,000,000, the issue of bank notes was about £26,000,000, and in addition there was a large circulation of gold, amounting to at least one sovereign for every head in the kingdom. In Scot-
1600
land, with a population of 3,000,000, the circulation of notes was about £4,000,000; while Ireland, with a population close on 6,000,000, the actual circulation of notes was only £5,500,000. The small notes in Ireland had put sovereigns altogether out of circulation, and bank notes actually represented the present circulating medium in Ireland. The object of this Bill was first to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland; and secondly, to remove some restrictions on banks of issue in that country with respect to their notes. At present there was no legal tender in Ireland except gold, while in England bank notes were a legal tender. In Ireland gold had to be given for notes, and the consequence was that in times of panic or excitement it was necessary that considerable importations of gold should take place from England into Ireland, and this involved a serious tax on the bankers of Ireland. Every £100,000 of gold cost the Irish banker 7s. per cent, or £350, for insurance and other charges. He now proposed that bank notes should be made a legal tender in Ireland, although he should prefer that Imperial notes should be made a legal tender in England, Ireland, and Scotland, That would be the proper principle—that there should be one department for the issue of Imperial notes, just as there was for the coining of gold. We might still preserve a metallic basis for notes, and banks of issue would not be prejudiced, because they might get Government notes on certain terms. It had been suggested that the notes of the Bank of Ireland might be made a legal tender, but there were several objections to that proposition. In the first place, the Bank of Ireland was a private bank, and it was not bound, as was the Bank of England, to issue notes for gold. The Bank of Ireland might decline to issue a single note, and the note of no bank should be made a legal tender which the public could not claim to get as a right in exchange for gold. Moreover, the past history of the Bank of Ireland was not such as to give them any claim for a preference for any privilege of their notes. In place of acting as a banker's bank, which ought to have been their policy, their issue had always been from a million to a million and a half under their authorized issue. On a question of this kind the interest of the public and not that of any particular bank should be regarded. It would be of the greatest advantage to make Bank of

1601
England notes a legal tender 111 Ireland, as they were now frequently at a discount of from ⅛ to ½ per cent in that country, and the Bank of Ireland had refused to take Bank of England notes, which they could not have done had such notes been made a legal tender. It had been objected against his proposition that there was ready communication between England and Ireland, but he did not see the force of that observation, as Dublin was now practically nearer London than were many parts of England in 1834, when the Bank of England notes were made a legal tender in England. The alteration he proposed would lead to free trade in banking in Ireland, instead of banks not of issue in Ireland being completely at the mercy of the Bank of Ireland. They were told that the Bank of England did not ask for the concession made in 1834, and that the two directors of the Bank who then enjoyed seats in Parliament said it would be of no advantage to them. But as the Bank of England possessed great rights, it had also great duties. The Bank was bound to issue notes for every bit of gold brought into it, and it obtained a profit of 1½d an ounce upon the transaction. At one time the Bank of England note was a legal tender in Ireland, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown which was taken upon the question. He would conclude his observations on this part of the Bill by remarking that the proposed change had been approved by the Royal Bank and the Belfast Banking Company, and a petition in favour of this Bill had been presented from the last-named bank, which had more branches in Ulster than any other bank. The second object of the Bill was of a less extensive character. Under the Act passed in 1828 banks of issue in Ireland were obliged to make their notes payable at the place at which they issued them, and this had led to serious inconvenience. At the time that Act was passed the Bank of Ireland enjoyed a monopoly of issue within fifty miles of Dublin, and the main object of the provision was to prevent any evasion of the rights of that bank. But in 1845 the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland within fifty miles of Dublin was done away with, and, therefore, there was now no object in requiring banks of issue in that country to make their notes payable at their branches, more particularly as such a provision acted most injuriously on the banks of issue and on the country at large. By the present
1602
system banks of issue were compelled to keep £120,000 in gold lying idle for every £100,000 of notes issued, to the great loss of the bankers. If such banks were authorized to make their notes payable at their head offices only, they would keep all their gold at that office, and they could then use it with profit by issuing notes against it. This system also prevented the opening of branch banks, because if notes were issued at a branch bank that establishment must be open every day to receive; its notes when presented, though perhaps in many small towns the ordinary business of the place would not require the bank to be open more than two or three days a week. By the proposed change, the law of Ireland in this respect would be assimilated to that of Scotland, and thus a great restriction on banking facilities would lie removed. The effect of the difference in the state of the law in Scotland and in Ireland in reference to banking was clearly shown by a Return laid before Parliament last Session, from which it appeared that while in Ireland, with a population of nearly 6,000,000, there were only 101 branch banks of issue, in Scotland, with a population scarcely more than 3,000,000, there were 594 branch banks. The Irish system did not give any increased value to notes issued there, whilst there was considerable disadvantage in times of disorder, in having depôts of gold scattered over the country. In 1837 a good deal of evidence was given before a Committee by important men, who all agreed as to the inconvenience of the present system, and he for his part could see no great reason in adhering to it. In bringing forward this measure, he felt bound to state that he did nut wish to stand or fall by any portion of the Bill; and should the Chancellor of the Exchequer not see his way to accepting the first portion of the Bill, he should be quite ready, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, to abandon either that portion in Committee, or to withdraw the present Bill and to bring in a fresh one having reference to the second portion only, which related to the restriction of the banks of issue. In case the pressure of public business had been so great as to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from considering the question, he should not object to postpone the discussion on the subject for a month or six weeks. But if there* was not time to carry the measure during the present Session, he did not see

