Commons Sitting of 14 May 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental * [106]; Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * [108]; Herring Fishery Barrels * [107]; Bar Admission Stamp * [109].
Second Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* [88]; Registration of Births and Deaths* [80]; Marriages Legalization (St. Paul's Church at Pooley Bridge)* [102].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Homicide Law Amendment * [44].
Committee—Juries [18]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Harbour of Colombo (Loan) * [66].
Select Committee—Infanticide * [25].

METROPOLIS—RAPHAEL'S CARTOONS —OPENING OF PUBLIC MUSEUMS ON SUNDAYS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If arrangement could be made to enable the public again to have the privilege of seeing Raphael's cartoons of subjects from the New Testament on Sunday afternoons, a privilege which the public had enjoyed for half a century at Hampton Court before those cartoons were transferred to the South Kensington Museum?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the subject raised by the hon. Baronet really involves the whole question of opening Museums and Picture Galleries on Sundays, respecting which, as the hon. Baronet is aware, there is a great difference of opinion. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a choice between the different subjects which should or should not be open to public inspection on Sundays. The Lord President is, therefore, not prepared to accede to the request. There will shortly be an opportunity, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), for a discussion of the whole subject, when the Government will state the views they hold respecting it. I may mention that, as the Hampton Court Gallery is closed on Fridays, and the South Kensington Museum is open for six days in the week, the public have the opportunity of seeing the cartoons for the same number of days as formerly, and that by the Museum at South Kensington being kept open till 10 o'clock on three days of the week, the working classes have special

267
opportunities for seeing these and other works of art which they had not before.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—DESTRUCTION OF INFECTED CLOTHES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been given to a paragraph in the "Times" of the 1st of May, headed "Destruction of Infected Clothes;" and, whether it is contemplated by the Government to introduce into the Diseases Prevention Act of 1855 anything like the provisional regulations of 1866 applicable to certain infectious diseases, and so making those regulations permanent in their operation?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, under the Public Health Act, Section 51, sanitary authorities may order the destruction of infected clothing, and give compensation for the same. It is proposed to extend this power to sanitary authorities within the Metropolitan area, who are exempted from the operation of the Public Health Act. It was the absence of this power which caused the difficulty at Greenwich to which the noble Lord's Question refers.

ARMY—WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR—THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.—QUESTION.
MR. BENETT-STANFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that very considerable discontent has been created by a recent War Office Circular in reference to the Reserve Forces, dated April 1st, 1874, Clause 40, paragraph 1, which abolishes one-third of the Officers of the Volunteer Force; and, whether he is prepared to reconsider the question of reducing the number of Officers; and that, supposing the said Clause be retained, if paragraph 2 in the said Clause could not, with great practical advantage to the Volunteer Force, be so altered that the appointment of supernumerary Subalterns should be allowed in each case when recommended through the Military Officer commanding the district to which such Volunteer corps or battalion may belong, instead of through the Lord Lieutenant of the County?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that the object of the recent War
268
Office Circular in reference to the Reserve Forces was not to abolish one-third of the number of Volunteer Officers, but to assimilate the Volunteers to the Militia, and not to require more officers for the former than the latter. But whereas in the Militia only two supernumaries per battalion were allowed, in the Volunteers one supernumerary per troop battery or company would be permitted. The recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County was taken in reference to Subaltern appointments, and that of the commanding officer in reference to promotions, and he did not propose to make any change in this respect.

METROPOLIS—PLAYGROUNDS FOR CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he would have any objection, in the Bill he has promised to introduce for giving greater facilities for the acquisition of sites for Industrial Dwellings in the Metropolis, to include provisions for enabling the municipal authorities to provide public playgrounds for children?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he would be prepared to consider the question. The hon. Member, however, must give him a little time. The question was a very large one, and he did not mean in the remarks he made the other night to say that he would give an opinion on it in the course of a month or two, or even in the present Session.

ARMY—THE ROYAL WARRANT, 1871— SUPERNUMERARY OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps, if any, have been taken to carry out those provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1st November 1871 which direct that Officers who are appointed Garrison Instructors or Assistant Adjutant Generals for Musketry may be retained on the strength of their corps as supernumerary, and their places filled up?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the matter was left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, who considered each case on its own merits.

ARMY—MARTINI-HENRY RIFLES.

  QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether 140,000 or any less number of Martini-Henry rifles have been made and placed in the Tower; whether all or the greater part of those rifles have been found defective; whether those defects are not in the mechanism of the lock as well as in the stock, and that they have all to be returned to Enfield for alterations; whether the cartridge has to be altered, both as regards quantity of powder and size and weight of bullet; and, whether he will state the estimated cost of the rifle when first approved, and the cost of each rifle, including every alteration that has been made, as well as the present alterations?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Yes, Sir, it is perfectly true, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that 140,000 Martini-Henry rifles have been manufactured, and the greater part are in the Tower. It is also true they are about to be removed from the Tower to Enfield to undergo some slight modifications; but I trust that neither my hon. and gallant Friend nor anybody else interested in the matter will run away with the idea that this slight modification implies any serious defects. A Report has been made to me on the matter, and I had best road part of it to the House. It says—
  "None of them have been found defective, except in minor details, and a few minor improvements are being made. There are no defects in the mechanism of the lock or action."
  COLONEL BARTTELOT: The length of the stock.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Well, there is a slight alteration with regard to the length of the stock. The stocks are to be made a little longer, for convenience in the handling.
  COLONEL BARTTELOT: How much?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I should think an inch or so; but I cannot say positively. This alteration, with other minor ones, will be carried out at Enfield. The Report also says—
  "No alteration has been made in the cartridge, either as to powder or bullet, or is contemplated at the present moment. The estimated cost of the rifle when first approved was £3. The cost of the alterations to the arms already made will he 2s. 11 d. in those arms which require the stock to be lengthened; and in the remainder 1s. 7½d., including the cost of
  270
  carriage to and from the Tower; but, on the other hand, the introduction of the alterations will reduce the cost of each rifle in future manufacture by 1s. 3d."
  I may add, Sir, that the present Committee see no reason to alter the good opinion of the Martini-Henry rifle which was formed by their predecessors, who strongly recommended it as the best weapon to be adopted in the Army.

IRELAND—COSTS AND DAMAGES AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, &C.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. BUTTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the rule stated by him to be observed as to the payment of the costs and damages recovered against Government officials was acted on in reference to an action tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Michaelmas term 1870, brought by James O'Donnell, esquire, of the county Mayo, against William Morony, esquire, a stipendiary magistrate, and John Crampton, esquire, a magistrate of that county; and, if so, whether the damages recovered in that case were paid out of funds provided by the Government?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the statement alluded to by the hon. Member had reference only to the practice which would be pursued by Government at the present time, and he was not in a position to give any information about a case which happened three years ago. A Question as to that case had better be addressed to his noble Predecessor.
  MR. BUTT: Will the record show whether the money came out of public funds?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have no knowledge of the matter, which happened long before I came into office.

