Lords Sitting of 29 July 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Poor Relief; Cruelty to Animals (Scotland); Charitable Trusts; Fisheries; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Small Tenements Rating; General Board of Health (No. 2).
2a Bills of Exchange.
Reported.—Highway Rates; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Canterbury Settlement Lands; Borough Courts of Record.
Royal Assent.—Court of Session (Scotland); Larceny Summary Jurisdiction; Upton cum Chalvey Marriages Validity; Naval Prize Balance; Convict Prisons; Population (Ireland); Linen, &c., Manufactures (Ireland); Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 2); Loan Societies; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Militia Ballots Suspension; Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster); Manchester Rectory Division; Court of Exchequer (Ireland); Militia Pay; Stock in Trade.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
LORD EDDISBURY LORD EDDISBURY moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought it ought to be a permanent and not a temporary measure.
LORD BROUGHAMwas of the same opinion.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwould have preferred a permanent measure, which would give facilities to the landed proprietors for raising money on their estates more easily and more cheaply; but as this

393
Bill had come up from the Commons, he did not wish to interfere with it.
Bill read 2a.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEread a Message from Her Majesty, That Her Majesty being desirous that the house called Marlborough House should be secured to His Royal Highness Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, after he shall have attained the age of eighteen years, during the joint lives of Her Majesty and His said Royal Highness, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to grant and settle the same in such manner, and with such provisions, as will most effectually accomplish the said purpose.
Ordered to be considered To-morrow.

LOSS OF THE SHIP "HEMISPHERE."
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLwished to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, respecting an unfortunate occurrence which had happened, at the beginning of last month, to a passenger-vessel called the Hemisphere, with 400 or 500 passengers on board. The vessel had commenced her voyage to New York, when a sudden lurch took place in a gale of wind, the masts went overboard, and several sailors were thereby washed overboard and drowned, while others were severely injured and killed. She was fortunately met by a steamer, which towed her into the port of Liverpool. A sailor, whose arm was entangled in the rigging, and was broken, was said to have had that limb cut off by a surgeon on board, with a common carving-knife, just as a butcher would cut off a leg of mutton. The arm afterwards mortified, and the man died. A coroner's inquest was subsequently held on his body, and a verdict of "Accidental death" was returned. Now, the Passenger Act provided that there should be a competent surgeon on board of all vessels carrying a certain number of passengers. He thought it likely that the noble Earl would say, in reply to him, that this vessel was an American vessel, and that therefore the master was exonerated from carrying a surgeon, as he would have been compelled to do, had it been an English vessel. What he wanted to know was, whether the noble Earl had received any information as to this very serious occurrence, or whether he would have any objection to his moving that the evidence
394
taken at the inquest held on the body of the sailor should be laid on their Lordships' table?
EARL GREYsaid, he had received the report of the Commissioners of Emigration with reference to the case alluded to by the noble Earl. The fact was, that until lately it was not required that passenger ships should carry a surgeon; but in the Passenger Act it was provided, that in cases where the passengers exceeded a certain number, and where, consequently, the risk of sickness would be greater, a surgeon should go out with the vessel. There was, however, a clause in the Bill which enacted, that wherever the space allotted to each passenger should exceed fourteen superficial feet, the presence of n medical officer might be dispensed with. Now, every emigrant ship entering New York was bound by the laws of that State to have that space for each passenger, and consequently with ships bound thither the statute was a dead letter. The case alluded to by the noble Earl was that of the ship Hemisphere, a remarkably fine vessel. She was not bound by law to have a surgeon, nor had she one on board as such. In consequence of the inclemency of the weather, one sailor met with a dreadful accident, his arm being broken in such a manner as, perhaps, to render its restoration impossible. A gentleman happened to be on board who had a diploma, but no instruments, and the arm being held by only a small piece of flesh, he severed it from the seaman's body, in the hopes of affording him some temporary relief from pain. He (Earl Grey) believed that the operation did afford the poor man some temporary relief, although he ultimately sank under the accident and died. Such being the state of the facts, and the ship not being compelled by law to carry a surgeon, he did not think it a case for Government interference.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLread an extract from a Liverpool paper, the purport of which was, that the gentleman alluded to had been shipped by the owners of the vessel as a surgeon, and that it was understood he was to give his professional assistance when necessary.
EARL GREYsaid, that the owners did not conceive themselves bound to send out a surgeon with the vessel; but as this gentlemen had applied for a passage, his professional skill was taken advantage of in the case of the accident. Besides, the accident happened to a sailor, and not to a

395
passenger, and might, therefore, have occurred on board any other than an emigrant ship. If the noble Earl liked to move for an address for the Emigration Commissioners' report, he (Earl Grey) should have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLadopted the suggestion of the noble Earl, and the Motion was agreed to.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment moved on the Third Reading of the above Bill, read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the insertion of a proviso to the effect that compensation should be given to head landlords in reversion, who should convert leases in perpetuity into fee-simple, not exceeding one year and a half of the rent.
LORD REDESDALEsuggested, as an Amendment, that the difference between the value of the lease in perpetuity and of the fee-simple subject to a fee-farm rent, should be deemed the loss for which the owner of the reversion should be entitled to compensation.
The EARL of WICKLOWobjected to the maximum of compensation proposed by the Lord Chancellor as insufficient.
LORD MONTEAGLEsuggested the insertion of the words, "Leases of lives renewable for ever." He said, that the original intention of the Act had been to meet the case of such tenures, and that, strangely enough, they had been omitted altogether.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLsaid, that the Lord Chancellor's compensation proviso would operate very unequally. Its effect in Ulster, where land had but slightly depreciated in value, would he widely different from its operation in Connaught, where the value had become almost nominal.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the proper course would have been to repeal the Act of last Session, which was unjust as it now stood; but, instead of that, a declaratory Bill had been introduced for the purpose of explaining away the injustice. He opposed the proviso as unjust to the lessor, and would prefer the Act as it stood at present to any amended Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had understood the difference of opinion which had arisen among noble Lords on
396
the subject of this Bill to have reference to the amount of compensation to be given to lessors, and he had therefore had interviews with noble Lords, to see whether a compromise could not be come to. It did not appear to him that the Bill was as clearly worded as it might have been, but still it would not do to alter it more than was absolutely necessary. He had, therefore, confined his attention to one point—namely, to protect tenants from being called on to pay more for their fee-simples than they ought to pay. He had heard that demands would probably be made by landlords in proportion to their supposed powers of litigation, and had attempted to put the matter out of dispute by adopting the proviso before the House. He looked upon the object of the present Bill to be merely to amend the Act of last Session in one particular feature, and that where it did not alter, the former measure was to he the rule of proceeding. He should not follow noble Lords in reopening the general question. On the 5th clause a difference had arisen in consequence of the Bill having proposed that the value of an estate should be ascertained at the time of the last renewal of the lease. That was objected to, and he proposed, as an Amendment, that such compensation should be made and given by an increase in the amount of the fee-farm rent equivalent to the value of the amount of such leases. He also moved to insert a clause to the effect that the difference in value between the reversionary interest and the fee-farm rent might be compensated for by a proportionate increase in the fee-farm rent to be reserved.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.