1603
what chance there would be for it during the ensuing Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, while acknowledging the courtesy of his hon. and learned Friend in offering to postpone the discussion upon the Bill for the convenience of the Government, was afraid he could not conscientiously acquiesce in his proposition to postpone this Bill to some future period of the Session, inasmuch as he could not see any prospect of the horizon of public business being any way clearer a month or six weeks hence than it was at present. He was in no degree surprised that his hon. and learned Friend should feel some impatience with reference to the present state of the law of banking in Ireland, and that he should be prepared to resist the dilatory plea that they were too busy just now to deal with the matter. He could, however, assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government, in conjunction with gentlemen who had paid great attention to this subject, had carefully considered the provisions of the Bill before the House. Had it been in their power consistently with their duty to the public to have assented to the Bill they would undoubtedly have done so, but he would proceed to state the reasons which had unfortunately led them to refuse their assent to it. His hon. and learned Friend said he was willing to enter into an engagement either to drop the first portion of the Bill in Committee or to withdraw the Bill altogether, and to introduce a fresh Bill having reference to the second portion only of the Bill. It would, however, undoubtedly be a very objectionable proceeding were the House to assent to the second reading of a Bill with the view of casting out its principal part in Committee. He would briefly state the reasons which he thought were conclusive against both portions of the Bill. In the first place, as to the proposal to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, the hon. Baronet said that in order that the Bank should have no just cause of complaint, he did not propose to oblige the Bank of England to open any branches in Ireland, and he thus deprived that Bank of any proprietary or commercial objection to the Bill by which otherwise it might have been seriously affected. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) considered that,
1604
as regarded the interests of the public generally, such an arrangement ought not to be established. Indeed, it appeared to him that the hon. Baronet had, by his own speech, cut the ground from under his feet, because he said that it frequently happened when the Irish market for stock did not afford a purchaser, and when it was the interest of the seller to send his stock to London for sale, he obtained in London Bank of England, notes in payment, and that arriving in Dublin with those notes he was obliged to submit to a discount of one-eighth per cent. That, in itself, was a sufficient answer to the first portion of the Bill. He was anxious, however, to show that the Government meant more than mere empty words when they said that the state of the banking law of Ireland required some modification. He entirely agreed that by the present system the operation of the banks in Ireland was much restricted, and that there was ample reason for approaching the question. He would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that the question was not one which could be approached with advantage at all times. Upon a recent occasion he drew a distinction between questions which ought to be treated upon local grounds, and such as ought only to be viewed upon Imperial grounds. Now the Bill before the House involved a question of a strictly Imperial character. It was quite true that there were three different systems of laws in operation in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he was far, indeed, from saying that those systems might not be reduced to one with advantage to the country. Parliament could not settle the law in any one country without considering how it would affect the state of the law in the other two, and consequently any proposal in regard to the currency in Ireland must be considered not merely in regard to its effect there, but also to its effect in Scotland and England. The last successful legislation upon the currency took place in 1844, and was one of the principal achievements of the late Sir Robert Peel, at a time when he was at the head of one of the strongest Ministries that had existed in England for many years; but even to him it was a matter which tasked his strength and the strength of his Government to the uttermost to carry through the Acts of 1844 and 1845. It was plainly impossible to deal with the question of currency at large at a period when not only was the time of the House taken up by matters of absorbing interest, but when