NAVY—ALTERATION OF IRON-CLADS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will inform the House how much money has been expended in altering (from first construction) the "Devastation," the "Invincible" and her sister ships, the "Inconstant" and her sister ships, and the "Sultan" and her sister ships; and, what was the general object of the alterations, and what responsible officer

  271
  or officers advised that the alterations should be made?
  MR. HUNT: I am unable, Sir, to state to the House the amount of expenditure as asked for by the hon. Gentleman. It would take much clerical labour and a very considerable time to make out such an account. An explanation of the object of the more important alterations will be found in the Report of the evidence given before the Committee on Designs of Ships appointed in 1871, to which I would beg to refer the hon. Gentleman. The alterations were ordered to be made on the advice of the Controller and the officers of the Constructor's Department.

WAYS AND MEANS—COUNTY POLICE.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government (in the offer made by him in his Budget statement to bear half instead of one-fourth of the expense of the police force in counties) to pay really one-half of the total cost of that force; or do they still intend to deduct the items by which the professed allowance of one-fourth of the cost of the police heretofore, has been practically reduced to one-fifth or even less?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would cause a Report to be prepared, with a view to its being laid upon the Table of the House, on the pay, cost, grades, and numbers of the Police scattered over the United Kingdom, showing the changes under these heads in the Police Force of the various localities, and in the total Force, since 1856; also the charges borne by the various Departments of the Government, Civil, Naval, and Military, for Police during that period, with the numbers and grades, if practicable, of the Police supplied; also the Contributions paid out of the Consolidated Fund in aid of the expense of the Police in the different localities, and the estimated money liability which will now devolve on the Consolidated Fund for the various Police Bodies throughout the United Kingdom, consequent on the promised increase of the money aids?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to my hon.
  272
  Friend, I have to say that the statement I made in the Budget speech indicated, upon a rough calculation, what the cost of the increased subvention would be, taken with reference to the amount now paid by the Treasury, and the general idea was that the amount now paid would be doubled. But the precise detail in which that would be done would have to be settled in conference with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with certain questions affecting the police. My right hon. Friend's time has been so much occupied lately that he has not yet been able to settle the details of the Bill; but I am in hopes he will shortly be able to do so. With reference to the other Question, the most convenient course would be to move an Address in a tabulated form, asking the particulars desired.

WAYS AND MEANS—PAUPER LUNATICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the contribution of four shillings per head towards the maintenance of pauper lunatics is intended to extend to the pauper inmates of that class in the different union workhouses in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, it will not be given to the pauper lunatics in the workhouse.

THE GOLD COAST—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury), Whether he is in a position to name the day on which the Government will lay before the House of Commons the new policy which they propose to adopt with reference to the Gold Coast?
MR. LOWTHER: Sir, my hon. Friend is undoubtedly constitutionally accurate in ignoring in this House anything that occurs elsewhere; but I think I may assume that the hon. Baronet has had his attention called, through the ordinary channels of information, to the fact that a very full statement was made the other night by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies regarding the

273
future policy of the Government as regards the Gold Coast. Any statement of what the hon. Baronet calls "the new policy which the Government propose to adopt with reference to the Gold Coast" must, of necessity, I think he will see, partake of the nature of a repetition of what my noble Friend has already stated. I think, therefore, he will hardly expect that any statement of the kind indicated by the hon. Baronet should be made at present in this House. If, however, any details were omitted by my noble Friend, no time will be lost in placing them before this House.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the reason why he had asked the Question was that the prime Minister had, in his place, promised that the statement should be made in both Houses of Parliament.

POST OFFICE—THE UNITED STATES— POSTAL CARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. SEELYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, on the 2nd July 1873, a Telegram was received from the Postmaster General of the United States proposing that Post Cards should be permitted to be sent from one country to the other for a total postage of 1 d. or 2 cents each; that is, that a postage label of ½d. or I cent should be affixed to each card in addition to the impressed stamp of ½d. or 1 cent; if he can inform the House whether Post Cards are transmitted between Germany and the United States at a postage of 2 cents or 1 groschen each; and, whether a new Convention between Switzerland and the United States has been concluded for a like purpose?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I find, Sir, that a telegram was received on the 2nd of July last to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. With respect to the second part of this Question, I believe post cards are transmitted between Germany and the United States at a postage of 2 cents or one groschen each. As to the third part of the Question, I am not in a position to give any answer.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL—PUBLIC-HOUSE HOUES ON SUNDAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether
  274
  the effect of passing the Intoxicating Liquors Bill will be, that the hours for all public-houses opening on Sunday evening, excepting in the Metropolitan district will be to open at 6 P.M. and not close until 10 P.M.?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON(for the Home Secretary) replied that the hours in the new Bill in all districts except the Metropolis wore from 6 to 10 on Sunday evenings, or the same as the hours laid down in the Act of 1872.

PERU—THE GUANO DEPOSITS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any report or written information in reference to an alleged recent discovery of large guano deposits in Peru, either from the Commander of the Petrel or from any other source?
  MR. BOURKE: The Reports which have been received upon this subject will be laid upon the Table this evening. There are certain maps alluded to in these Reports which are not yet ready; but, as there is a great desire to see these Reports, Her Majesty's Government has thought it better to lay them on the Table without waiting for the completion of the maps.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.— [BILL 80.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Read, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.— [BILL 80.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he wished to explain the position in which the question now stood. The registration of births and deaths rested on a statute of some antiquity which had been passed in 1836, and had not been amended as regarded England in any important respect from that time down to the present day. Measures had been introduced respecting Ireland and Scotland which differed materially from the law of England on the subject, registration being made compulsory in both these countries by the measures of 1854 and 1863 for Scotland and Ireland