1605
likewise false issues would necessarily enter into and darken and disturb the calm and impartial views with which they ought to consider a question of this kind. Thus much he had said in justification of the Government for continuing to delay the attempt to settle these questions. For himself, he must say that there was no one subject which he should have been so desirous of bringing under the consideration of the House during the present Session as the state of the law with regard to banking and the currency had he not felt the claims of other and higher questions to be such as to put it quite out of the question. His hon. Friend asked him, "Will you, or will you not, assent to a proposal for releasing Irish banks from their present obligation to make their promissory notes expressly payable in gold to the bearer on demand at the place where the same were issued?" His hon. Friend proposed that these banks should be only compellable to pay their promissory notes in gold at the head offices, and he thought he had established a case for the adoption of such a proposal when he showed that gold was now required to be kept at the branch banks which would not have to be kept there if the law were relaxed. He added that a certain expense was entailed on them by the requirement, and that he had the countenance and support of most of the respectable bankers in Ireland in the proposal he now made. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not. wish to dispute any of these propositions, though he might observe that Mr. Murray, whom his hon. Friend had quoted, when examined in 1848 before the Select Committee on Commercial Distress, said that this provision was a hardship, not because it necessitated the keeping of large stocks of gold at the branch offices which for their own security they would always do, but because it necessitated the constant transmission and re-transmission of notes of different branches to the place of issue. Mr. Murray entirely disclaimed the notion that a greater quantity of gold had to be kept in the branches in consequence of this proviso. He could not admit with his hon. Friend that it was self-evident. or anything near self-evident, that some relaxation ought to be introduced in the obligation of the Irish banks to pay their notes in gold at their branch banks, for such a proposition appeared to him a very disputable one, to say the least. It was obvious that the first tendency of his hon. Friend's proposal would be to impair the
1606
convertibility of the notes. Now, let them consider what the law was. It was not excessively severe. It did not require banks which had branches, perhaps, all over Ireland to meet their notes in gold wherever they had places of business, but it bound them to meet the notes at the place where they issued them. His hon. Friend, however, complained that in Scotland there was no obligation upon the banks to convert their notes into gold at the places where those notes were issued. But his hon. Friend must recollect that whenever the Scotch system was made the subject of adverse comment the defenders of that system invariably replied, and replied, he believed, with truth, that, whatever it might be in the abstract, it had in practice peculiar defences, which were known nowhere, else, those defences consisting in the plan of periodical and constant communications and interchange among the different banks of the notes which they respectively issued. Whether that was a sufficient argument under all the circumstances to show that the Scotch system was a good one, he would offer no opinion upon, but he must say that it established a very broad distinction between Scotland and any other country where that arrangement did not exist. He now came to England, and what was the ease here? The Bank of England was compelled to pay the notes which it issued at its branches, either at those branches or in London, and with respect to the country banks he believed he was correct in saying that, though the local issues were under no legal obligation on the subject, they found it necessary for the safe conduct of their business to make the notes they issued at their branches payable either there or at the head office. The rule, therefore, which his hon. Friend sought to remove in Ireland existed in practice in England likewise. He might, indeed, be told "Put us under no obligation, as you have none m England;" but he must not be expected to admit that whatever existed in England or Scotland was to be cited as a pattern for legislation in Ireland. The legislation of Sir Robert Peel did not proceed upon that principle; he did not attempt to make the entire details of the currency system conform to abstract principles. All he aimed at, even with the great effort he made under such favourable circumstances, was to secure as most vital and most essential the convertibility of the Bank of England note and security against excessive issues, with the good regulation of foreign ex-

1607
changes. The system which he found existing in the private banks he was compelled to compound with upon the best terms he could make; and therefore the Government must not be expected to admit that because one country happened to have an exemption which the others did not enjoy, therefore the exemption ought to be extended to all. His hon. Friend had put forward an argument which rather rested upon an oblivion of what was the main governing circumstances in all these questions relating to private issue. If there was private issue with an open system, if there prevailed what some people called, though he did not, "free banking"—every man being allowed to issue as many notes as he pleased, and to get all the people he could to accept them—then the supporters of this Bill would be able to say that the issue of notes was thrown open to general competition, and the trade being so thrown open ought to have every facility Parliament could give it. But this was not the case. That general competition had been entirely put an end to by Sir Robert Peel, and at present a monopoly existed. Monopoly was an odious word, but it was the only expression which would indicate the fact. An exclusive privilege existed in the hands of certain parties, and those parties were not in a position to come forward and say, "These provisions pinch us a little here and a little there; take them away; it will do no harm, and the public will get the benefit." If there was an open trade, his hon. Friend might be justified in saying, "Relieve these branches from the expense of transmission and of keeping so much gold, and the public will reap the benefit;" but, it being strictly of the nature of a monopoly, the primâ facie ground for asking Parliament to enter upon a partial examination of the law entirely disappeared. His hon. Friend did not attempt to meet the whole of the case. He argued that private banks ought to be allowed to come to London and pay their notes and transact their business here without the intervention of agents, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) quite agreed with him. That, in his opinion, was a much clearer proposition than that propounded by this Bill. Whether any relaxation could be introduced into the law on this subject he was not now prepared to say, but it was most important that a man who had received a note should be able to exchange
1608
it for gold at the same place. Any change in the law, however, which would enable every bank to do business wherever it pleased, and would enable country banks to transact business in the one grand centre of monetary business for every dealer in money throughout the three kingdoms, was the most important subject to which the attention of Parliament could be drawn. He hoped he had said enough to show his hon. Friend that the Government were not unreasonable in stating that this was a question to which they must apply the same principle that they applied in analogous, if not strictly corresponding, cases. They could not undertake to deal with any portion of the law bearing upon the position of bankers until they were able to review the position as a whole. He need not go into the details of the scheme, but he was perfectly certain that the Bill would immediately raise questions from Scotland, and probably from England also. They would be dragged on to legislate from point to point without reference to any general principle. The result would be that, instead of making their currency system more consistent and harmonious, more conformable to sound principles, and at the same time better adapted to promote the free banking, which he agreed they ought to promote as far as possible, they would lose much of the ground that they had already gained, and would be plunged into a sea of perplexities. He could assure his hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government were as anxious as he was for the time to come when they would be able to legislate for the subject as a whole, but they were unable to agree to the second reading of this Bill, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to press it to a division.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that if any objection had been raised by the Bank of England with regard to this subject it would have taken the form of an official communication from the Governor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but no such communication had been made. Begging the House to understand that he was only expressing his individual opinion, and without reference to his connection with the Bank of England, he wished to make a few remarks upon some observations offered by the Mover of the Bill. He appeared to have an idea that the Bank of England were rather anxious to evade the kind of responsibility devolving upon them in consequence of the privileges they en-

1609
joyed of supplying notes for the whole kingdom. Now, the Bank of England were undoubtedly bound to supply any quantity of notes that were required in exchange for gold, and they did not at all shrink from that obligation. His hon. Friend, however, seemed to think it would be an advantage to the Bank to have their notes made a legal tender in Ireland, as it would necessarily lead to the establishment of a branch or branches in Ireland where those notes should be exchanged. He believed, however, that the Bank of England, while much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, were quite willing to confine their operations to England, and had not the least wish to incur the serious expense of an establishment in Ireland. Their interest in their circulation was limited to fourteen or fifteen millions, and every shilling of their circulation beyond that was an expense, though it might not be a heavy one, for they were obliged to keep gold under their charge, and to have a constant system of coinage. He should like his hon. Friend to look over their bills, and sec whether such an establishment could be carried on at a less expense than nearer £300,000: than £200,000 a year. To introduce a large number of their notes into Ireland would involve additional expense, though, if they were bound to do so by their charter, they would not flinch from it. The hon. Gentleman appeared to have a notion that the more bank notes he could get into Ireland the richer Ireland would become, but the idea of the hon. Gentleman was altogether chimerical, Bankers did not create capital, and if the capital of Ireland increased, an increase of circulative capital in the shape of notes or gold was sure to follow. The banking interests of Ireland were sufficient to afford facilities for carrying on the trade that at present existed, and if more English capital was introduced into Ireland it would be easily made available. The first part of this Bill proposed to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, and the second part proposed to make notes issued in one place payable at another. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so fully stated his objections to the Bill, that it was not necessary for him to say more.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that after the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should not proceed further with the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

PROSECUTION EXPENSES BILL.
(Mr. Goldney, Mr. Goddard.)