  275
  respectively. In England registration I was not compulsory; but advantage was taken in the preparation of the present measure to introduce provisions from those Acts to make it so. The necessity of an amendment of the law had been brought under the notice of the Government by the Report of the Sanitary Commission, and Committees of this House had on two occasions urged upon the attention of the House and the country the necessity of providing for a compulsory system of registration of births and deaths. The Committee on Vaccination in 1871 and the Committee on the Protection of Infant Life both recommended the alteration of the law in this direction in the strongest possible language. In accordance with the recommendation of the last Committee, his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) in 1871, introduced a Bill for the compulsory registration of births. This was considered to be an insufficient measure of reform by the then Government, who undertook to legislate on the subject, and in the last two Sessions a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords very similar in its provisions to that which he now brought under the notice of the House. He need not enlarge upon the necessity of accurate statistics on a measure of such vital importance; but he might be allowed to express his surprise that so many years had elapsed without those compulsory powers of registration which it was the object of this Bill to provide. No doubt the present system of registration was complete as regarded marriage, and a registration of deaths was provided in an indirect method by making it obligatory upon the clergy and others to notify the failure to produce a certificate of death on the occasion of funerals. There was, however, a want of greater accuracy in regard to the registration of the causes of death. The registration of births under the present Act was not intended to be compulsory, and it was estimated that from 20,000 to 30,000 births escaped registration every year. Not only did births escape registration, but there was reason to believe that many burials took place of children born alive who were represented as still-born, and that was a defect which would be remedied by the present Bill. He was not aware that any objections were taken in the House of Lords to the compulsory clauses
  276
  of the Bill, and it had been his anxious endeavour, in recasting the measure of last year, to show as much indulgence as possible to the persons concerned. Instead of the parents alone being legally qualified to give information concerning the birth of a child, the number of persons who could give information to the Registrars, as deputies of the parents, was increased. The next clause provided an extension of time during which a birth might be registered—namely, from six weeks to three months. Another important indulgence would enable persons having a birth or death to register to give notice to the Registrar, who might be required, on payment of a fee of 1s., to attend at the house of the parties. It happened, in many cases, that poor persons lived at a considerable distance from the Registrar, so that they lost half a day's work by going to his house. The Registrar could now be required to go to their houses on payment of this moderate sum. The Bill also provided an extension of the time during which births might be registered before the Superintendent Registrar. The process of registering the birth by the Superintendent Registrar was necessarily more elaborate, expensive, and onerous that before the District Registrar, and the time was extended in this case from six to 12 months. The fee to the Superintendent Registrar was also reduced from 7s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. The Act also gave power to parents and others to register a birth in another sub-district from that in which a child might be born. The Bill also gave increased facilities for registering the baptismal or other name which might be given to the child after the original registration of birth. These alterations would, he trusted, give satisfaction to a large number of persons. Another change proposed was that on the occurrence of a death it would not be necessary to make a complete registration of all the details before the funeral. The person whose duty it was to give information might send notice of the death to the Registrar, who might then give his certificate for the funeral, further time being allowed for the complete registration of the facts required to be given. Securities were taken that infants born alive should not be buried as still-born, and although the Bill might not be thought to go far enough in that direction, it would effect a con-

  277
  siderable improvement in the present system. It was important to obtain more accurate information as to the cause of death, and the Bill provided that when a medical practitioner attended the deceased he should be obliged to give a certificate stating the cause of death. This, to the credit of the profession, was now done voluntarily. It was necessary in the administration of the sanitary laws that the Registrar General and the sanitary authorities should know as speedily as possible what were the prevailing diseases in any locality, in order that they might direct their efforts for the amelioration of the health of that district. The Bill also made provision for erecting sub-districts where the present districts were too large. There was now no power to alter a district, and in many cases, where a district extended over an area of 10 or 20 miles, great inconvenience was felt by poor persons when it was necessary to attend before the Registrar. The Bill also provided that the Registrar should issue a cheap certificate of birth in cases where it was necessary, under the Education Act, to prove the age of a child. A long clause of a somewhat technical character had been framed, under the advice of the Board of Trade, providing a more complete registration of births and deaths at sea. As additional duties were thrown upon the Registrars, and as in certain cases their fees were reduced, it was necessary to give them additional remuneration. The Registrars would be expected to register births gratuitously for three months after the birth instead of three weeks, and they would be expected to remain at homo at fixed hours and issue notices as to the hours at which they might be found at their offices. There were many other provisions in the Bill of which the Registrars would have reason to complain if no compensating provision were inserted; but by one of the clauses they would receive additional remuneration, which would amount to about £4 10 s. yearly for each Registrar. An additional charge of £2,000 a-year would also have to be defrayed for the cost of printing forms and expenses connected with the Superintendent Registrars. To the Bill itself there might be several classes of objections. The first would arise from the objections which some people entertained to any system of registration; but in that House he
  278
  believed that class of objection would find no representative. Then objections might be urged in the interests of the clergy; but the powers which that body now possessed would not be taken away by this Bill. Again, it might be said that the compulsory powers in the Bill were not sufficiently stringent. His opinion, however, was that there was no necessity for multiplying penalties, and that such a course, as was the case in relation to the Vaccination Acts, might be attended by considerable mischief. The indiscreet action of local officers in enforcing cumulative penalties against people who could only be regarded as monomaniacs, and not as persons desirous of breaking the law, had brought upon those Acts an obloquy which they did not deserve, and he was therefore anxious to dispense with engines of annoyance which might be made extremely harsh and oppressive. Another objection made to the Bill was that it would cause an additional burden to the rates; but it was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose next year—and the Bill would not come into operation before—a Vote which would be sufficient to meet this additional expenditure. He trusted that after these explanations his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) would not, by dividing against the Bill, place any additional hindrance in the way of Parliament passing an efficient measure upon this subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I am glad to say that after the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, it will not be necessary for me to move the rejection of this Bill. I gave Notice to do so because I could not discover in the Bill any efficient compulsion for the registration of births and deaths; nor after attentively listening to his speech am I yet able to do so. But, as my right hon. Friend is prepared to admit the necessity for compulsion, there is no difference of principle between us, and our modes of securing the object may be discussed in Committee. My right hon. Friend believes that he has provided compulsory registration, but admits that if he has not, it should be secured. The whole

  279
  question is simple, and may be shortly explained. In 1836 an Act was passed for a system of civil registration in England and Wales. It was a tentative plan, and had to be introduced with care. Under the system of voluntary registration, which was administered with much ability by Major Graham, the Registrar General, the value of registration of births and deaths both to individuals and to the State became so manifest that Parliament, when it extended the system to Scotland in 1854, and to Ireland in 1863, rendered it a compulsory duty of citizens to register births and deaths. One Royal Commission and two Select Committees have within the last few years recommended that the registration in England should be made compulsory, as it is in the other parts of the Kingdom. The Sanitary Commission, presided over by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley), reported—
  "In our opinion the registration of births should he compulsory, as in the case of Ireland and Scotland."
  Again, the Vaccination Committee of 1871 said—
  "A compulsory registration of births, such as exists in Scotland and Ireland, is needed, as the non-registered children are those most likely to escape the notice of the vaccinator."
  Lastly, the Infant Life Protection Committee report in the following strong terms—
  "There is one point in which all agree, and it lies at the root of the whole matter—that is to say, that there should be in England a compulsory registration of all births and deaths."
  I believe that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) is prepared to accept their recommendations as authoritative, and to have his Bill tested upon them. He does not deny the necessity for compulsion. In fact, the Bill admits it by its first clause, which renders registration a duty; and speaking generally, although no penalty may be specifically attached to the default of a duty enjoined by statute, yet by common law neglect of duty may be enforced by indictment. But my right hon. Friend would not consider this cumbrous and expensive plan as in reality giving to us any real compulsion. He argues that the second clause of the Bill enforces compulsion. That clause enacts that any person who is applied to by the Registrar
  280
  for information in regard to a birth, must give it under a penalty of 40 s. I do not deny that both these clauses are improvements on the English Act of 1836, but they are far below the efficiency of the Scotch and Irish Acts. In Scotland it is the duty of the public to inform the Registrar of all births and deaths, and to go to his office to complete the registration. In Ireland it is the duty of the public to send a notice of the birth or death to the Registrar, who is then left to complete the registration by going to the house where it has occurred. But by this Bill no notice need be sent to the Registrar, who is assumed to be omniscient and to divine that births or deaths have occurred, to search them out, and register them as he best can. This is very different from the recommendations of the Commission and of the Select Committees, and also from the Bills sent down to us by the House of Lords in 1872–73. In these Bills registration was also stated to be a duty, but a penalty was attached for the default of that duty. The 38th clause of this Bill enacts penalties for false information, but it omits the penalty for not giving information. The words which provided for this in the Lords' Bill have been struck out. This, in my eyes, renders the Bill of no value. If registration be a duty, as the first clause declares it to be, if is surely right that a summary penalty should be attached to its nonperformance. That duty is not laid by the first clause upon the Registrars, but upon the parents; and it is they who ought to be called upon to tell the Registrar that his functions are required. I do not ask, as the Select Committees have done, that you should legislate as heroically for England as you have done for Scotland, because it is well known to all practical legislators that the Scotch accept logical consequences of a legislative principle much more readily than the English. But it is, surely, not a heavy burden to put upon English parents that they should aid registration to the extent of sending a notice to the Registrar that his services are required. Without the co-operation of the public, I think that little would be gained by the present Bill. Conceive how hopeless it would be for a Registrar of a large district to find out in all cases the occurrence of births and of deaths, and the true causes of the latter when there is a

  281
  negligent or a fraudulent concealment. But if a few examples are made of those who decline to fulfil the duty, enforced by a penalty, notices of births and deaths will become a rule, and the labours of Registrars to discover cases of concealment will be brought within manageable compass. This has been the result in Scotland, where the manner of registration is much more rigid than is proposed in this Bill. In one or two sentences I think that I can draw attention to the importance of efficient compulsion. There is an active League, called the Anti-Vaccination League, which does not hesitate to induce parents to conceal births in order to prevent vaccination. This League will, unquestionably, be glad that this Bill contains no penalty for not giving information of births. Compare the infantile mortality among children in Scotland, where registration is compulsory, with that in England, where it is voluntary, and you will be convinced how much efficient registration has to do with repression of that loathsome disease small-pox. In the epidemic of 1871, 23 per cent of deaths from small-pox in the large towns of Scotland consisted of children under 5 years of age, while in England they were 33 per cent. The country of compulsory registration stood therefore 10 per cent better in regard to the infantile mortality from small-pox. I need not remind the House what startling revelations were made to it by the Committee on the Protection of Infant Life. The mortality among illegitimate children was proved to be frightful. Few mothers of this class of children voluntarily register their own shame, and, as the evidence proves, many of them are criminally negligent of the life of their offspring. As the Select Committee have told us, if we desire to protect infant life, compulsory registration "lies at the root of the whole matter," for it fixes knowledge and responsibility upon the parents. It is probable that there are from 40,000 to 50,000 illegitimate children annually born in England, and for each of these there is a motive to escape registration. To throw this duty upon the Registrar, and not upon the parent, as this Bill does, is a palpable weakening of administrative machinery. I have hitherto chiefly spoken of births; but the Bill is equally lax in regard to the registration of deaths. According to it, any person
  282
  may bury a dead body without a certificate, and then may, if he please, but only if he please, go to the Registrar a month afterwards and register the death. It is true that the minister or sexton must intimate within seven days to the Registrar the fact of the burial, and if he be an active man he may ferret out the causes of death before the month is out. But here, again, the public is relieved of a duty which is cast upon the Registrar. There are 8,000 or 9,000 deaths annually in England uncertified by any medical man or by inquest. The Bills sent down to us by the House of Lords contained a very proper provision that these uncertified deaths should be inquired into by a competent person, such as the Poor Law medical officer would be. But this Bill again strikes out this provision, and leaves the duty to the Registrar, who generally is as incompetent for such an inquiry as a man can be. I need not urge how infinitely valuable to public health and to the protection of life an accurate registration of births and of the causes of death would prove. Negligence in keeping such registers even now introduces serious errors in sanitary statistics; but wide-open loopholes for escape such as I have described will enable the criminal to increase his facilities for crime, and put in his way temptations which are even now too great. Had time permitted I might have referred you to the Registrar General's Reports, pointing out how such cases as the series of 20 murders in Norfolk, described by Sir James Graham in this House in 1846, and a similar series in 10 villages in Essex, in 1849, could not have occurred had the system of registration been effectual. I might, on the other hand, have pointed out how registration, imperfect as it is, has led to the detection of Palmer, Pritchard, and other criminals. But I prefer to base my arguments on the deliberate judgment of the Sanitary Commission and two Select Committees who have recommended to our attention compulsory registration, not as it is in this Bill, but as it is in Ireland and Scotland. In the earliest dawn of the English nation protection of life was held sacred, and the old Coroner's inquest indicates the desire to ascertain the discoverable causes of death. We shall only follow out the old traditions of England if we adapt sanitary laws to modern wants

  283
  and when we find by a long experience in one part of the Kingdom that compulsory registration has been attended with the most happy results, it is surely not unreasonable to wish to see that extended to England and Wales in a manner nearly, if not equally, efficient. My right hon. Friend desires this as much as I do, and when we come to Committee I am sure that he will give fair consideration to our arguments for improving the Bill which he now asks us to read a second time.
  MR. PELLobjected to the mode in which Registration Officers were paid. The Registrar General was appointed by the Government, and his salary and expenses were all paid out of the Imperial Exchequer. The Superintendent Registrar and the Ordinary Registrar were nominated by the guardians, but must be approved by the Registrar General, and held their offices during his pleasure. They were paid partly by fees and partly out of the local rates, but except their nomination by the guardians, the local authorities had no authority over them; and he hold that they should be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, instead of taking £80,000 a-year out of the local taxation. Then the clause of the Bill which related to the combination of parishes introduced a new principle, because it proposed that the ratepayer should pay, not with regard to the value of his hereditament, but in reference to the amount of the population amidst which he lived. He admitted that some measure was necessary; but had the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) gone to a division he should have voted with him, as he considered the Bill highly objectionable in several points.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he resided in a district in which some of the villages were six miles from the Registrar's office, and the provision in this Bill which allowed notice to be sent by post remedied a great grievance. He suggested that if it was made the Registrar's duty to go once in a month or six weeks to each parish on a given day, it would also be a great boon to the labouring population. He ridiculed the clause which provided that "the requisite information may be required of any relative," the word "relative" being defined as including relatives by marriage. It was rather a strong measure to compel
  284
  a sixth or seventh cousin by marriage to go five or six miles to give information in a matter in which he might be wholly unconcerned. He trusted his right hon. Friend would give these points his consideration before the Bill went into Committee.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas satisfied that this mode of making up the salaries partly out of the rates, partly by fees, and partly out of the Treasury, was a most mischievous mode of keeping down expenditure. He thought it would be much better, and more economical, if Government would defray all the expenses connected with the Registrars.
  LORD ESLINGTONbelieved there was a strong feeling in the country that the Registrars were very much underpaid. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had suggested that the Registrars should make a sort of circuit periodically; but that would at once raise the question of further payments, because some provision must be made for their travelling expenses. At present there was often a difficulty of knowing where the Registrar lived. He begged to suggest that a list of Registrars should be kept at the police-stations. Such a list would be accessible to all, and would be a matter of great public convenience.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had very wisely determined not to take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill, as it was essentially a measure of clauses and details, which could be better dealt with in Committee. He was disposed to agree with his right hon. Friend that there was not sufficient compulsion provided for in the clauses of the Bill. He should be prepared to discuss that point in Committee, but not in any party spirit. All he desired was that compulsion should be sufficient without being unduly harassing. He also thought that no penalty ought to be enacted which was not actually necessary for the purpose for which it was proposed. It was quite an open question whether the Registrars should be paid out of the Imperial funds, or partly out of the rates; but he could not agree with the general principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pell), because

  285
  it would lead to extravagant claims being made on the Exchequer.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 4th June.