[BILL 28] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. H. A. BRUCEstated that it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to going into Committee on this measure, for there was a great deal in the Bill which might be considered and adopted. At present in all cases of summary conviction the expenses could be certified by the magistrate, and in cases of felony or misdemeanor, triable at assizes or quarter sessions, the expenses were certified by the committing magistrate and forwarded to the Crown Office, and then, if found reasonable, they were allowed. Where, however, a charge was not sufficiently proved to justify a committal, the expenses of witnesses could not, under the present regulations, be allowed Those witnesses might have been brought up from a distance, at great cost, and the case might have been a most proper one for investigation, but the absence of some link in the chain of evidence might cause a dismissal, and it was only just that provision should be made for the payment of expenses in such cases. Then came the question whether the charge should be imposed on the Treasury, The Treasury, in the case of committals, had a security for the case being thoroughly inquired into by the second and final tribunal, and the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions, if satisfied that the expenses had been properly incurred, made an order, and the sum was immediately paid by the Treasury. Where there was no committal the inquiry was far less complete, and there was not the same security for the prosecution having been rightly instituted. The Government, therefore, in assenting to the Bill, did so, on the clear understanding that the charge it involved should not be borne by the Treasury,
Motion agreed to: Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Powers of examining Magistrate to grant Certificate of Expenses to Prosecutor and Witnesses extended, and Petty Session Clerks to be entitled to Fees on Depositions).
MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved the omission of the words "prosecutor and," with the view of limiting the payment of witnesses to those not personally concerned in the case.
MR. GOODSONassented to the Amendment, which was agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Declaration by Magistrate to be annexed to Certificate, and laid before Chairman of Quarter Sessions, who may allow Amount wholly or partially, and make Orders for Payment).
MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved ah Amendment fixing on the Court of Quarter Sessions, instead of simply on the Chairman, the responsibility of allowing the expenses. He also suggested that the operation of the Bill should be limited to three years, at the end of which time, if it had worked satisfactorily, there would be a good ground for transferring the charge from the various counties to the Treasury.
Amendment agreed to: Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

THAMES NAVIGATION BILL— [BILL 59.]
(Mr. Miner Gibson, Mr. Monsell.)

SECOND RADING.
Order for Second Beading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was much of the measure of which he could not approve. It appeared to him that it afforded no sufficient guarantee for the protection of the rights of the inhabitants of the towns and of the private residences situated along the river. The state of things in the upper part of the river was such that he believed that if something were not done soon the whole thing would revert to a state of nature. A Commission had been inquiring into the state of the river, and they had lately presented a Report, but had not favoured the public with the evidence on which it was founded. The inquiry carried on by the Commission was carried on principally in relation to what was called the pollution of the river, which was a matter not connected with navigation, except so far that they both concerned the river. The Report of the
1612
Commission recommended that every town should be compelled to buy so many acres of land over which the sewage should run; and they said that when the sewage had run over the land it became innocuous. But they subsequently said it did not follow because only a certain proportion of organic matter could be detected in the water of the Thames at Teddington that the sewage should be innocuous. Surely, the same observations applied to the sewage water which had run over land, and in which only a small proportion of organic matter could be discovered. He thought the Commissioners should have made some inquiry as to whether sewage running into a river six or seven miles above a certain point did not become innocuous by the time it had flowed down to that point. There was at present a Conservancy Board of eighteen gentlemen, some of whom represented the corporation of London and others the Admiralty, the Trinity House, and other great public bodies; and those gentlemen were naturally little prepared to attend to details affecting the interest of comparatively obscure individuals. It was proposed by the present measure that three new conservators should be created; but those gentlemen would, he feared, be wholly powerless among the eighteen colleagues with whom they were to be associated. He doubted whether, considering that we had spent £3,000,000 in getting rid of a nuisance in London, this body was an impartial tribunal to determine questions affecting the river above London. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he thought that points connected with it still required the attention of the Government. He doubted whether the body to whom it was intended to delegate these various powers were equal to their discharge.
MR. NEATEsaid, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, although his own judgment told him that this new body would not be found able to discharge the trust it was proposed to impose on them. He objected to the scope of the Bill, which ought to have included not only the navigation but also the management of the Thames. This matter was looked at differently now from what it was sixty or seventy years ago; then the important point was the navigation of the river, and the sewage question had not arisen. Now the important point was the sewage. The upper part of the Thames was not useful at all for the purposes of