JURIES BILL.— [BILL 18.]
(Mr. Lopes, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Goldney.)
JURIES BILL.— [BILL 18.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Qualification of common jurors in counties).
  MR. LOPESmoved the insertion of these words—"In the county of Middlesex of not less than thirty pounds," in page 1, line 23, with a view to continue the present qualification of jurors in that county.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Qualification of special jurors in counties).
  MR. J. G. TALBOTmoved, in page 3, line 21, to insert "at any sessions of the peace"—his purpose being to retain the Grand Jury panel for the Assizes as at present.
  SIR HENRY JAMESobjected to the Amendment, and suggested that it would be more convenient to raise the question by way of a proviso.
  After short conversation, the clause was altered so as to omit from the clause the words affecting the summoning of grand juries.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Qualification of common jurors in the City of London) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Qualification of special jurors in the City of London).
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved, in page 3, line 34, after "man," to insert—
  "whose name shall be in the jurors' book for the City of London, who shall be an esquire or person of higher degree, or a banker, merchant, broker, corn factor, architect, surveyor, or wholesale warehouseman."
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the Amendment would make the definition of a special juror vague in the extreme, and hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALalso urged that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Exemptions).
  MR. J. G. TALBOTmoved, in page 4, line 1, after "judges," to insert "justices of the peace."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he hoped that justices of the peace would not be exempted, for there were in his county 105 justices of the peace, and they had very little to do.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that to exclude justices of the peace from juries would be to strike out the brains of the jury-box.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "and all Serjeants" to "in actual practice," inclusive in line 5, and insert "members of Her Majesty's Privy Council." The hon. Member said, that the bewigged and begowned gentlemen one saw doing nothing at Westminster should be utilized in the administration of the law in some form or other.
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that there were practical objections to including lawyers on juries, for barristers might be influenced by the circumstances that the counsel pleading before them had been their opponents in some other case, or by the fact that the attorney who had given them a fee on a previous occasion was interested in the cause which they had now to try as jurors.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, he had always understood that members of the Bar were excluded, not for their own benefit, but in the public interest. They existed for the benefit of the public, and yet, if they were placed on juries, they might get imprisoned in a Tichborne case, and be unable to attend to their clients.
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDsuggested that if lawyers were engaged on juries there would probably be fewer cases to try, and in that way the public would gain an advantage.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYremarked that it would be more correct to talk in this case of exclusion than of exemption.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL (for Mr. SALT)moved, in page 4, line 10, after "belong," add "and parish clerks." He regarded them as a class whose case deserved special consideration. They were persons who had a "freehold" employment, and who could not employ a deputy to say even the word "Amen."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not even say the word "Amen" to the hon. Member's Amendment. Parish clerks had not hitherto been exempted, and he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. LOPESsaid, that there were 15,000 parish clerks in England and Wales. If this Amendment were carried, he was not sure that every man in England would not become a parish clerk.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINmoved, in page 4, line 28, to omit the words "veterinary surgeons." There were in the county of Kent a number of veterinary surgeons who were not members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, but who had large practice, and were very useful. He had, two years since, 300 diseased animals on his farm, and had to call in a veterinary surgeon and his two sons. The case of this valuable class of men deserved consideration, and he hoped they would be exempted.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTopposed the Amendment, and hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, in line 29, to add—
  "Members of the council of the municipal corporations of any borough, and every justice of the peace commissioned to keep the peace therein, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of every such borough, so far as relates to any jury summoned to serve in the county in which such borough is situate."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. A similar proposal was made last year, and was rejected by 126 to 42.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment. Members of the town councils were the most hardly worked men of any in existence. They were exempted from time immemorial, and it should be remembered that most of them were advanced in life.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he thought it would be a serious matter if this Amendment were allowed to pass. In Wales the difficulty of getting jurors was very great, and he had never heard until now that the members of town councils were hard worked. This exemption would withdraw the very men it was most desirable to get as jurors.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he did not see any reason for exempting them from liability to serve on juries, and he did not think they would shirk their duties as common councilmen.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOPES, in reference to the section exempting officers of the Army and Navy while on actual service, said, the Amendment which he was now about to propose was a most important one—namely, in page 4, line 30, after "service," to insert—
  "All persons in and belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, and borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships in Commission, also all Marines and Marine Artillery."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member was a most serious one, and he hoped he would not press it. The hon. and learned Member might as well propose to insert all non-commissioned officers in the Army.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the Motion until the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. LOPESassented.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TORRmoved, in page 4, line 32, to insert "the members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he could not see why these gentlemen should be exempted any more than other people.
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, that the members of the Board had a larger amount of business to perform than any other Dock Board in the United Kingdom, and he urged that they were much more entitled to exemption than the members of the Trinity Board.
  MR. LOPESobserved that the hon. Member's Colleague (Mr. Rathbone) proposed the same Amendment last year, when it was negatived without a division.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLmoved, in page 5, line 2, after "revenue," to insert "persons acting as Commissioners in the execution of the Acts of Parliament relating to Income Tax." The Commissioners accepted their offices solely on account of the exemption which they had thus obtained.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, such an exemption would stultify the measure. Everyone acquainted with the administration of justice knew that one of the great causes of deterioration in juries arose from the extent of the exemptions, and from their intelligence none were better qualified to serve than the gentlemen whom the House was now asked to exempt from service. If the exemption they now had were continued the standard of jurymen would be greatly lowered.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsupported the Amendment. He thought vested interests ought to be respected.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, that to abolish the exemption would be a direct breach of justice with these gentlemen, who had accepted public duties as Commissioners of Income Tax upon the understanding that they would be exempt from serving on juries.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he thought that these gentlemen had no more claim to exemption than other Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSmoved, in page 5, line 4, to insert "Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, their clerks and ushers." The Lord Mayor was, during his office, the hardest-worked man in the City. The Aldermen were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and acted as justices of the peace at the City police courts. As regards the clerks and ushers, they were entitled to the indulgence that had been extended to the clerks and ushers at the metropolitan police courts.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had no wish to inconvenience the Lord Mayor, and he agreed that the clerks and ushers should be placed on the same footing as those employed at the Metropolitan police courts; but he would not part with the Aldermen, who were the very best men they could get to serve on juries.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not acted frankly in concealing from
  290
  the House the fact that it was the opinion of Lord Coleridge, when the Bill was before the House last Session, that the clauses exempting the Judges of the land applied to the Aldermen, who were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and as such came within the definition of Judges.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that no doubt was Lord Coleridge's opinion, but it was not his, and when Lord Coleridge gave expression to it, he (Sir Henry James) stated that he would on the Report move a Proviso to the effect that the exemption should not apply to the Aldermen of London except those sitting as members of the Central Criminal Court; and he would now do so to prevent any dispute in future upon this point.
  MR. LOPESobjected to the exemption of the Aldermen, and thought that the case of the Lord Mayor might be left to the discretion which the magistrates had the power of exercising as to his exemption under Clause 20.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsuggested that the Amendment in the first instance should be limited to the Lord Mayor—though probably that Amendment was hardly necessary.
  Amendment, so amended, agreed to.
  MR. HANKEYmoved, in page 5, after line 6, to insert "Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment would exempt the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and suggested whether such an Amendment was consistent with what had already been done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 5, line 9, to leave out "seventy," and insert "sixty," the effect of which would be that persons of sixty years of age and upwards would be exempt.
  MR. LOPESexplained that he had another Amendment, giving persons above 60 the right to claim exemption, and exempting them absolutely at 70.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Disqualification of criminals, &c.) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Men of sixty-five years of age and upwards to be exempt, if exemption is claimed in time.)
  MR. LOPESmoved, in page 5, line 26, to leave out "five." The effect would be that persons at the age of 60, instead of 65, might, if they thought fit, claim exemption. If they did not claim exemption they would go on serving till they were 70, when they would be struck off the list as a matter of course. He had received a number of representations on this point, and he was very anxious to take the opinion of the Committee upon it.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he thought that no age of itself ought to carry exemption, seeing that Lord Campbell took the Great Seal at the age of 80, and that several Members of that House and Judges of the land discharged their duties after the age of 65.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, that the exemption of some meant an increase of burden upon others. Many men were in the prime of life at 65. He should oppose the Amendment.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he had been induced to propose the change in consequence of the representations that had been made to him. He had received from 300 to 500 letters from persons of 60 and upwards in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. GRANTHAMbelieved that if the Amendment were adopted everyone would claim the exemption who possibly could. Many men at 60 and 70 years of age could go across country very well, and it would be better if the clause were retained in its present shape.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALtrusted that the Amendment would be allowed to stand. A great many gentlemen of the age in question were intellectually strong, but physically weak, and it would be very hard upon such persons to compel them to travel a long distance to assize towns to serve on juries. They should permit any person of this age who was able and willing to serve on juries to do so. He did not agree that everyone who could claim the exemption would be anxious to do so.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsupported the clause, as he believed that all the questions which came before a jury might be very well discharged by a man who was 65 years of age.
  Question put, "That the word "five" stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 97: Majority 59.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Partial exemption of justices of the peace.)
  MR. J. G. TALBOTproposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words "nor as a common juror anywhere." The hon. Gentleman explained that the object of this Amendment was to give to justices of the peace that exemption which they now practically enjoyed, and to which he considered they were entitled. He thought it was better, now that they were passing a Juries Bill, which was intended to comprise all the law upon the subject, to lay down what was to be the practice, and not to leave it to "understandings" in future. He had not pressed his former Amendment for the full exemption of justices, but on this he must take the sense of the Committee.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 113: Majority 97.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Jurors in particular places for which a separate court of quarter session is holden exempted from serving on juries at the general or quarter sessions of the county) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Exemption or want of qualification to be a ground of challenge, but not of avoiding any trial) agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 28, relating to the preparation, &c. of the jurors lists, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Making out lists in the city. Secondary to issue precepts.)
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCE (for Mr. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR), moved, in page 10, line 22, to leave out "vestry clerk "and to insert "ward clerk." The effect of the clause as it stood would be that the lists in the City would have to be made out by the vestry clerks instead of the ward clerks, which would entail considerable expense and trouble upon the parishes, of which there were 110 in the City.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the word "vestry," and insert the word "ward."—(Sir James Lawrence.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESprotested against continuing the preparation of the lists in the hands of the ward clerks, as they had frequently been found to exercise the power in the most objectionable manner. Vestry clerks would be infinitely more amenable to popular feeling. He should certainly oppose the Amendment.
  MR. LOPEShoped the Committee would retain the proposal made in the Bill.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWhoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. He was satisfied that the vestry clerks would be more liable to have a pressure brought to bear upon them in the preparation of the lists than the ward clerks, who were much fewer in number than the former.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, the more the jurisdiction was narrowed the more the persons who had to prepare the lists would come under the control of those whose interest it was to get excluded.
  Question put, "That the word 'vestry' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 60: Majority 96.
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 10, line 34, to leave out "managing director or manager," and insert "chairman, deputy chairman, or managing director."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 30 to 40, relating to the preparation, revision, &c. of the city lists, agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Extra-parochial places to be annexed to adjoining parishes) agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Overseers and vestry clerks to be paid for making out the lists.)
  MR. GREGORYsaid, this and the following clauses provided that the remuneration of these officers should be fixed by the courts of revision. He did not think the aldermen and justices should be trusted with an unchecked discretion in this matter, and moved, in line 26, at end, to add—
  "and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may approve; and all such
  294
  sums shall be paid by the said Commissioners, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for that purpose."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no disposition on the part of the Government to throw any increased burden on the rates, but by undertaking to bear expenses of this kind upon the certificate of the Aldermen or justices without any other security, the Treasury would be placed in an unsatisfactory position. The Amendment, although it was calculated to check expenses, might lead to the same sort of inconvenience as was already felt with regard to the charges for criminal prosecutions. What he should suggest was that this and the two following clauses should be negatived, and after discussing the question with his hon. and learned Friend, the Government would be prepared to state what they were prepared to do on the bringing up of the Report, and the clauses could then be altered.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as these were money clauses they could not be brought up on the Report, and the Bill must be re-committed in order to introduce them.
  MR. PELLasked what position the officers and the ratepayers would be in if the Government came to no arrangement with the promoters?
  MR. CHILDERSsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman should, before the matter again came before the House, submit an estimate of what this charge would be; because he had an impression that it would be a very much larger sum than the promoters of the Bill seemed to think.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he did not think so large a sum would be involved as appeared to be thought. The promoters of the Bill were not asking that the Government should bear the entire charge. At present the entire cost of preparing the lists was borne by the local rates; but the Bill provided that overseers should be punishable for not satisfactorily discharging their duties, and as they were to be rendered punishable, it was thought but right that they should be remunerated for the actual labour they performed.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that in Ireland the rate collectors and clerks of unions were paid out of the rates, which was considered a great hardship, and a deputation on the subject

  295
  waited on the Chief Secretary for Ireland last November, when he promised to take the subject into his consideration. He (Mr. Downing) expressed a hope that as the question of local taxation was to be brought forward this matter would be taken into consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the Committee that, as the Chairman told them, these clauses could not be passed now, and it was better, as he had already said, to discuss the whole subject, and bring up new clauses when the Bill was re-committed. As it now stood it was impossible to distinguish what was to be paid out of the rates and what by the Government. As to the question raised by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Cork (Mr. Downing), his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not as yet had an opportunity of considering it, but would do so as soon as possible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause negatived.
  Clauses 43 and 44 negatived.
  Clause 45 (Fines on clerks of the peace or secondary for default in duty).
  MR. J. G. TALBOTmoved, in line 24, to leave out after "offence," to end of clause, and insert—
  "committed without reasonable cause or excuse to be allowed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, to be subjected to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds at the discretion of the next Court of Quarter Sessions after the committing of the said offence."
  He said, that his object in this Amendment was, that the Clerks of the Peace should not be at the mercy of common informers, but to leave them to the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, who would best decide whether they had willfully offended.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Jury in criminal trials to be of twelve.)
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, they had now come to the most important clause in the Bill, and he thought the Committee would perhaps agree that they ought not to go farther with the measure that night. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the night was still early, and the attention of the Committee had been so well sustained in the consideration of the Bill that he thought it would be a pity to break off at present. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to report Progress.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the matter was one of very grave importance.
  And there being continued cries of "Withdraw!" "Withdraw! "—
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that as it appeared to be the wish of the Committee, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved the omission of the clause, with a view to raise the question whether in civil cases the number of the jury should be reduced from 12 to seven. It was proposed by the Bill that in criminal cases the number of the jury should invariably be 12, and in cases before the county courts five; but that in all other trials whatsoever there should be a jury of seven, unless one of the parties gave 12 days' notice to the other party to the action of his intention to have the cause tried by 12 jurors. He thought this was objectionable, because the present system had been in existence for centuries, and had worked well. Experience had shown that a jury of 12 men, taken indiscriminately from all classes, was a fair representation of the common sense and general opinions of the community, brought to bear upon the facts of any particular case. The object of having 12 was to secure a variety of minds and a variety of experience, and thereby guard against the possibility of a prejudiced person unduly influencing the other jurors. It was said to be an advantage to have an odd number like seven, and no doubt it would be so if a bare majority decided the case; but if such a majority did not decide it he saw no advantage in that number. No case had been made out for the change, and the burden of proof was upon those who advocated an alteration in the present law. If a jury of seven was considered sufficient he did not see why a jury of five, or of three, or even of one, might not be sufficient; but what they wanted to secure was a variety of mind in the con-