1613
navigation; but it was very useful for the purposes of land drainage and irrigation, and he did not think the conservators knew much about the latter objects. Irrigation was a new thing, and was attracting great attention. It was possible the conservators might have to resort to a rate to carry out the object in view. When the Commissioners went to Oxford he (Mr. Neate) gave them a scheme for regulating the government of that part of the river, but it had led to no result. He knew a gentleman who used a weir, in order to enable him to throw back the water which had come by rainfall over his land, and this Bill would take away his weir among others, without giving him any compensation.
MR. DENMANsaid, that if this Bill should become law it might be found desirable to place fresh power in the hands of the conservators of the river for regulating the traffic on days like that of the University boat race. If this were not done probably some terrible accident would occur, and many lives might be sacrificed, and then perhaps Parliament would be called on to interfere. He found there was no body which had a right to make rules respecting the manner in which steam-boats should proceed along the stream on occasions of great aquatic festivals; for the Thames Conservancy Board had only a right to determine how vessels should be placed at their moorings, and to make minor regulations as to the navigation, The Commissioners had not a right to stop the progress of steamers even for a quarter of an hour. If fresh powers were; to be granted to the Commissioners, he thought it would be well to invest them with authority that might be exercised usefully on an occasion like that he had referred to, and on similar occasions. He thought such a body ought to be competent to deal with a matter of that sort. If a Select Committee were called upon to deal with the question he hoped there would be an instruction to them to frame proper regulations to insure the public safety and convenience.
MR. AYRTONthought that the subject referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman was purely a question of police, and had better be committed to such a body as that proposed for regulating the traffic of the metropolis. The Bill proposing to grant fresh powers to the police to regulate the metropilitan traffic would soon come under consideration, and as there were police on the river, they would be the persons best
1614
fitted to determine what measure of inter-ferenee was necessary when there was a large collection of steamers and boats on the stream. He thought that it was a matter of serious question whether the same body should control the port of London and also the Upper Thames; and whether there should not be a line of division drawn between the Upper and Lower Thames in reference to jurisdiction. No doubt the matter was very much one of detail, which could be best discussed before the Select Committee; but he was quite convinced that if there was not an unequivocal distinction made between the finances of the two parts of the river, the commerce of London would ultimately be saddled with a number of expenses which belonged entirely to the upper waters and the districts through which they ran.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYobserved, that it should not be forgotten what was the real state of things they had to provide for. He explained that the Commission found the Thames Commissioners, from no fault of their own, to be an entirely bankrupt body, quite incapable of keeping up the locks and other works on the Upper Thames. Unless the water were kept up by locks the river would revert to its original state—at times, it would be so dry as to enable people to walk over, at others so flooded that a great deal of injury might be sustained by millowners and others, and therefore it was necessary to devise some scheme to do this work. The Commission were asked to find some means of revising this state of things, and their attention was naturally attracted to the Thames Conservancy, who had funds which might be applied to that purpose. The Conservancy Board were themselves very unwilling to take this extra duty upon themselves, and only agreed to do so in the event of their being asked. Under these circumstances, he thought the best plan was to place the control of the upper waters in the hands of a well-known body, who had well and economically managed the river as far as Staines.
SIR WENTWORTH DILKEhad reason to believe that those who were especially interested in the subject were perfectly satisfied with the Bill, with the exception of one point, and that was relating to the number of Commissioners, which they did not consider to be sufficient.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he also did not feel inclined to join in the

1615
chorus of objection to the Bill, no complaints having been forwarded from Reading, the town he represented, which was a place of some importance on the river. He must say, however, that the landholders appeared to have been dealt with in a somewhat summary manner.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he, for one, had never entertained an idea that he was one of 800 persons having a voice in the regulation of the river Thames. Now the question had been raised, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be very wrong to sanction the creation of a divided authority, or to give to persons in the upper districts the power of determining the amount of water supply that should be given to those at the lower extremity when the interests affected were so immeasurably greater. He was himself in favour of placing the whole government of the matter in the hands of the Thames Conservancy Board.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Eleven Members, six to be nominated by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection.
And, on May 10, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. NEATE, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Mr. YORKE, and five Members to be named by the Committee of Selection.

HELSTON ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined—
That Adolphus William Young, esquire, was not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Helston.
That the last Election for the said Borough is a void Election.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—

1. That Adolphus William Young, esquire, was, by his Agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last Election:

2. That it was proved to the Committee that William Rowe received an offer of £20 from Henry James Seccombe, the Agent of the said Adolphus William Young, in order to induce him to vote for the said Adolphus William Young:

3. That it was not proved that the said Acts of bribery and treating were committed with the knowledge and consent of the said Adolphus William Young:

4. That the Committee have no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the said Borough.

Report to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.