  297
  sideration of the question, and a jury of 12 afforded more scope for that than a jury of seven. It had been argued that the change proposed by the Bill would afford relief to persons liable to serve on juries; but such relief was more apparent than real, as the number of jurors summoned could not be reduced so long as the parties to a civil case had an option to require a jury of 12, and the right of challenging the jury in criminal cases remained as at present. If jurors must attend, they might as well sit in the jury box as remain in attendance until their services were required.
  MR. FORSYTHconsidered that if it should be desired to retain 12 jurymen in all cases, the better way would be to strike out Clauses 50, 51, and 52. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, and he himself would like to have his case tried by 12 rather than by seven. But the Bill provided that no case should be tried by seven if either party required 12, and that seemed a reasonable proposal for the Committee to accept.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he had considerable difficulty in knowing whether his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) desired that the number should be seven or 12. The question had been properly raised, and it was a difficult one to dispose of; but as he had no feeling in the matter he would acquiesce in what the accumulated opinion of the Committee expressed. All that the Bill did was, while leaving criminal cases to be tried by 12 jurors, to provide that civil cases should be tried by seven, unless either party gave notice of their intention to demand a jury of 12. The object in view was to relieve jurymen, merchants, traders, and others, from attendance in the Courts. Everyone knew how frequently a tales had to be prayed. The case had then to be tried by a mixed jury, and the result was that the jury differed, were ultimately discharged, and the case had to be tried over again. He did not believe that juries would be worse when they were seven—on the contrary, they would consider the questions more carefully, and would work them out more for themselves; therefore the efficiency of the tribunal would not be affected. Further, he was entitled to say that the smaller number had been successfully tried in the County Courts.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he hoped these clauses of the Bill would not be proceeded with. He admitted that those persons who were placed upon the jury list were entitled to consideration; but the Committee must remember that those who enjoyed the rights of citizenship must also bear its burdens, and whilst the duties cast upon jurymen had not hitherto been very excessive it would be reduced 100 per cent by this Bill. But would this alteration cause the law to be better administered? The argument of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lopes) might be applied equally to criminal cases, for if a better verdict could be got from seven men in a civil case, surely it could also be got in a criminal case. He thought 12 was a better number of jurymen than seven. If there was one strong man upon a jury he would have greater power to override the majority. Unanimity was now obtained from juries of 12, and in almost every instance of disagreement there was some want of evidence or other reason to account for it. The leaders of the Circuits were almost unanimous against the reduction of the number of jurymen below 12.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, he thought it desirable to have unanimity among jurors, and as that was more likely to be obtained in a jury of seven, he approved of that number in civil cases; but in criminal cases he preferred the number 12. The reverence which existed in the country for ancient usages should make the House slow to adopt changes which marked a great departure from them.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he had no traditional fancy in favour of 12, but he supported that number be-because he thought it most conducive to the administration of justice. Rather than see this radical and organic change he would prefer the loss of this Bill altogether. It was remarkable that most of those who were in favour of reducing the number of jurymen were in favour of doing away with trial by jury in civil cases altogether. Already it bad been observed that a jury of five would be as satisfactory as one of seven; and the next step would be to reduce the number to three, until it would be said that the Judge might be safely trusted to decide the cases upon the evidence. But he did not believe in Judges being appointed

  299
  to determine issues of fact, and he was totally opposed to reducing the number below 12.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that speaking for himself only, and not for those with whom he usually acted, he adhered to the views of those who thought that it was not desirable to make any change in the system which had hitherto prevailed. He regarded this Bill as not intended to alter the general principles upon which our system of trial by jury was founded, but to improve the modes of giving effect to that system. The Bill appeared to him to have three main objects in view—first, to declare the qualifications of jurymen; secondly, to regulate the proceedings for making up the jury-books; and thirdly, to improve the manner of summoning the jurymen for the discharge of their duties. There were certain other minor objects which were ancillary to these, but he could not consider the subject of the number of the jury a fit one to be dealt with by this Bill, unless the advantages of a change in the number were very clearly demonstrated or there was something like a general concurrence of opinion in its favour—as neither of those conditions existed at present, he could not recommend it for adoption.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONurged that the opinion of the country was decidedly unfavourable to the alteration of the number of the jury, and that was a circumstance of which the Legislature was bound to take notice. In deference to public feeling on the subject, he must oppose any alteration in the number of the jury.
  MR. SANDFORDexpressed his surprise at the conclusion to which his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) had arrived. ["Divide!"] As hon. Members were so impatient, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sandford.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the discussion had nearly reached its termination, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to proceed to a division on the question before the House. He agreed with the Attorney General that a case
  300
  had not been made out for changing the number of the jury.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSthought that Progress ought to be reported. This was a most important point, and ought to be fully discussed.
  MR. LOPEStrusted that as this was no new question, and as it was difficult for a private Member to obtain a night for his Bill, the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn until the present question was settled.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 234: Majority 207.
  MR. PEASEhoped the hon. Member would persist in his Motion. The discussion had been entirely restricted to gentlemen of the long robe, and no Member had spoken in commercial or general interests upon the question.
  MR. DODDSmoved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, after the overwhelming expression of opinion which the last division manifested. There was still ample time for hon. Gentlemen to state their views on the clause.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he thought that if hon. Members would confine themselves to the point, they might easily come to a decision that night.
  Motion negatived.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause 51 (Juries in county courts) struck out.
  Clause 52 (Juries in all civil cases) struck out.
  Clause 53 (Verdicts to be unanimous)
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, this clause opened up a new question, and he thought the discussion ought to be postponed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, he thought that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of retaining the number of 12. There was no magic in that number, but ever since the commencement of the British Constitution it had been adopted, and the proposal to reduce it would be a change which might lead to dangerous innovations. The two previous clauses having been

  301
  negatived, he did not see why this clause should be retained.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed with his right hon. and learned Friend, and he would suggest that the Chairman should report Progress, and when they discussed the Bill again to begin with Clause 53.
  MR. LOPESintimated that, in deference to the opinion of the Committee, although he thought much might be said in favour of seven, he was quite ready to abandon the proposal to reduce the number below 12.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HARBOUR OF COLOMBO (LOAN) BILL— [BILL 66.]
(Mr. Raikes, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
HARBOUR OF COLOMBO (LOAN) BILL— [BILL 66.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Interest on advance, and time of repayment).
  Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the words "three and a half," and insert the word "four"—(Mr. Whitwell)—instead thereof.
  MR. WHITWELLcalled attention to the fact that a large sum of money was advanced to build a harbour in Colombo at a very low rate of interest, and he wished to know if any alteration had been made in it?
  MR. LOWTHERsaid, no alteration was contemplated. The hon. Gentleman was under the impression that this harbour was a colonial work, but he was mistaken; it was by no means a colonial work. The loan was guaranteed at 3½ per cent. and he thought the Committee would agree with him that it would be hardly dignified in the Government to withdraw now from that guarantee.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the Vote ought not to be pressed.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, this Bill came before the House somewhat with suspicion. What was proposed to be done on the present occasion was entirely without precedent, and they were now asked to consent to a Vote for a totally different purpose, which was also without precedent. It appeared that the late Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson,
  302
  came home, and had doubtless confidential communications with the Government, and tried to induce them to obtain the advance of money for carrying on works which were entirely for the benefit of the colony. It was certainly a colonial and not an Imperial question. The colonists came this country and asked for a loan of £500,000 at a very low rate of interest. The facility with which loans of public money had been granted for some time past was most objectionable, and a stop ought to be put to it. For his part, he was most decidedly opposed to such a course of proceeding in dealing with the public money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Executive Government felt themselves bound to ask the House of Commons to fulfil the engagement into which the late Government entered with the Government of Ceylon, and which they saw no reason to dispute. But it rested entirely with the House of Commons, who were totally unpledged in the matter, to say whether or not they would confirm the engagement; and he would suggest that they should pass the Bill through Committee, and that, before the Report was taken, the Correspondence on the subject should be laid on the Table, so that the House might be in a position to say whether or not they would confirm the decision of the Committee.
  MR. MONKthought the offer of the Government a reasonable one, but still hoped the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) would persevere with his Amendment.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEexplained how it was that the harbour at Galle had been abandoned. The Government of Ceylon was quite willing to pay the cost of constructing the harbour at Colombo, so far as the requirements of the colony were concerned; but inasmuch as the extension of the breakwater would render the harbour available for Imperial purposes, it was but fair the House should grant a loan for that purpose.
  MR. D. MACGREGORcalled the attention of the Committee to the fact that all the way round from Calcutta to Bombay there was no safe harbour. This was a serious matter for all interested in shipping, and he sincerely hoped the Committee, by passing this Bill, would make provision for at least one

  303
  safe harbour. He trusted that the change of Government would not lead to what was tantamount to a breach of faith with the people of Colombo.
  Question put, "That the words 'three and a half' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 15: Majority 73.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, 4th June.

CONVEYANCING AND LAND TRANSFER (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 60.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Cameron.)
CONVEYANCING AND LAND TRANSFER (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 60.]

  COMMITTEE.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be committed pro formâ, said: I propose that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, merely in order to admit of Amendments being made, as the result of suggestions of the different legal bodies. There is one objection which has been very much pressed upon me by many of the superiors—namely, that after the Bill passes, superiors will find it very difficult after a transfer to know who are their vassals, and to whom, therefore, they are to look for payment of their feu-duties. At present a vassal remains liable for his feu-duties, &c, to his superior until a new vassal takes out a charter. After the Bill passes, however, no charter is necessary, the infeftment of a proprietor being made equivalent to a charter. It was suggested to me, on behalf of the superiors, that their object might be effected by suspending the effect of the charter, which under the Act is implied from infeftment being taken by the new proprietor, till the new proprietor should intimate his acquisition of the property. My objection to this was that it suspended indefinitely the effect of the statute as regarded entry with the superior, and made that entry depend on something without the statute—namely, on a notice being given of the purchase. I feel, however, that there was some force in the objection by the superiors in this matter, and I have in the meantime endeavoured, in one of the Amendments to be added to the Bill, to apply a remedy, which, while securing that the superiors shall receive a notice of every
  304
  change of ownership, will not be open to the objection of suspending the effect of the Act as regards the implied entry with the superior. The remedy I have proposed is that the last entered vassal and his representatives shall remain—as they do at present, until an entry is taken out by the new proprietor—liable personally for payment of the feu-duties, &c., affecting the feu, until notice is given by the seller of the change of ownership. I think, looking to the benefits conferred by the statute on vassals, this is not an unreasonable requisition upon them, and I also think that it will secure all that the superior is legitimately entitled to expect in the way of notice, and of the effects which should result from neglect to give it. While I have made this proposal as the best which occurred to me, I need hardly say I shall be prepared to receive and consider any suggestions which the legal bodies or others interested may offer on this special point.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 105]; re-committed for Thursday, 4th June.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—BOROUGH OF PEMBROKE.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Bramwell, one of the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, a Report for the Borough of Pembroke. And the same was read, as followeth:—
  "A Petition against the Return of Edward James Read, esq., for the Borough of Pembroke at the last general Election was duly presented. Application to withdraw the same was duly made to, and leave for that purpose given by, me.
  "I now report to you that, in my opinion, the withdrawal of such Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement nor in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition."

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders relating to Duntocher and Dalmuir, made under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

  CHURCHES AND CHAPELS EXEMPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to provide for the exemption of Churches and

  305
  Chapels in Scotland from Local Rates and Assessment, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]

  HERRING FISHERY BARRELS BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to remove the restrictions contained in the British White Herring Fishery Acts in regard to the use of Fir-wood for Herring Barrels, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.]

  BAR ADMISSION STAMP BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Stamp Act, 1870," in regard to the Stamp Duty payable by Advocates in Scotland on admission as Barristers in England or Ireland, and by Barristers in England or Ireland on admission as Advocates in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.